Jump to content

Talk:The Cambridge Diet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fad diets

[edit]

I don't understand the recent reverts made by User:Alexbrn and User:Roxy the dog. My edits were in good faith and added a new source and corrected information from the Gale article. Can you please explain? --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gale source is RS; a company's marketing ain't. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Gale source; it does not characterize the Cambridge diet as a fad diet, but rather quotes the company to the opposite effect. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exact quote: "To these armchair critics [the Cambridge diet] is just another fad diet. Nothing could be further from the truth as anyone can vouch who has used the diet as a sole source of nutrition for several weeks. For the first time one realises that vast quantities of food are not indispensable to life. It trains you to live without having food continually on your mind and the experience has a beneficial effect on most people" --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not mirror marketing copy. Of course the company says that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Gale quotes the company as saying it is not a fad diet. I can only assume this means that Gale agrees with the company, at least in part, that the Cambridge diet is not a fad diet. Hence it seems to be in some doubt as to whether the Cambridge diet is a fad diet. And also fad diet is a very vague term; the page for it says there is no accepted definition. Finally it's a loaded term; MOS:WTW mentions that loaded language shouldn't be used. Overall I don't see how using fad diet can be justified. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That assumption is daft. The company's own PR falls afoul of WP:FRIND. For such topics we are interested in what independent reliable bodies say, such as the American Academy of Family Practice. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant guideline is WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:FRIND would only be invoked if claiming something was a fad diet was an "exceptional claim". But since fad diet is not a defined term it amounts to arguing gray vs gray. I don't see how to do NPOV without giving the company's claims some amount of verbiage; in my edit it was one sentence "The company claims".
As far as the AAFP bit, it's a web article with a list of diets. It doesn't look like a particularly reliable source on what is vs isn't a fad diet - the list is only illustrative. The AAFP lists Slim-Fast as a fad diet whereas Gale says that Slim-Fast is an alternative to fad diets. Looking at the fad diet article in Gale, it doesn't mention Slim-Fast or the Cambridge diet, but does mention others on the AAFP list. So I think the inference that Gale doesn't consider the Cambridge diet a fad diet is justified. And since Gale was written by various nutrition experts whereas AAFP is only family practitioners, I'd say Gale is more reliable.
My point though was that "fad diet" is a loaded term. Ideally the article shouldn't use it at all, or limit the use to one section as my edit did. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're falling right into the classic WP:GEVAL trap. Wikipedia is not going to pretend a dangerous bullshit diet is anything other than what, in reality, it is according to independent RS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:GEVAL is only about minority or extraordinary claims. It's not an extraordinary claim to say that the Cambridge diet isn't a fad diet. To quote fad diet:

  • There is no single definition of what is a fad diet, encompassing a variety of diets with different approaches and evidence base, and thus different outcomes, advantages, and disadvantages. Furthermore, labeling a diet as a fad is ever-changing, varying socially, culturally, timely, and subjectively.

Even if we go by the FTC definition "highly restrictive and promoting energy dense foods poor in nutrients", it's not clear that the Cambridge diet qualifies - although it is highly restrictive, the foods are rich in nutrients and have a low energy density once mixed with water. And as far as "dangerous bullshit", it seems like it was dangerous during the 80's, but the page Very-low-calorie diet says they're safe when done with medical supervision. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's follow what reliable sources say, not Wikipedia editors. This has been discussed before (check the archives) here and at WT:MED. In lieu of radically different sourcing, I don't see any reason for change to the diet's categorisation. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I just pointed out, Gale (a RS) does not consider the Cambridge diet to be a fad diet. What more do you need? --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-5408.2001.00003.x. They list fad diets as "intake of macronutrients in particular proportions or intake or avoidance of particular foods". These criteria exclude the Cambridge diet and of course the article doesn't list it as a fad diet. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it more I realized the issue is really that there are multiple diets: the original unrestricted 330 diet that caused lots of deaths, and the modern version which ranges from 440 to 1500 calories but has restrictions that (hopefully) prevent cardiac arrest. So here is a new edited version that tries to separate those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mathnerd314159/Cambridge_diet --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about Gale. Your rewrite seems to have lost of lot of information, and some stuff in the lede is unsourced. Wikipedia is not going to pretend 440 calories per day is not dangerous. Alexbrn (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources for the bankruptcy. And the 1:1 diet actually has a minimum of 600 calories (3-4 products * 200 kcal/day), I added a source for that. I went through the current page and ensured every sentence in the article was present in my rewrite. Any other requests? --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important sources are represented honestly and Wikipedia isn't used to advocate for fad diets, but that instead WP:FRINGE nonsense is properly contextualized within a mainstream world view. The dishonesty with which that last edit was described makes me doubt the good faith of it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well your reasoning still seems something like "I won't allow replacing 'nigger' with 'black person' in the lead sentence 'James was a nigger in the American South.', because 'black person' is too bland." I don't agree with it and I think you're wrong. But there doesn't seem to be any point in arguing it, I already cited WP:WTW and it was ignored. So I've moved on to improving other parts of the article. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cambridge_Diet&oldid=1210536570"