Dr. McDougall's Wikipedia Entry needs editing/help

[BlueHeron]

Oh, yes, Wikipedia is all about political games and politicking and who you know or who you are within the power structure of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a "neutral point of view" and never will be. Only idiot, technocrat wannabe, techno-utopian, Ayn-Rand fans, like those behind Wikipedia can come up with such pseudo-populist nonsense. The more time you spend learning the shifting and invented rules of Wikipedia, and playing their power games, the less qualified you are to inform anyone on anything. It has no mechanism to recognize or appreciate true expertise, instead preferring those who spend the most time politicking on Wikipedia.

If you find that argument persuasive, I don't even know what to say.

I''ll just address one issue:
"Wikipedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine – but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as Wikipedia says it is."

Encyclopedias always give a surface account of things. Always. If you think that Wikipedia tells you all there is to know, the problem is with you, not Wikipedia. And the citations make it easy to find more information on a subject that interests you so you can go into more depth. What does it even mean to say that articles "don't ever indicate what might be below the surface"? Really? That's quite a generalization - and what percentage of Wikipedia articles has this person even read to make a statement like this? And it's easy to show it's not true. Look at the entries for the Atkins diet, the Paleo diet, the Ornish diet - all of these articles indicate that there are controversies - there is no suggestion that things are "simple and uncontroversial."

Also, the name calling you engage in doesn't help your case any.

[BlueHeron]

I don't understand a lot of you guys. You think it's fair that the only "evaluative statement", and at the very last of the article, deems your diet boring and a fad diet? Don't you think it could be better sourced, if anything, or that it should be less inflammatory towards people following McDougall's philosophy?

The phrases food faddism and fad diet originally referred to idiosyncratic diets and eating patterns that promote short-term weight loss, usually with no concern for long-term weight maintenance, and enjoy temporary popularity.

It probably can't be better sourced because there are not very many articles that specifically discuss the McDougall diet. Outside of plant-based circles, it is not well known. I did not find the Wikipedia statement inflammatory. It expressed an opinion that is held by some people. It clearly stated that it is an opinion. It is not Wikipedia's job to make McDougall followers happy.

Also, your quotation from Wikipedia's article on food fads is selective. It also says, "Food fad" is also used by media and the scientific community to refer to diets that do not follow common nutritional guidelines, regardless of their actual status as a fad; for example, the Atkins and Paleo diets are commonly referred to as food fads, even though they have enjoyed cycles of popularity for several decades."

The McDougall diet does not follow common nutritional guidelines. That is a fact.

[GlennR]

By comparison with the write up on Joel Fuhrman, McDougall comes out unscathed.

He popularized the notion of nutrient density in what he calls the Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories (abbreviated as H = N/C).[1] Peter Lipson, a physician and writer on alternative medicine, has been heavily critical of Fuhrman's health equation, writing that since its terms cannot be quanitified, it is "nothing more than a parlor trick".[4] Fuhrman created what he calls the "Aggregate Nutrient Density Index", a ranking of foods based on micronutrient concentration.[5] Whole Foods began using the scores as a marketing project and reported that the sales of high scoring foods "skyrocketed".[5]

Fuhrman has heavily marketed his products and his infomercials have "become a staple during the self-improvement bloc of PBS pledge drives."[1] In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal, Mark Adams stated that Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom".[1] Adams also reported that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".[1]

[baardmk]

What do you mean by nutritional guidelines, BlueHeron? If it means following the food plate, food pyramid, or the advices about milk and fish intake or "lean protein" or whatever, then pretty much most vegetarian diets must be termed fad diets. I don't know the ins and outs of the recommendations, and I know they also have some mention about vegetarian diets, but the message about fish etc. being part of the "optimal" diet is unquestionable. At least it is in the Norwegian recommendations I'm looking at right now.

If it means meeting RDI-levels, this diet is of course adequate. That, too, is a fact.

[BlueHeron]

What do you mean by nutritional guidelines, BlueHeron? If it means following the food plate, food pyramid, or the advices about milk and fish intake or "lean protein" or whatever, then pretty much most vegetarian diets must be termed fad diets. I don't know the ins and outs of the recommendations, and I know they also have some mention about vegetarian diets, but the message about fish etc. being part of the "optimal" diet is unquestionable. At least it is in the Norwegian recommendations I'm looking at right now.

If it means meeting RDI-levels, this diet is of course adequate. That, too, is a fact.

Nutritional guidelines should probably be better defined by Wikipedia, but I'd say that USDA, American Dietetic Association, and really any mainstream sources are going to say that the McDougall diet is unnecessarily extreme and that its safety is questionable. I don't think that's true of any vegetarian diet. The American Dietetic Association definitely says that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally sound. I did find an article in the journal Circulation that suggests that very low-fat diets might be dangerous:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/98/9/935.full

From the article: "Because very low fat diets represent a radical departure from the current prudent dietary guidelines, such diets must be proved both advantageous and safe before national recommendations can be issued."

Note, I'm not saying I agree with the article. I'm just saying that this opinion exists, and it is a more mainstream opinion.

Yes, of course the diet is adequate in terms of RDI levels. I'm not arguing against the diet at all. I'm just saying that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fad diet.

[colonyofcells]

The american mainstream diet advice is against low fat altho there are many cultures studied that have been eating low fat for many generations. In the traditional cultures, high fat diets like those found in the inuit and greenland tend to be the exceptions. Anybody going against the unhealthy american mainstream can easily be labelled fad, cult, terrorist, etc. I am not expecting much change in the mainstream diet advice since it has long been corrupted by the corporations.

[baardmk]

BlueHeron, with your last post I don't have big objections. I disagree somewhat on degrees and your interpretations of what a fad diet would constitute, also while following the wikipedia definition. I do think a lot of experts in the nutrition field and other experts would find the McDougall diet healthy or at least considerably healthier than the Western diet, although in their mind probably falling way short of optimal/healthiest. That this type of diet's safety is questioned is only an expression of it being seen as unusual. (Which in and by itself of course may be a reasonable response.)

[BlueHeron]

BlueHeron, with your last post I don't have big objections. I disagree somewhat on degrees and your interpretations of what a fad diet would constitute, also while following the wikipedia definition. I do think a lot of experts in the nutrition field and other experts would find the McDougall diet healthy or at least considerably healthier than the Western diet, although in their mind probably falling way short of optimal/healthiest. That this type of diet's safety is questioned is only an expression of it being seen as unusual. (Which in and by itself of course may be a reasonable response.)

I think that if they really considered the diet, a lot of nutritional experts would find it healthy - but not all. There are still a lot of people who think that people need to add "healthy fats" and that the McDougall diet is too low in fat. Another problem with nutritional experts is that they often take into consideration what they think people will actually do, reasoning that it's better for people to, for instance, lower saturated fat intake rather than try a very low fat diet and then go back to SAD. It's a paternalistic attitude and I think it's a problem, but it still exists.

[AlwaysAgnes]

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... m/fad+diet
http://www.theguardian.com/science/the- ... ry-science