→Tag: fix |
→Tag: explanation |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
[[user:Ibadibam]] please state what '''you''' are disputing in this article.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
[[user:Ibadibam]] please state what '''you''' are disputing in this article.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:The tag is alerting the reader to the above section. It should stay until the dispute is resolved. [[User_talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#C60;text-shadow:lightgray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;font-weight:normal">Brad</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="font-style:italic;color:#C60;text-shadow:lightgray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">v</span>]] 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:18, 5 January 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 You have preliminary cites a decade old, cites which are superseded by their publisher, cites which are universal, but used as if peculiar to a particular case.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." [[1]] Even allowing for the usual duplicates, imbedded works, meta-analyses, and so forth, that's a respectable number; "saturated fat", gets about 160,000. [[2]]
- Your own quoted sources, Harvard Health Letter, Mayo, and WebMD all now contradict their own earlier take. Why doesn't the article reflect that?
- @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: [[3]]. 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." [4] 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. [[5]] 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)
- 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. [[5]] Why'd you put it in here in the first place, again? Anmccaff (talk) 19:00, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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:
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)
- 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.
- Same old stuff. We're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 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)
- And your source is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
Contentious?
Bradv removed[10] 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- Discuss content, not contributors. And you're at WP:3RR now. Bradv 00:16, 14 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)
- 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)
Latest edit-warring to restore inaccurate content.
Rv. to good; note deceptive edit summary; user warned (again). (TW))
Nothing "good" about it; it's a completely inaccurate summation of the source. Whether that is laziness, incompetence, or mendacity I'll leave an exercise for the reader, but a brief glance at the cite shows that it explicitly, and rather prominently, mentions that the source used does not address long-term cardiovascular effects for SB -no data were reported on its effects
on cardiovascular risk factor levels.
This cite does not support the claim made, at all, and refutes it explicitly about the different diet programs in general.
As I mentioned elsewhere, there's nothing deceptive about the summary; it appears to be a fixed setting for Twinkle when reverting vandalism. Anmccaff (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So: the diet is promoted with claims it can improve cardiovascular health, but these claims have not been borne out by evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- No. So the particular cite does not address it. Full stop.
- This cite about another diet does, for instance, and suggests that low-carbohydrate unrestricted diet -i.e. Atkins, roughly- is easier to stick with than calorie-restricted low fat, (well, duh), successful in weight loss, but cardiovascular indicators are mixed - some better, some worse, without enough pluses to outweigh the minuses, unless (missing) long term date shows otherwise. (I'd suggest that the Nurses Study has provided the long term data, but that's another kettle of fish. We'll hit it in the next paragraph.) See, that would be an honest cite, were it focused on SB.
- Looking at studies that do focus on low(er) carbohydrate diets see this, which summarizes
Research shows that a moderately low-carbohydrate diet can help the heart, as long as protein and fat selections come from healthy sources
. Drilling down into some of the studies sourced, we seeA higher glycemic load was strongly associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease
i.e., validating some of Agatston's ideas, which earlier commentary -still kept in the article, against the usuall MEDRS timelines- had rightly questioned in the past. Anmccaff (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)- Right, so you want to contradict the source based on
other Wikipedia articles andyour own amateur interpretation of the primary research it considered. Our MEDRS source is "designed to examine the evidence currently available from the literature to examine the efficacy of 4 commercial, popular diets on weight loss and improving cardiovascular risk factors". It reported no evidence in support of the claims made for the SBD. Maybe read the linked lay summary to aid your comprehension? Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC); amended 10:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)- I have mentioned nothing here about other wikipedia articles. If you want to make a straw man, at least dress it up a little better.
- There is no interpretation involved, at least not on my part. The study cited explicitly and prominently mentions that it doesn't cover the use you and Jydog wish to make of it.
- The lay summary, the abstract, and the study itself all make no mention of the claim you assert. None.
- The study's conclusion, in fact seems pointed in an entirely different direction, focused on ROI, really. It emphasizes that a good deal of money gets spent on dieting, and perhaps people should have a little more to show for it. Anmccaff (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Right, so you want to contradict the source based on
- Looking at studies that do focus on low(er) carbohydrate diets see this, which summarizes
Tag
user:Ibadibam please state what you are disputing in this article.Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- The tag is alerting the reader to the above section. It should stay until the dispute is resolved. Bradv 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)