Talk:South Beach Diet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

SBD criticism

I was thinking about the amount of criticism in the article, since this was brought up above by WWB Too, so I decided to do a review of sources to investigate. There aren't too many good secondary sources available, but a couple of examples are [1] and [2] (possibly [3]). My scans of the primary literature the reviews are based on also generally show critical viewpoints in terms of effectiveness and other health benefits. So on this analysis, it seems that it's even possible that the article contains less criticism than WP:WEIGHT would suggest. I also note that the Mayo Clinic article, which has been cited above, is primarily reporting what the SBD claims are, while also saying that e.g. there have been no long-term RCTs. Sunrise (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise, thanks for leaving this comment. First, I agree there is criticism not now contained in the article. In fact, when I offered a suggested rewrite of this article last year, my Reception and studies section included some criticisms not currently mentioned. That said, in my reading of these sources and others, I keep finding that positive or neutral statements have been omitted or glossed over, while critical views are described in more detail. A good example is how the Technique section devotes its second paragraph to the diet's (more controversial) first phase while the (generally praised) second and third phases are not explained in such detail.

A related issue is that the most detailed sources—such as the first and second linked above, and this Goff study currently cited in the article—predate the 2008 publication of South Beach Diet Supercharged, which corrected errors from the first book and modified some recommendations criticized in these papers. Some changes have been publicized. For example, the third source you cite notes the addition of an exercise plan in this book (FWIW, I actually thought this source was quite well-balanced). So, part of our challenge here is that the pre-2008 sources do not fully describe the diet as recommended for the past several years, although these changes haven't received a full accounting in third-party sources. What should or can we do this? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We reflect what is contained in good sources. They naturally deal with the SBD at the time it was at its most popular. It is not Wikipedia's job to deal with later less popular publications, for differently-named diets, if they haven't risen to the attention of RS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the same diet, updated; it's only the book that has a different name. For example, the Encyclopedia of Diet Fads book Sunrise cited considers them to be the same diet. Speaking to general popularity, Supercharged was also a multi-week NYT bestseller as well (see here and here). Speaking to the lack of follow-up in medical sources, most of these studies cover Atkins and Zone as well as SBD; modified-carb diets received considerable media attention the early 2000s. The diets remain popular, but are no longer as newsworthy.

Meantime, we have a situation where the Goff study in itemizes errors in the first SBD book, and most or all of these were corrected in the later edition, although Goff et al never followed this up. Must the Wikipedia article must remain outdated? It seems like this is an issue that could reasonably be addressed through careful consideration of Supercharged as a primary source. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"most or all of these were corrected" ← any source for that? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WWB_Too, I am assuming you are still acting as a paid editor. If so please suggest specific, reliably sourced content to realize your goals. If you want to change content, then just frame it as "replace X with Y". If you are no longer paid, you are of course free to directly edit. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there was quite a bit more to my point than that there is criticism not now contained in the article. I was stressing that these are high-quality sources (which is also why I mentioned the Mayo Clinic source as being mostly descriptive, as it is also fairly good). More generally, we can also see a trend that higher-quality sources tend to be less positive and/or more critical, which is a typical pattern seen in relation to fringe claims.

To rephrase Alexbrn's response to your question perhaps in a better way, if the reliable sources have not addressed the more recent books, then then we cannot do so ourselves until we have the sources. Likewise, if they have focused on the first phase of the diet (though I wasn't checking for this when I was reading the sources) then that is what we must do as well per WP:WEIGHT. This is unfortunate when the RS are out of date, as you say is the case here, but it is a necessary check on editorial judgement as I'm sure you understand. Sunrise (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn + Sunrise, I completely understand the challenges involved, though I think there might be a way to word it more accurately. If there's even possibly agreement to follow the "carefully" provision of WP:USEPRIMARY I think it could be more accurate still. I'll look that, and will offer a suggestion here soon. Jytdog, I appreciate the suggestion, however, even if I was no longer working directly with the company, I'd be inclined to avoid direct edits. In recent years, I'ver avoided editing article space from this account to avoid any possibility of confusion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change to introduction

Hi again, folks. Taking Jytdog's suggestion that I offer a "replace X with Y" construction for consideration, I'd like to propose an expanded rewrite of the introduction's second paragraph, which currently reads:

The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science.[2][4]

These citations, as I've noted previously, date to 2003 and 2006, prior to the 2008 publication of The South Beach Diet Supercharged which introduced some noteworthy revisions. (It also corrected errors from previous versions, but I don't have a WP:RS identifying changes, so I'm going to leave that alone.) Meanwhile, the vagueness of this sentence has always bothered me. I think it would be more helpful for readers if this identified what the "good" and "bad" elements include. To that end, I've reviewed current and new sources (including one identified by Sunrise) and attempted to offer a concise summary. Here is what I propose to replace it with:

The diet is considered an overall healthy approach to weight loss, although it has been criticized for potential negative side effects in its restrictive first phase, and its de-emphasis of exercise. The diet's latter phases are considered to be more balanced. In 2008 the diet was revised to recommend moderate exercise and allow for greater flexibility in its earlier phases.

As you'll see, I've identified the prevailing criticisms as being side effects from the first phase, and its conflicted message about exercise. Because the latter phases are frequently identified as being better, and the 2008 book addressed some broad concerns, I've included these points as well. To see the specific statements I relied upon from each source, and for explanation of some arguable omissions, expand this box:

Statements from sources

In the order they appear: Zelman, on the diet being overall healthy: "The South Beach Diet Supercharged is a healthy diet plan for anyone who wants to reduce risk for heart disease and diabetes, lower blood cholesterol, lose weight, and gradually incorporate exercise into their life." Blatner, on the diet being overall healthy: "Readers are likely to see success using this diet and fitness book. ... The simple 20-minute-a-day exercise program is a realistic and inexpensive approach to fitness. As to the diet's overall healthiness, similar statements can be found in overviews by the Mayo Clinic: "The South Beach Diet, while mainly directed at weight loss, may promote certain healthy changes." and (again) WebMD: "Does It Work? Yes. It's a healthy approach to eating that can help you shed pounds." Bijlefeld, on the potential for negative side effects in the first phase: "Unfortunately, along with the quick weight loss, ketosis comes with irritability, headaches, stress on the kidneys, and more serious heart palpitations." NHS, on the potential for negative side effects in the first phase: "The severe dietary restrictions of phase one may leave you feeling weak and missing out on some vitamins, minerals and fibre. You may initially experience side effects such as bad breath, a dry mouth, tiredness, dizziness, insomnia, nausea and constipation." Harvard Health Letter, on de-emphasizing exercise: "Early on, we’re told that the diet doesn’t depend on exercise. In a later chapter, Agatston recommends a brisk, 20-minute walk every day. That’s sounder advice. Losing weight through diet alone is possible, but most studies suggest that it’s people who exercise who manage to keep it off." Regarding the Harvard Health Letter, in the citation above I've snipped the subhead, which was being treated as if part of the title, identifying the diet's problems as "Lack of proof and some dubious claims". The "proof" related to the lack of studies early on, and "dubious claims" I think is covered by the initial de-emphasis of exercise. Blatner, on the latter phases being more balanced: "I recommend skipping the restrictive Phase One meal plans and instead follow the more balanced Phase Two diet." Zelman, on changes in 2008: "What's new is the addition of 20 daily minutes of interval walking or total-body toning exercises designed to "rev up your metabolism" and result in faster weight loss and better health. After listening to his patients and getting feedback on his web site, Agatston says, he decided to update the South Beach Diet plan with more flexibility in the earlier phases along with the new exercise component." The same Mayo Clinic source I mentioned in a previous list item also acknowledges that it has changed over time: "The South Beach Diet has evolved over time and now recommends exercise as an important part of your lifestyle." Goff et al., present in the existing sentence, is not included my revised suggestion. This is because the study itself states: "It is also important to note that we did not imply any findings related to the safety or effectiveness of the South Beach Diet, but looked only at the nutrition facts presented in support of the diet." The errors found are corrected in the 2008 edition, although I could demonstrate this only through WP:OR (i.e. comparing the study to the later book). Meanwhile, these errors are noted in the body of the entry, so I'd eventually like to address them there.

I'm sure there will be some differing views about how to summarize this, so I am certainly open to suggestions about how to achieve the right balance to this paragraph. That said, I do think most of the sources, including those cited above, are more balanced in their outlook on the diet than is the current article, and my suggestions are intended to reflect that. I'm looking forward to feedback. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body already. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A direct link to the Harvard source is here, by the way. In addition to the previous issues raised with your proposals (which you haven't addressed, e.g. that you need to give greater weight to higher-quality sources), I don't think that citation is a fair representation of the source. They mention four categories of criticism: that the diet's recommendations lack proof, lack credibility, are misleading, and contain a factual error. It's probably the weakest possible criticism that you could use the source to cite. In addition, the point of the comment on exercise is to support the statement that the book is misleading; the observation that exercise is in fact good for you is tangential. Sunrise (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, we could certainly add some of this to the body, and I can put that together if you'll consider it. Sunrise, how about using this as a base and then more clearly describing criticism from the Harvard Health Letter? Of course, all of this detail can be included in the body of the article. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated suggested replacement

Hello again, Jytdog and Sunrise. I expect you're busy elsewhere at the moment, but I figured you gave me enough to go on for another crack at this. For anyone else reading, the sentence I'd like to replace is this one from the article's introduction:

The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science.[2][4]

The construction offered below is more alike the existing second-paragraph sentence than what I suggested earlier in the week, though it still aims to fix the two problems I'd previously identified: a) the sentence refers to initial studies of the diet only, without noting the diet made changes in subsequent editions, and b) the praise and criticisms are unhelpfully vague. Preserving the same references as above—but waiting for now to create the full markup—here's what I suggest:

Medical reviews from the mid-2000s praised the diet's distinction between good and bad fats and its balanced latter phases,^NHS while criticizing its restrictive first phase and finding some claims misleading and overstated, such as the diet's impact on insulin resistance and de-emphasis of exercise.^{Goff, HHL} The 2008 revision introduced an exercise plan and allowed greater flexibility in the diet's first phase.^{Blatner, Zelman}

Of the criticisms to be found in the Harvard Health Letter, two I think can be safely omitted: "lack of proof" claim became quickly outdated when studies were conducted, and the single error was corrected in later editions (of course we won't find a third-party source pointing that out, but that goes to show how minor it was). However, the "credibility" issue is represented by the insulin resistance claim, and the "misleading" issue is represented by the exercise mention. Indeed, the exercise issue was relevant enough to be mentioned in reviews when the 2008 edition came out; same with the less-strict advice for the first phase. I also suggest reinstating the Goff study, which speaks to errors in the early editions better than HHL.

Only one thing here is missing from the body of the article, that being the Harvard Health Letter criticism of the diet's claims on insulin resistance syndrome. For this reason, I suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph of Health effects:

In addition, a claim in the 2003 book that the diet would eliminate cravings for sugar and starches has been challenged on the grounds that insulin resistance syndrome likely has roots in genetics, which would be unaffected by dietary changes.^HHL

I'm interested to hear what you think of this suggestion. If there's consensus for this change, I can update the markup for someone else to move. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC) [Updated 4 February 2015]

In general, it waters-down the criticism in the best sources - which we are bound to reflect - and therefore is not neutral. You're not fully engaging with other editor's comments, but continually WP:CPUSHing spun text, which is probably why others aren't responding any more. Honestly - starting a summarizing sentence on this diet with "Medical reviews from the mid-2000s praised ..." is pretty rum! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex, could you explain which part of Sunrise's response I am not engaging with? The point seemed to be that I should include more specifics from HHL, and so I did. Likewise, if you think I'm watering down any criticism, please explain how? I'm surprised—what I'm proposing now includes reference to specific criticisms of the diet (as well as praise, yes) as opposed to the current wording, where unspecified "elements" are good but some "promises" are not. Surely this sentence can be improved. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Including more specifics from HHL was not in fact the point; I used it as an example of how you need to choose statements which are representative of the content of sources. There is a similar issue with the NHS source, which appears roughly neutral on the SBD but is being used to cite praise only (and which also should not be described as a "medical review").

The second main issue at this point is in reflecting sources in proportion to their reliability. I'm assuming that although you're a longtime Wikipedia editor, you may not have as much experience in writing content for scientific questions; my experience is that being able to weigh sources becomes much more important. So for example, the HHL source is more reliable than the NHS source (among other things, it is published in a journal). This has implications for e.g. which of them should be given prominence of place in the paragraph, and which of them needs to be followed if they seem to contradict. There are also other issues regarding non-neutral wording (or juxtaposition of statements, etc), but as someone who works with these issues for a living, I think you should be able to identify these yourself. :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. It's obviously a tricky subject. As you point out, not all sources are equal. The most rigorous sources describe the diet circa 2003, while less rigorous sources describe the diet post-2008. However, the current article makes use of both kinds, so there should be no reason why the introduction can't do the same.

Second, I am genuinely surprised to hear you say that my wording is "non-neutral"; you really will have to be more specific. And yet the current version includes phrases like "some elements" and "some benefits" that are ominously vague. The underlying issues are not difficult to verify and summarize. If my wording isn't quite right, I'm open to alternate suggestions.

Here's an idea: in a recent comment, you pointed to this book as a quality source to be considered. It's more recent than the studies currently cited, and acknowledges the good and bad, with specifics. Would you be open to using this source as the basis for a revised version of what the current sentence aims to do? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to continue with this a bit longer, and I've written up some thoughts. However, could you first please make sure that your response addresses each of the statements in my own comment, even if only to agree or disagree? I think it's especially important in this case given the content of my comment. (For example, beyond just agreeing that not all sources are equal, could you comment on each of the specific points that I mentioned? And so forth.) Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I am certainly willing to do so, with a provision. I can see that you're frustrated that I'm not fully grokking what you've been saying. I would add that we seem to both have posed questions the other has not examined and replied to fully. Below, I've outlined replies to each of the points from your last message. Upon your next comment, I'll read closely, consider it all, and respond in good faith. In turn, I hope you will return the favor. Of course, it doesn't mean we'll agree, but I think we'll do better to address each other with more consideration (while avoiding TL;DR).

To respond to the points in your last note, then:

1. I follow your point and agree that statements should be representative of the content of a source; the issue I'm grappling with is that none of these sources are entirely negative or entirely positive, they include elements of criticism and praise, and I feel both should be noted in the article and in its lead, with more detail so readers know the nature of what has been criticized or noted positively about SBD.
2. Specifically with regard to the NHS source, I was surprised you objected to it being cited in this way; after all, it is already used in the entry to verify information that's favorable and unfavorable to SBD.
3. Fair enough about the phrase "medical review"—I was looking for a phrase to summarize the totality of relevant sources. Perhaps simply "medical sources"?
4. I certainly agree that article content should be proportionately representative of sources, with greater weight afforded to the more rigorous. What I would like to see is the information cited to such sources being more specific rather than supporting vague phrasing like "benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science".
5. I follow your point about more rigorous sources being given prominence in a paragraph; it's not an issue I've had to work with much, tending to focus on non-scientific articles the vast majority of the time. Are you essentially saying that material cited to the HHL and other journal sources should be introduced to the reader prior to mentioning less rigorous sources? If so, I'd be concerned about readability and the logical presentation of information, if this must always be followed.
6. Regarding the juxtaposition issue, again, I'm grappling with the fact that the sources about the health effects of the diet are all from the early 2000s, while some of the specific criticisms they raise don't apply to the current diet plan (which was updated in the 2008 book). I'm not sure I agree that it's non-neutral to include a mention of the updated diet in the introduction, but I'll concede perhaps there is a better way to do it.

These points made, I do want to register an observation: that responses from current participants on this page appear to me to sidestep the specific concerns I've raised and instead point to reasons why my proposal doesn't work. I.e. whatever problems I've identified with the article are always secondary to something others find wrong with my solution, and no specific counter-suggestion is ever put forth. I too would like this not to continue indefinitely, and counter-suggestions could help this come to a reasonable conclusion. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That, or (might I humbly suggest?) you drop the WP:STICK. This has been to two three noticeboards, had a RfC, and benefited from the input of several very experienced med. editors who, it appears, don't share your continually re-stated concerns. I am not persuaded there are any big problems with this article that need addressing, though new high-quality sources can always change that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am here in response to a request for comment on at WP:FOOD. In my opinion the proposed change is excessively detailed for a lead statement. Both blocks of text are conveying approximately the same information. The short text could be improved but not with that level of detail. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The current text contains generalities only, and mine contains two common points of praise, three common points of criticism, and then a statement about how the diet was significantly updated later. If a middle ground between the two is possible, I'd be for it. I'd certainly like to see something come from this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex: I don't mind continuing for a bit more. I mainly see value in establishing principles that may be useful for WWB's further projects, and for those he interacts with.

WWB: Of course I'm not opposed to any changes in principle. What I hope you will get out of the discussion is different from you (see the previous line), but I can imagine a few changes that editors may be able to agree on. I'll start writing a complete response, but please keep in mind that this is a side project for me so I may take a while. In the meantime, if there is anything you think I haven't fully addressed (as you suggest above) from before your comment at 21:30 6 Feb, please let me know so I can make sure to include it. Sunrise (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I am interested in what you have to say, but it sounds like it won't be about the content of this article, and so I'd suggest that this isn't the place for it. If you'll take that particular discussion to my user Talk page or yours, that seems more appropriate. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It would primarily be about this article, so this is probably a better place. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WWB Too, I think you are a little bit too wrapped up with making this article positive for you client. On balance I think Sunrise is more correct about this than you and I think you need to take a deeper look her arguments. That said, there has been a lot of very uncivil language direct at WWB Too. That should stop.Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Intermittentgardener, I'm open to any specific criticisms you may have, however I do think at this time the article is unbalanced and overly critical of SBD in a way that WP:NPOV intends to prohibit. Hence, my as yet unsuccessful efforts on this discussion page. And yet I'm supportive of the one change you did make, regarding the use of "fad diet" in the introduction. This has been a point of debate between myself and Alexbrn (see Introduction discussion here). Interestingly, his explanation for reverting it was that it is "sourced" although the exact same sources refer to it as a "popular diet" as well. I would be interested to hear from editors here about why one is OK but the other is not. As far as I can tell, it is a clear example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Random Drive-by Commentary on SBD as "fad".

First point: "Fad" implies, rather heavily, the companion word "passing." Ephemerality is an essential point of fads, although they may, of course recur and relapse, like other pestilences. Even if we ignore the earlier ideas about lower carbohydrate diets allowing some people to more easily lose weight, which go back at least to Banting, SB has been around a solid dozen years in published form, and longer in the writer's own clinical practice. That's very different from the usuall diet-o'-the-week, which seems to last exactly long enough to get on some talk show before the books have to be remaindered.

Next, several of the contra references are poster children for why Wiki editors should be cautious about interpreting technical matters not in their personal areas of expertise. Passing over the fact that one of the references documenting that SB is a fad diet is, in fact, a review of cheap but palatable wines [Beppi. 9 January 2014,The Globe and Mail, "Feeling frugal after the holidays? Try these 11 affordable wines". Accessed 3 February 2014.], several others focus on claims that are irrelevant to the subject. One on the (obvious, I hope) point that early glycogen loss gets rapidly replaced as soon as a less restricted diet is allowed; another focuses on the initial very-low-carbohydrate phase's (again, obvious) unsuitability for a long term diet. There is a very specific claim made about glycemic potentials of foods that, in fact, has nothing to do with ease of weight loss, but with control of hyperglycemic complications in diabetes. Another cite, from WebMD in 2008, has since been updated with some of the earlier caveats removed; it now unequivocally endorses it:

"Does It Work?   Yes. It's a healthy approach to eating that can help you shed pounds. "  

The Mayo Clinic piece is cited for minor caveats, but it, too, is a fairly ringing endorsement of SB for weight loss.

Then, there are several legitimate points about lack of wide validation from other clinical experience...or, rather points which were legitimate in 2003, but have since been either validated or discredited.

Finally, one contra piece, from the "Prevention Institute," sidesteps addressing the SB Diet completely. It betrays little evidence that the author actually read the thing -it seems to take it as an Atkins clone - and focuses instead on the social and health consequences of overemphasis on weight, to the exclusion of good nutrition and overall good health -valid points, but irrelevant to this article specifically.

By way of anecdote, I've had to lose weight a few times, and have done so successfully, if you count success as sustained loss measured in decades, and was advised by my then physician to try the SB; his stated reasons were that it had worked for other patients, did not involve any added health risks, in the way that, say, Atkins might, and, most importantly, was accessible, with information available free in libraries and cheap in bookstores, and with no actual requirement to purchase anything that wasn't found at a supermarket. I dunno if this counts as COI. Anmccaff (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff, in case you haven't seen, I opened up this as a point for discussion at DRN earlier today; please feel free to comment there as well, if you like. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical of your position here, frankly, and I'd be interested in a more full explanation of exactly where you stand before sticking my foot further in that tar baby.Anmccaff (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Food Faddism Moved from a userpage. (Warning. Contains some re-hashing.)

.

(Reverted to revision 651596279 by Alexbrn (talk): An established medical textbook is solid WP:MEDRS, as has been 
discussed on the SBD Talk page - check it out. (TW))

(in reference to a nutrition text cited as proof that "SB diet is "food faddism")

Several points. To begin with, this is not a "medical textbook" in the stricter sense; it's an introductory dietician's text for everything except a certification program or an associate's degree, no? That implies a certain level of rigor, and it doesn't disappoint: the section a page or two down, comparing "popular" diets, has nothing at all bad to say about the SB except that the short-term introductory period is not suited for long-term use. (It's also at least one...no, two printings out of date, a common wikifailing, and one rather relevant to whether something is a "fad.")

Next, it explicitly adopts the common, mainline meaning of "fad" -something that is by definition ephemeral- for something that appears to be, in its present form, in clinical use for a score of years, and published, subject to peer review and criticism, for 15. Most "fad diets", in the strict sense, last long enough for the bubble to pop, or the first-run printing to run through, or Oprah to stop returning their phone calls.

Finally, it would appear that the initial book has acquired clinical respectability. Mayo doesn't endorse things lightly. What, if anything, that means for follow-on works or for co-branded products is, I think, not relevant.Anmccaff (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Adding an even older source hardly strengthens the position, but rather weakens it. Perhaps it was justifiable to use the term in 2006; but is it now? More importantly, this again looks like a cite selected off a cursory, tendentious websearch.Anmccaff (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Best if we just follow these good sources rather than inventing reasons for not liking them - in any case discussion of article content should take place on its Talk page. If a book has been reprinted only, its content won't change; are you saying there are later editions (with different content)? Feel free to raise this at WT:MED if you want to widen the consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These are hardly "invented reasons," but rather mainstays of scholarship. Evaluating the value of sources for particular applications goes well beyond Wiki's elementary RS standards. It's possible to find sources with impeccable credentials that are flat out wrong, especially if one seeks out the conclusion wanted, rather than the mainstream consensus.

Yes, there are two revisions of the book since; whether this section is changed is something neither of us knows, which is telling.Anmccaff (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the latest edition number? And have you an ISBN? I may be able to get access to this from a library here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

1305110404 ISBN-13: 9781305110403 9th Edition; appears to have been some changes between editions, with the the e-book being "8&1/2". That said, there are probably 10 similar texts; how does googling out one that agrees with you demonstrate a consensus among experts?Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay: this has a copyright date of 2016 and doesn't seem to be available yet, so I can't get at it. It still has a "Fad diets" section ... are you thinking the SBD was been dropped from that section? Certainly, for the edition we cite that description is good enough for the experts that wrote the book and the review panel that reviewed it. Sounds like you're the one with an axe to grind; I have no opinion on this diet (which I have no experience of, nor of any of its "rival" diets) but am concerned we neutrally reflect the sources and don't act as a distorting instrument for information about SBD, about which the scientific literature seems fairly scathing. But this discussion really belongs on the article Talk page, not here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to be available here; perhaps it's a Pondial difference? More to the point, though, I have no idea whether that section is changed, any more than you do. I do know, however, that you selected it posthaste after an an unsupported section was removed from a wiki page you were citing elsewhere. Leaving aside for a moment the use of Wiki as an authority, and passing over the fact that you restored it, without a thought to how authoritative an article which repeatedly cites a wine review as an authority on diet fads is, you are taking as a given that it reflects mainstream scholarly consensus. As I've said, there are about 10 similar books in English, at minimum, at least one even has the same name. Why pick this one, except to plug a hole in an article?

"Scathing?" and "scientific?" The only piece cited I'd call "scathing" was written by a social worker, explaining why it was rude to tell people, especially minority people, that they were obese. It did not enter into any particular criticism of SB as a diet, merely that it was a diet, and that, in itself, was somehow wrong. Several of the issues raised by focused criticisms were legitimate, but might, or might not, be overcome by events. Pointing out that a therapy is unproven at its inception is vital; citing that 15 years later , when the jury should be in elsewhere, is frankly silly.

Yes, this might be best elsewhere; any objections to moving it in toto?Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm "up" on this topic is that it has been discussed (to death) at the SBD article, at noticeboards and in a RfC; I recommend consulting these previous discussions to avoid re-hashing. I've no objection to all/some of this conversation being copied anywhere ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've again reviewed the cites given in the article, and remain convinced that the one I edited from, and reverted from, fails NPOV. The categorical designation of SB now as a "fad diet" appears to be a minority view among the authors at the level of scholarliness -college nursing/nutrition texts - cited. One of the cites is irrelevant, and frankly, superceded; and another is a sociological take on the whole question of dieting, body image etc. Two of the cites given -WebMD and Mayo- have shifted from strong reservations to fairly strong approval.

There's a real split, of course, between physicians and dietitians, as there always is, with the medicos preferring sub-optimum diets that their patients might actually comply with; and there are real concerns -which I think I share with you - about commercial eiting, and about a diet designed, essentially, for fat fifty-ish pre-diabetics universalized, but science has largely come around to Dr. A's views on easily available calories and food cravings, and the article should reflect that rather than (legitamate) early concerns. Anmccaff (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

you seem to think that "fad diet" is perjorative. it is not. maybe we need an RfC on that. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the Food faddism article, and see if the ambiguous term "fad diet" isn't used in the pejorative sense there, and if the list of "fad diets" isn't extensively loaded toward the crazier stuff...along with SB, which now seems to be held in a different category by mainstream authoritative sources. The article should reflect that. It should also reflect the fact that it has been a part of a diet fad, and that it is a commercialized product.Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: You're entitled to your original view, but please don't insert it into the article ... the text "While no longer widely viewed as a "fad diet ..." is your view, and not in any source so far as I can see. Inserting unverified text into the lede like this is a big no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything I wrote as my "orginal view," even in the extremely narrow Wiki-sense of OR. Mesdames DeBruyne, Pinna, and Whitney no longer express the mainstream scholarly consensus on SB, which has shifted. Mayo no longer expresses strong reservations..in fact, it endorses the diet explicitly, with the caveats that apply to -any- weight loss program, WebMD's current take is quite different from that of 2008, and the designation as a "fad diet" no longer has an NPOV place in the lead.Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"which has shifted" ← is that your view or a source's view? If the latter, what source is it that talk of this "shift"? We must favour our strongest sources here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, which means that cherry-picking an intro dietician's text might not be a valid approach. Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS...I suspect some of this edit conflict could be resolved by noting, in the lead, that SB became part of a "diet fad" a dozen years ago...and by the look of it, some people would like to make it part of one again. Anmccaff (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is an "intro dietician"? Kindly don't speculate about what "some people would like", it is unhelpful bordering on disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"What is an 'intro dietician'?" I have no idea without...um, 'speculating' but 'an intro dietician's text' would be 'an intro[ductory] text for dieticians.' I don't see anything "speculative,' by the way, about noting that a good deal of recent posting on the page has been driven by commercial purposes. A commercially sponsored editor has been entirely upfront about it, no? Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No longer widely considered "fad."

(Undid revision 656910957 by Anmccaff (talk) this restores unsourced content about "no longer considered a fad diet" - please discus on Talk. thanks)

To begin with, as I see it, I have discussed this already, here. The SBC is now viewed as respectable by several of the authorities who initially raised concerns. Mayo, the Harvard Health Letter, & WebMD were all cited by earlier versions of the page for their (legitimate) initial reservations, all three now give qualified approval. (Hell, even Atkins gets a certain amount of grudging acceptance from the medicos these days, if not from the dieticians.)

Next, the piece cited is not in the mainstream of similar texts. Look through similar contemporary intro dietetics texts, and note how few of them single out SB anymore. This looks very much like a cherry-picked cite, and one borrowed (albeit by the same editor) directly from Wiki itself.

Finally, look at the page linked, and ask if that generally reflects a neutral meaning of "food faddism;" I'd strongly suggest it does not. Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

what is your source for the content, "it is no longer considered a fad diet"? i do acknowledge that the food faddism article needs to be improved. been on my to-do list. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Aside, say, from Mayo, Harvard Health Letter, and WebMD, and the curious lack of other cites mentioned? Btw, dropping "in the pejorative sense," as you did, changes the meaning of what I wrote considerably. Anmccaff (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

what is the source for the "no longer considered" part. where do i find that. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Look in an older version of the article, check the references, note the level of skepticism, see the same institution giving qualifed...or sometimes unqualified endorsements? Anmccaff (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

need a source that says that. what you just described is the definition of WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, no, and no. No, we don't necessarily need a particular source stating that; no, this is basic evaluation of sources, not "original research," even in the Wiki sense; and, no, we don't necessarily have to use that reasoning in the article itself. We could just as simply withdraw the now less-supported assertion. Anmccaff (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

surprising, and we don't agree at all. but please -- tell me when you think it changed. 00:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It was on august 32, on exactly 1423 pm, PST...no, but seriously. Are you looking for a bright-line division here? that's rather rare in science, even, and in medicine it's next to unheard of; old ideas sometimes die with old doctors. There ain't gonna be one, but if you want to pick a few local ones, maybe 2007, when a fellow or two at Harvard (and Tufts, IMS) 2006 study concluded that low-carb diets did not cause all the nasty sequelae that had been promised. (This was based on the Nurses' Health Study) Anmccaff (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

about "fad diet" being current, see

References

Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, what do you think you are adding to the conversation with this? This is precisely the cite that was cherry-picked by another editor for the "food faddism" page. It's a real view; I strongly suspect, based on Mayo et al, it's now the minority, at least for the pejorative sense of "fad diet." It's also worth noting, again, that "fad diet" does not have a single stable meaning; the reference you give above clearly, unequivocally emphasizes change and ephemerality...which looks a little silly a dozen years later. Anmccaff (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

what you see there is consistent use in sources that range from 1998 (revised 2004); 2006, and 2011. that is 13 years of continuity. You really don't seem to get it; from the point of view of mainstream medicine all these fancy named diets are just geldmacherei - they are all fad diets. mainstream medicine says eat right (balanced meals, and not too much) and get exercise, and you will live your way to a good weight. to the extent any fad diet is really just a dressed-up way of saying that, it is not objectionable. south beach (if you cut out the first weeks) is basically mainstream medical advice (eat right, and not too much, and get exercise) dressed up to make money. (making money is not a bad thing at all, but don't try to demand that Wikipedia treat it is like it is anything other than it is.) Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this one step at a time. To begin with, Dr. Agatston published in in 2003, so you appear to be ascribing to Dr. Bastin magical space powers. Even if you count the early xeroxlore versions, that's at most 11 years, and probably a lot more like 8.

Next, two of the cites are specifically warned against, if not proscribed, by MEDRS. Initial evaluations have a short lifespan; I believe 5 years is the MEDRS standard, so a 2004 publication about a 2003 publication really doesn't belong here, and a 2006 publication about a 2006 work, published in a journal known for primary sources, is also questionable.

That leaves an introductory dietetics text, one of, say 20..30 published now. If this does represent mainstream thinking, questioning source A should be answered with ..."Fine. Whaddabout B", and so forth. As I've said, though, that is cherry-picked...another MEDRS failing.

The Mayo Clinic isn't widely known for dressing up bad ideas to help others make money; the reason why many practitioners endorse SB is often exactly the opposite: some commercial diets are seen as accessible and cheap. A trip to the library or a paperback purchase, without a need to buy any foods not found fairly cheaply in the main aisles of a supermarket.

Next, the medical objections to even modified low-carbohydrate diets in 2003 (and before) were real, and rather strong. The '73 Senate hearings regarding Atkins used language which, were it not protected speech, would have been actionable; discovering that there was no discernible difference between the outcomes of low-carbohydrate diets in 2006 was a real change.

Discovering that low GI/GL diets had a real effect on cravings among many pre-diabetics was also a revelation,and short-term very low GL diets have become respectable among many practitioners, although with obvious caveats.

"Fad" is used in the strict sense by a good many medical authorities; the "food faddism" page suffers for that, since loose usage of "fad diet" for "any diet I don't approve of" is not uncommon, but not the norm either. Until that's fixed, the page shouldn't be linked at all, and leaving ambiguous language that might mislead a later editor is a Bad Thing.

Finally, every diet program I know of is partly hortatory, partly practical, and generally oversimplified., Once Agatston re-emphasized the importance of exercise, his diet became mainstream...but that, as I've mentioned above, was mostly a shift of the mainstream, not Dr. A. If you look at the checklist Dr. Bastin provided, it now passes completely. So, how's it a "fad diet?" It's not new, it's not an active craze, and it's scientifically respectable, if not always seen as optimum.

The article should reflect that.Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RS says it's a fad diet; so shall we. To change this we'd need new RS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No. RS means "reliable sources," not a single, lonely, forlorn cherry-picked cite. We can see above that other RS disagree implicitly with this, so this fails NPOV. 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Anmccaff (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

3 sources. why do you say 1? (nice point on the magic time travel! clearly that document has been update more than once. :) ) and by the way i didn't even try that hard to find the three. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not 3? MEDRS, for one. Stuff over 5 years old is suspect by definition, stuff older than some particular relevant discovery even more so. The Nurses Study was a watershed; before it, low-carb was frowned on by much of the medical mainstream, seen at best as a tradeoff of one set of medical problems for others, and at worst a merely cosmetic approach to weight loss, a way to die young, and leave a good looking corpse, so to speak. You also have a prejudice against initial studies and reviews; it's one thing to quote a preliminary review of something from 2003 in 2004; 11 years later, it's simply wrong.

Then we have equivocation. In 2006, someone calling a recent diet craze a "fad" may do so without other implications. It's new (or newly popular again); it's a "fad." Doesn't mean it's a "fad diet" in the sense that, say, Dr. Bastin used it, which is unequivocally denigrating. (Dr. Bastin's piece is also based on some now outdated AHA info, and no longer true to its now revised sources, another reason why newer, up to a point, can be better.)

Yeah, it isn't hard to find these particular sources; a simple Google on "Fad diet" "South Beach" pulls 'em up seamlessly. That's exactly the problem, no? Anmccaff (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry which 1 of the three do you consider reliable and what is wrong with the other 2? Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Reliable" in the Wiki sense, which, if you get down to it, really means "more likely than not to be reliable, based on external clues?" The textbook. It's current, reliably published, etc. It also fails, taken alone, NPOV, but that's another matter. The older stuff are classic examples of why MEDRS puts sell-by dates on information; anything discussing low(er) carbohydrate diets in the US before 2007 or so is dubious. Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've let this sit for comment for a bit, without input. Is there any disagreement with my replacing my edit?Anmccaff (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

you have no consensus for the change you want to make and you have provided no source that says "no longer considered a fad diet" and you cannot even say as of when. i haven't responded b/c there is nothing more to say.... Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus" is a rather large word to use when only a couple of people are editing; a source is not needed, anymore than we need to provide a source for "heavier than air flight is no longer considered impossible;" and, even the most casual glance above suggests that I have already noted that a large part of SB's, and other lower-carb diet's new-found respectability follows the 2006 publicattion of diet data from the Nurses Study. Anmccaff (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

yep but that is how things stand now. since we cannot agree and others are not participating, perhaps you want use some DR process to try to get further input on change you want to make. (btw is what you want still the content you proposed at the start of this? there is no way you will get consensus for "no longer considered" since there is not a single source that actually says that. DR would be a waste of time in my view. If you have some different change in mind please tell me) Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

‎Health effects: trim redundant source

How is this "redundant?" Casual inspection tells us it is irrelevant, but a pretty fair example of the level of tendentious editing done here. The piece has nothing in particular to say about SB, but about the entire concept of dieting and obesity, with an implication it's all somehow a plot of the cis-BMI-ed patriarchy's war against Large Persons of Color. It's politics, and PC, in other words, not medicine, and the site cited isn't a medically reliable or respectable one. Anmccaff (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need this - which is a poor source - when we've got better ones. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not a source at all; it condemns dieting generally, which mainstream medicine does not. It's tendentious PC crap, which makes you wonder why someone would put it there. As for your "better [sources]", notice how many of them blatantly fail MEDRS time guidelines. Wassup with that? Anmccaff (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Brand vs. science

Earlier on in this discussion (months ago) we discussed separating the brand (SBD) from the medical information about the diet. I see some overlap here between those two topics (and it is hard to keep them apart). SBD brand is represented by the popular books and a great deal of PR - faddish PR, to say the least. Then there is the diet theory that was developed by Agatson and that has become one of the diets in the "low-carb vs low-fat" diet discussion which is actually subjected to research, although to date without any final conclusions (which shows that it is a complex and interesting problem). It might be best to say little here about diet theory, but move that discussion to Low-carbohydrate diet (which doesn't mention SBD today). Otherwise this becomes a parallel discussion on the merits of that diet type. LaMona (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd go further than that; I think there is some consensus that lower "easy" carbohydrate diets -low glycemic load diets- can make dieting less onerous for diabetics and pre-diabetics, but have far less benefit for the general population. If your glucose metabolism is messed up, it works well. Before the cohort studies like Nurses Health came in, there was real fear, especially in the US, that there were high associated heath risks, especially with the higher-fat diets like Atkins. Anmccaff (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the ambiguity is not just in this article, but on the "food faddism" article as well. That thing is a solid ball of equivocation. Anmccaff (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"solid ball of equivocation" is an apt phrase. That article is clearly in violation of NPOV and I am very uncomfortable with it on its own, much less as a link from other articles "by way of definition". As for Brand v Science, there's no question that there are neutral things to say about the SBD as a branded diet. It has a well-recorded history; it has products (the books); it has a company behind it. It also has statements of medical value from a variety of sources, with contending claims. That can be recorded here. If, as it appears from the literature, that the medical community has not made recent statements about it, that too is factual and NPOV. I don't understand why this particular article has become the lightning rod of contention that it is. LaMona (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Individual sources almost all fail MEDRS timelines.

(please just tag the individual sources you're objecting to so that Alex has something to reply to)

Sunrise, it's all of them...almost literally, except the one that blatantly fails NPOV. You have preliminary cites a decade old, cites which are superseded by their publisher, cites which are universal, but used as if peculiar to a particular case. Look at the reference list, see what a white-haired, toothless, superannuated collection of coots and crones it is. Look at the quality of the cites: the only recent one is a single -it's not typical of its kind - introductory diet text. Look at the quality of the authors: it starts out with a cite from, essentially, a home ec teacher.

Never mind Alex; is this something you wish to put your name on? Anmccaff (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't see any WP:MEDRS dating problems, considering this is a little-researched topic and so older sources are naturally allowed. If there are newer/better sources, then bring them forth! Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Little researched?" Best tell the NIH, the NEJM, the...well, the list goes on, doesn't it. PMC drags up 32,000 hits on a query of "low carbohydrate diet." [[4]] Even allowing for the usual duplicates, imbedded works, meta-analyses, and so forth, that's a respectable number; "saturated fat", gets about 160,000. [[5]]

Your own quoted sources, Harvard Health Letter, Mayo, and WebMD all now contradict their own earlier take. Why doesn't the article reflect that?

This article is not about low carb diets generally, but about SBD.Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But the specific contentions in the early reviews are, often, about low carb generally, and SBD is explicitly mentioned or referenced in much of the later literature.Anmccaff (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

please use WP:DR and stop edit warring already. please. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one reverting while refusing to discuss, Jyt. Explain to us again why you added an irrelevant cite...no, explain the first time, please. And do it before you revert without meaningful discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So, reverting without discussion..again.Anmccaff (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Anmccaff, keep in mind that the majority of statements in the article are not medical statements, so it isn't surprising that many of the references don't pass MEDRS. That said, a nutrition textbook does qualify, unless I'm missing something important about it; I'm happy to consider if there is, although I don't see anything unusual when I go through it (it's from a well-known textbook publisher, it lists the reviewers at the beginning, etc). What teacher are you referring to? Sunrise (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. The majority of the cited references -11 out of 19- are solidly medical, and several of the remainder have pretensions of being. All of the contentious issues are treated by the other editors here as MEDRS issues.

The teacher I refer to is Dr. Sandra Bastin; here is her CV: [[6]]. It's impressive enough, but her career is not centered on nutritional research, but rather on economics of food production and sales, cookery, educational outreach, and so forth. Her piece quoted here seems to presume that the SBD is ketogenic; this is flat wrong. It is also, apparently, psychic: it might predate Agatston's publication of the SBD by 5 years; no explicit mention of what is the 1998 original and what is the 2004 revision. Of course, "fad" -was- a word that could be applied to SBD in 2004, but that isn't a permanent condition. This is a period piece that happens to have survived, not an encyclopedic reference.

As for the dietetics text, as i mentioned, it's about the only one of a group of 20 or so that makes a reference to SBD, and it is quite unclear whether it is being singled out in the long term, or given as an (inaccurate) example of a fad that fades. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Like many FRINGEy/alt-health things, fad diets are not often discussed in the literature. A search for reviews in pubmed for south beach diet yields 2 hits - each from 2004. Per WP:MEDDATE these are exactly the situations where the "5 year" limit is relaxed. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you added "review" to your search -- that limits the search to articles that are a review of the literature on a topic (not reviews as in "book review" or "software review"). Review articles aren't terribly common, especially on narrow topics like SBD. "Publication Type [PT, PTYP] refers to the form of presentation of an article or other work. Examples include review articles, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retracted publications." [7] LaMona (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. Once a bubble is burst, decent researchers don't waste their time patching and re-filling it. Before WWII, you could find both speculation that a nuclear bomb was not practicable, and speculation that, once initiated, a critical mass might involve material not ordinarily fissile, but you don't see anymore claims that the bomb doesn't work, or that it will destroy the whole planet. Transit operators no longer speak of the "automobile fad." Citrus as an antiscorbutic is no longer called a "fad." Lower-carb diets are no longer medically questionable, period, except to those who live in the past.

There is no longer anything particularly "fringy" about lower-carb diets; since the Nurses Study analyses, even Atkins is considered acceptable, if not optimal. Mayo likes it, WebMD likes it; Wiki, therefore probably ought to, too, not be tendentiously edited. Speaking of which, why did you add that piece of PC bilge? Anmccaff (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The lack of serious biomedical research is exactly what makes them FRINGEy. That is pretty much the definition of FRINGEiness. Without research there is still no evidence that SBD or any of these fad diets does much for anybody except make money for those who sell them. What are you referring to, in your last question? Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there are a good 30 thousand cites for research on this type of diet, most of them newer, and few as censorious as the early take. In my last qustion, I refer to the "Prevention Institute" piece, which you placed in the article and Alex quietly removed as "redundant," if memory serves. [[8]] Why'd you put it in here in the first place, again? Anmccaff (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Beach_Diet&diff=prev&oldid=637946921 this dif]. The Cohen article was used in the food fad article and I brought it over here since you were objecting about the term "food fad" and it explains that more, and also discusses SBD a bit. What is the search that provides "a good 30 thousand cites"? Please describe it. As I wrote above - and linked to above - a simple pubmed search for reviews on "south beach diet" yields exactly 2. So please describe the search. ThanksJytdog (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If you will read above, you will see exactly where I mention 30k cites: a simple query on "low carbohydrate diet."Anmccaff (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

From the CV that you linked, Sandra Bastin is clearly not a teacher. She's a full professor and (since 2013) a departmental chair, and she hasn't been an instructor since 1993. She was an assistant professor when she first wrote the source and an associate professor when she revised it in 2004.

Most of the statements supported by refs 11-19 do not require MEDRS. For example, several of them are used only for historical statements like book sales figures and publication dates. Bastin is only used as one of three sources supporting the lead sentence, which is also not a MEDRS statement, and it's not being used to support the term "fad" (which was removed from that sentence back in March.) Sunrise (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Make it "educator," then. What in her CV suggests an expertise that would overule, say, Mayo?Anmccaff (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a considerable difference betwee "11 out of 19 cites" and "cites 11 through 19." Anmccaff (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In that case, it would be helpful if you named which ones you're talking about. With respect to Bastin, I think you've missed the point. Also, what is she being used for that contradicts the Mayo Clinic? Sunrise (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been waiting, patiently, for that Emily Litella-oid moment, when the penny finally drops, and you say "..Oh. If it's 11 out of 19, and I've eliminated the last eight, it must mean...", but I suspect that could be a good deal longer. How about, say, the first 11 references? Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume, of course, that you notice I said "most" of 11-19 (that reasoning only works if I said "all"), and additionally that you may not agree with my classifications. Thus my request for you to specify. Or alternatively, if you named one or two examples of non-MEDRS sources that are being improperly used to support MEDRS information, that would also be helpful. If I agree with the examples, then I'll support changes (though again, Bastin is not being used for MEDRS information). Sunrise (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Dr. Bastin's CV, what is there that suggests a particular expertise in this end of nutrition, and what is there in the quoted work that suggests a rigorous analysis? It looks a good deal like a highschool health class handout, doesn't it? And it vectors facts that are clearly simply wrong, never a good sign. There are tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people and cites with this level of expertise; why is this one worth traveling back in time for? Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Mayo and WebMD -both appropriate for this type of article, even if the latter is not, always, for subjects that are more concerned with science, and less with common clinical practice- have both endorsed SBD, with no more caveats than for any reducing diet, and Mayo has themselves adopted the lower carb "jumpstart" approach itself, which, in the past, they had the usual problems with. Does the article seem to suggest that? Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anmccaff it is clear that you don't like the current content and would like the article to say something different. The problem is that your proposals have not been sourced (e.g. "no longer considered a fad"). So there is nothing we can do to get you what you want, until some reliable sources come out and say these things. If you want to try to again to propose different content, with sources, please do so here.Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Simply removing the sources that are not consistent with MEDRS would be a good start, though, wouldn't it? And acknowledging that showing a change in particular sources isn't OR in the Wikish sense might be nice, also. Anmccaff (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision 731987770 by Anmccaff (talk) restore npov version)

Nothing NPOV about the current version, it depends on very old references to support a position that is no longer mainstream. See, for a short list:

[[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

See, for instance, the differences between the older Harvard take in the article, and this piece..

The article as it now stands reflects outdated sources. Anmccaff (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You discussed this above at some length and consensus was against you. You knew your change was going to be reverted by any number of people who watch this page. Bradv 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this, you think the cites the article is based on are appropriate? Anmccaff (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

All I know is you brought this up a year ago and everyone disagreed with you. Now you're bringing it up again. Just as you were told in 2015, if you want to make the case that the South Beach Diet is no longer considered a fad diet, you will need to find a source that says that. Bradv 21:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not again. As I wrote last year: "Drop the WP:STICK. This has been to two three noticeboards, had a RfC, and benefited from the input of several very experienced med. editors who, it appears, don't share your continually re-stated concerns." Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And it remains anachronistic, supported by stale references in direct opposition to the current mainstream. Medical references get stale quickly; if you can only support your position by dragging up twenty and thirty year old cites, that's a very bad sign. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And your source is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's start by looking at the ones eleven distant lines up above, shall we? 17:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Same old stuff. We're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, several times over. Perhaps you are done her - in fact, that might be a good thing, but the discussion isn't otherwise over. Next, while there is a certain amount of "same old thing" associated with the article, that is your doing, not mine. Let us compare the piece above from Harvard with the 14? year old piece in the article. The latter expresses real concerns; the former explicitly counters them.

Carbohydrates have been a hot topic in nutrition for decades – two popular “fad” diets were the Atkins diet and the South Beach Diet, both of which limited carbohydrate consumption. Is it possible that these diets actually had some substance behind the hype? The fastest way to stabilize blood glucose and lower insulin levels is to reduce carbohydrate. The Atkins and South Beach Diets achieved great popularity during the low-fat craze by offering an effective antidote to all the processed carbohydrate in the American diet. For many people, these low carbohydrate diets have produced tangible benefits, for sound scientific reasons.

Note also the tense used with "fad", and the quotation marks. Anmccaff (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Contentious?

Bradv removed[13] this calling it contentious. But it isn't. Its in line with everything we know and a top-strength WP:MEDRS source. What's the issue exactly? Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you should come here right after you're reverted to explain your case. Instead, you reverted twice more to your preferred version, and then left a warning on the talk page of the other editor. That's backwards.

Please explain why that information must be added. Where's your source for "The diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health"? All you've done is link one study which says it does not improve cardiovascular health. Bradv 21:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

We reflect the content in the best sources. As PMID 25387778 says "A wide variety of diets are available to promote weight loss and improve cardiovascular risk factors ... 4 are particularly popular among North Americans. Millions of copies of Atkins, South Beach (SB), and Zone instructional books have been sold" and as the linked lay summary from the ACC glosses: "For years a number of unique diets have been advertised to the greater public promoting weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors. Four popular programs among North Americans include Atkins, South Beach, Zone and Weight Watchers ...". Alexbrn (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that is in the source. I've struck out part of my comment above. Bradv 21:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The source is great and the content neutrally summarizes it. There is no valid reason in policy or guideline for contesting this. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not it belongs. But edit warring without discussing here is completely inappropriate. And templating the editor you're warring with (when you're the one at 3) is also inappropriate. Bradv 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

In general that's right, but there is some specific history here and the content issue is clear-cut. Alexbrn (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

as alexbn said yes. A cursory look at the article history and this talk page will make that very clear. Anmcalf is heading toward a TBAN for continued policy-violating disruption and we are dealing with that as best we can in the meantime. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm familiar with some of the history and the arguments on this article. But being "right" when it comes to content doesn't justify poor etiquette. I think you would agree that we've seen enough of that. Bradv 21:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As said, there is some history: Tag teaming, ownership, and lying about sources, as has been done here, again. The removed cite did not address, one way or the other, SB and cardiovascular health, since the study it was in turn based on did not. Anmccaff (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss content, not contributors. And you're at WP:3RR now. Bradv 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Then open it up at ANEW/AN#?Whatevertheyrecallingitthisweek, and we can discuss there whether removing a false cite, reverted to without substantive discussion, is a 3RR, or simply reverting vandalism. The cite does not support the contention made, and this tag-team pair have a history of this. Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's it. I am seeking a TBAN at ANI. Your edit warring is completely invalid. You are finished editing about diets. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)