Talk:Zone diet/Archive 1

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence.

"Healthy (monounsaturated) fats cause the production of important "command hormone" glucogen which direct other hormones in their use of stored fat in the body."

"Glucogen" appears to be an outmoded synonym for "glycogen," not the name of a hormone. Barry Sears' Zone FAQ mentions two other roles of monounsaturated fats, but not this one.

After more Googling, I have realized that "glucogen" here is a typo for "glucagon." I'm not sure about the claim that monounsaturated fats are necessary to create it, but I'll look into it and add it back if I find support. FreplySpang 23:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insulin and glucagon form an axis for controlling blood sugar. Insulin LOWERS by causing blood sugar to be absorbed by fat and muscle cells. Glucagon RAISES by causing glucose release from stored glycogen (branched glucose molecules) in the liver. Both hormones are made in the islet cells in the pancreas. Diabetics in hypoglycemic shock are often given a glucagon shot to release glucose from the liver.OldRoy 13:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

references

I have reworded "rather it is the scientifically best way of eating — the intake of food that produces the best results within our bodies based on how the human body has evolved to cope with the food intake throughout history." as it sems to me to be strongly POV. Can the use of the word "scientifically" be backed up with independant scientific resarch? i.e. references. Despite the profusion of popular diets there seems little implication on this page that this may not be the one & only way to go.MGSpiller 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Information

Needs more information on concepts, studies or data used in books, such as the Anti-aging Zone.

Water loss

I'd heard the water loss criticism before, and it's got a reference (not the best one, but a reference none the less), I'd be happier if there were a pro/con or reference/antireference there for the water loss info. WLU 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional professionals have critizied low-carb diets as causing more water than fat loss, though this has been refuted by more recent research.

Is "The Zone in Italy" useful?

I think that a chapter titled "The Zone in Italy" is not needed on this page. I suggest to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tujo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Too much opinion, too little cited information

This article reads like an editorial rather than an informative encyclopedic entry. For example, when discussing criticisms by the American Heart Association, the article states that the "characterization of the Zone diet as 'high-protein' is inaccurate." According to whom? Who decides what constitutes a high protein diet? The article should state that "According to the creator of the Zone Diet, the characterization is inacurate." Otherwise, the article is presenting a disputable opinion as fact. 132.198.140.34 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Better would be to describe what makes a diet "High Protien". "The Zone" is actually no more protein than a normal diet; it is lower in carbs, and higher in fat (and generally fewer total calories).

One of the pieces of "The Zone" is to determine protein needs based on lean muscle mass, and activity levels; whether that accurately describes the body's maintenance needs or not is a valid question. "Is it high protein" is not a valid question until you define what "high protein" is.

Equally, the AMA claims that it doesn't give sufficient essential nutrients -- since it emphasizes low density veggies (leafs, cucumbers, tomatoes, etc) heavily, that seems unfounded. Looking at that AMA page shows complaints that do not apply to The Zone, even though it is mentioned on that page.

Keybounce (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction to "40/30/30"

The idea that the Zone diet is a 40/30/30 diet is in error.

If you are doing weight loss, then yes, it is a 40/30/30, as Sears claims that that gives the ideal weight loss rate.

However, if you want to maintain weight, you need to add another 500-750 calories a day of fat, or about 67 grams of fat.

While the ratio of carbohydrates to protein may stay 4 to 3 (slight variation from person to person), that does not mean that fat stays at that ratio also. Keybounce (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Microcosm of Wikipedia

This entry is a great microcosm of Wikipedia. It shows how Wikipedia does not reflect KNOWLEDGE but rather INTEREST.

Do you know of any research or studies to back up the claim of Wikipedia's inaccuracy? If not; do you have the expertise to judge an entire encyclopedia, every subject and article it contains? Quite a multi-talent we're dealing with here. Moreover; do you have any examples of what you would like to change about this article? Or are you just using this talk page to announce your personal opinions, which would be the very thing you object of? Why don't you get constructive and share that KNOWLEDGE you're so warmly speaking of, instead of your biased opinions? 83.254.71.184 (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of factual information about The Zone Diet far exceeds the amount of factual information about Michael Jackson, yet clearly none of the thousands of avid Zone Diet enthusiasts or professionals have the slightest interest in adding that information to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.233.175 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Snake oil sales

Typical for a pseudo-scientific study - the "famos" has quite a lot of unsupported statements.

Seems to have a lot of critical POV scattered through the main article

Phrases like "Sears believes in...", "He claims...", or "points out the supposed irony:" suggest editing from the subject-hostile POV. Criticisms of the Zone diet should really be in the "criticism" section, and come from cited sources rather than editorial POV. Jprete (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fad diet

We must follow good RS that categorize this diet as a fad diet. Well-cited material using good sources must not be removed. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the cited text removed as "OPINION" -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently some do not speak English very well. Fad def. an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is SHORT-lived and without basis in the object's qualities. As Zone has been around for 50+ years, IT'S NOT A FAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonghas Ó Scolaighe (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That's just not true. A fad diet has many definitions, the main one of which is unusual food choices. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

per sources

This is quite explicitly per the sources: "Like other experimental diets, safety and effectiveness of the Zone Diet per nutrition science have not been determined." @Alexbrn: Not sure why you would removes this more complete and explanatory content unless you have some personal view. Per source. "Long-term studies to determine the efficacy and safety of both popular and experimental diets are warranted."(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

Zone is not "experimental"; it is a commercial, fad diet. "Popular" in the words of your quote. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, our lede needs to summarize the whole article. Two of sources are 10 years old and one mentions "strong doubt" over the diet. Generally, MEDRS directs us to use more recent reviews. More recently (2011) the diet has been referred to as a "fad diet". So there is now a bit of a neutrality problem in the lede, which was insta-reverted to. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted with a comment to the talk page. You make this sound like a kind of instant pudding.

Yes it is experimental per the sources. Please note the sources. It is defined as an "experimental" diet by the study authors. It can be a so called fad diet while included in a category of diets which are experimental in nature per the mainstream diet of westerners. If the sources are too old you'd better rewrite the whole article. Go ahead no problem with that. If we are using the sources in the article which I am summarizing in the lede; the lede as re written is accurate. That's the bottom line.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

Please provide some other reliable sources for this remarkable claim that zone is "experimental". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted with a comment to the talk page. You make this sound like a kind of instant pudding.

Yes it is "experimental" per the sources. Please note the sources. It is defined as an "experimental" diet by the study authors. It can be a so called fad diet while included in a category of diets which are experimental in nature per the mainstream diet of westerners. If the sources are too old you'd better rewrite the whole article. Go ahead; I have no problem with that. If we are using the sources in the article which I am summarizing in the lede; the lede as re written is accurate. That's the bottom line.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

Jytdog. If I were you I would be careful. You and Alex are obvious in your attempts to bait, to obfuscate collaborative editing, and to misrepresent the sources in this article. Life is too short to wast on this kind of editing for me. But I note your actions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

Please WP:FOC. We need to use the best sources and be careful to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To repeat: I created a lede sentence which summarized the sources now used in the article. How the term experimental used in the sources by the authors and in ref to a diet or diets can be construed as anything but a term used for another new diet is beyond me. Neutrality doesn't enter into it. If you want to update the sources feel free. I have no problem with that. Since you and Jytdog are adamant about using the lede now in place feel free there too . This kind of editing holds no interest for me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

The article says that no serious clinical trials have been conducted so even theoretically I don't understand why you would advocate calling Zone "experimental." But please do provide additional sources for that remarkable claim - everything here is based on sources. (you keep mentioning "sources" plural but you have only cited one) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the definition of "experimental." Would someone like to point to a specific policy that states that "experimental" can only mean "clinical studies by scientists?" Neutrality is not achieved by misstating the situation. And a two-sentence lead is too short, by the way. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Further tweaked phrasing and did an expansion of the lede per WP:LEDE; it is important in these articles to stick with what the experts actually say and avoid both sloppy language and WP:SYNTH. For example, here there is evidence for the diet, it just isn't peer-reviewed scientific evidence; it's important to be clear what we are talking about. Montanabw^(talk) 08:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change

@Bkrudy18: You left me a message on my talk page regarding this article - instead of replying there I'll do so here so that other interested editors may voice their opinions. From your message:

The Zone Diet is NOT a product or service, so there shouldn't be any conflicts of interest. Nobody knows the diet better than him since he created it. I plan to make updates and site all the sources.

The above may be true, but all additions to Wikipedia need to be cited by reliable sources and have a neutral point of view in tone - it can't be seen to promote the article's subject. Your latest edit sounds a little too promotional - perhaps some editors here can assist in "meeting in the middle"? It may be worth bearing in mind that this diet has been identified as a fad diet. If you'd like any more clarification or help Bkrudy18, please let me know on my talk page -- samtar ^whisper 15:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: as the last editor to make a revert, you might be interested in this -- samtar ^whisper 15:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: "this" ? Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: The above good faith^(probably) editor asking for help and clarification as to what they're doing wrong here -- samtar ^whisper 15:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

the ed appears to be a meatpuppet. good faith has nothing to do with it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I could well be wrong about the gf part - in any case they've not engaged with the discussion -- samtar ^whisper 16:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to make sure all biomedical claims are sourced to good WP:MEDRS that is relevant to the Zone Diet (i.e. it must discuss it specifically). Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My doggy thought processes are very slow. I just came back to say that, in essence, and edit the article likewise. Meh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the COI and meatpuppet issues. The main thing is to explain what the evidence is, and in doing so explain how it fails to be objective scientific evidence. I think NPOV is better met by a thorough review, explanation and weighing of evidence within the article. My thinking is that if it is not addressed, it will just keep being re-inserted without critical analysis. If we don't "teach the controversy," then this issue will just be eternal ongoing drahmah. If we do teach the controversy, then it is easier to revert and refute POV-pushing in the future because will be able to point to statements saying, "while study X claimed Y, study X was criticized for Z and asof now, there are no studies that pass [insert explanation of what good scientific evidence is here]. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Except "teaching the controversy" is fundamentally at odds with the core requirement for neutrality (except insofar as any "controversy" is outlined in RS). See WP:GEVAL. What we need to be doing is reflecting what quality mainstream sources say. More such sources would be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree. Teaching the controversy and giving equal validity are not equal, the same, nor are they mutually exclusive. We deal with how to present information, controversy and all content with WP Weight. WP:Weight ensures that our articles are not black and or white but includes the shades in between per the sources on that subject. In this article the definitive source on what the diet is is the creator. The sources on how the diet may effect the physiology are the studies. We should not confuse what the diet is with research on how it affects those who follow it. That the diet can be classified or called a fad diet is one way of classifying the diet potentially along with others but it should in-line attributed to the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

What you say on controversy is fine because you say "per the sources". If there's a controversy in RS, we reflect it here; if there isn't, we don't confect it. We should not attribute things over which there is no serious dispute (in RS), because that has the non-neutral effect of making it seem like there is dispute when there is none. See WP:ASSERT. The fad diet nature of the Zone diet is not seriously contested in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Fad is a a way of classifying. There is no controversy; but not all sources classify the diet this way, For this reason fad is not definitive. While we can include "fad", the term and classification should be attributed to the source indicating date of the classification, and that this is not the only classification for this diet. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

So you'd also attribute the description of it as low-carb and high-fat? That way madness lies. ("The Zone diet is a diet which according to A, B, C and D is high-fat; according to P, Q and R (but not N) is low-carb, and according to X, Y and Z is a fad diet") Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I say that? If we include one classification and not context which can include other classifications and the source attribution we are implying the content speaks for Wikipedia. We have no right to selectively decide which classifications belong on Wikipedia and which don't and as a matter of fact yes, we can source the content and classifications which is helpful to the reader who may want to see and understand the subject in a complete way. Choosing for the reader which classification they will see and which we will ignore based on our own point of views or random selection is not what an encyclopedia should be doing. Diet classifications are often per their dominant food group focus. A high-fat, low-carb diet for example gives the reader a fair amount of information. As soon as we include multiple classifications we have general context and we can forgo possibly, inline attribution.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

I don't know exactly what you're proposing then. But we should simply assert anything not disputed in RS and per WP:PSCI if there's anything fringey in the air that needs to be prominent (hence, "fad diet" is the one really indispensable term for our opening). Anything else is more up to editorial discretion. Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

These diets created by celebrities (including doctors and PhDs) are money-making operations that make big promises unsupported by evidence (the only kind that matters - clinical evidence gathered using the scientific method). Everyday doctors and health authorities around the world advise people how to eat in a healthy way (which includes limiting calories and exercising) - those guidances are The Mainstream view (and there are no magic bullets in the real world to avoiding getting fat or losing weight or being healthy for as long as possible) -- all these other things are money-making, fringey fad diets. That is how we treat them in WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a huge generalization and is opinion pure and simple, and attempting to control content to support that opinion is POV editing. Diets are ways of eating to promote health some do and some don't do that, and making money is what people do in their area of expertise to support themselves. You planning to sell your expertise for nothing? Whether something makes money is not a reflection on how useful what they do is or on their motives... and a sniff of fringe on an eating plan that has been around for this long... I dunno... seems farfetched. Jytodog your ideas about diet and weight loss are simplistic; its a very complex field and its doubly so for women. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

Nope, that is solidly based on PAG. Please read WP:WEIGHT and of course MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Good change Alexbrn. An improvement in my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

• Just in passing, as I have seen this raised elsewhere, to "teach the controversy" is NOT to present false balance or invalid source material. Here, where there is a lot of fuzzy information and even misinformation out there, it is a disservice to readers (and fodder for endless editing wars) to pretend this information doesn't exist -- particularly when some of it comes from the diet creator! It is better to admit to the controversies, present the best evidence for the main arguments, and then conclude with what the "best evidence" says. (i.e. "While professor Foo says that millions of people have lost weight, a kazillion different meta-analyses of studies of this type of diet indicate that 92.567% of all participants in the randomized double-blind studies gained back all the weight they lost within 6 months.")

Fad diet disagreement

Where I am unclear is that some of the statements about the Zone Diet are not true. A 20-yr diet is not a fad. So the fact that it says so in a book does not make it true. What is the best way to replace untrue statements with true statements? I literally have 20 medical journals that support the statements being made, and the editors are removing them. There is nothing promotional here, as this is not a product. It is a diet that Dr. Sears created. Is there somebody I can speak with on the phone so I can get these edits (and others) made? Bkrudy18 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Bkrudy18

This is legitimate question and deserves an answer. While the Zone Diet has been categorized as a fad diet, it also has other categorizations. Its fine to note the "fad diet" category but more appropriate and neutral to use wording that suggests this is not the only way this diet is described in sources. The words I reverted to "considered a fad diet" which could also be, described as a fad diet, are not useless but rather neutral since they imply multiple descriptions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Your position on this does not accord with the reliable sources; the suorces Bkrudy has are not MEDRS sources either. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

My position is that there are multiple ways of describing this diet. Your preferred version implies there is only one, which is absurd. I am not discussing the research nor did I make reference to the research. The description of a diet does not require MEDRS sources even if sources supporting its efficacy do. Its seems somewhat high handed and disingenuous to cite one editor for edit warring but not others including yourself especially when I made a cmt here and attempted a compromise version which neither you nor Alex did. Ahh Wikipedia!(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Your position does not accord with mainstream nutritional and public health advice about eating. See Healthy diet. This diet like other fad diets is an effort to make money by exploiting people's fears about food and I have no idea why you are trying to help the people who want to abuse Wikipedia and violate our policies to promote it. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish Jytdog. I support Wikipedia's neutrality policy and knew nothing about that Zone diet until I came to this page. Your statement clearly indicates that you have a powerful and blatant POV which you are pushing. WebMD [1] is a good public service site. It does not describe the Zone diet as a fad diet and notes both positive and not so positive aspects of the diet. That's neutral and mainstream. You're telling statement above is not. Further, suggesting that my small edit, which informs the reader that there are multiple ways of seeing this diet, as, "you are trying to help the people who want to abuse Wikipedia and violate our policies to promote it." is an attack and is absurd, as well. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

I would like to make the change to the article indicating the mainstream is not limited to one description. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

If you mean this that is a WP:GEVAL violation, so that will not get consensus. I don't agree. Jytdog (talk)

No, this isn't a false balance situation. First, there are multiple sources that describe the diet with our using the word fad. All I'm suggesting is that this article not exclude the implied reference to that kind of material while including only one descriptor. This is a weight problem, and especially given your revealing statement above, I believe you should examine your point of view. Now I suppose I could do an RfC on this, but in the end we have a change which relies on a very few words and I don't see wasting time, mine or anyone else's for a few words. Again I suggest you look at your point of view. And by the way one editor does not determine what gets consensus and what doesn't. Saying something won't get consensus before consensus is asked for is an ownership problem and you might want to take a look at that too. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

You and I have different perspectives on policy. You and I agree that an RfC would be a waste of the community's time and I am surprised that a) you are treating this as though it is urgent; others will come and comment here; and b) you are skipping the many possible DR steps that we could use that are less dramatic if consensus doesn't gell in a few days. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog. Stop. "I don't see wasting time, mine or anyone else's for a few words." are my words on an RfC. It is battleground behaviour to create situations which do not exist and to falsely represent another editor and their words.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

I don't know what you are reacting to so negatively; we seem to agree that an RfC over this would be a waste of time. There is no war here and you are the one getting emotional; we are just having a simple content dispute. These things happen every day in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a fad diet, and we need to WP:ASSERT that. Of course not every source says so, because not all sources consider the fad aspect. It's other things too, and not every source calls it a "high-fat" diet (as we also assert). If every description of the diet had to be hedged around with "said to be" or "described as" the article would become a silly mess. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things. No one is getting emotional Jytdog unless you are. However, your comments are laced with accusations and misrepresentations which do not further good discussion. For example, you have accused me of "trying to help the people who want to abuse Wikipedia and violate our policies to promote it." and "of treating this as though it is urgent" while "skipping the many possible DR steps". I haven't skipped anything, have never suggested this is urgent, actually, to the contrary, and am not supporting anything or anyone. Further you templated an experienced editor who made one outright revert then went to a talk page, made some cmts, and attempted to add a compromised version. You and Alexbrn both reverted, did you warn Alex or yourself? Neither of you at the point of the reversion discussed anything. Problem is when an editor behaves this way, discussion is sidetracked in favour of personal attacks, and when personal attacks enter discussion, reasoned discussion breaks down.

And no, this isn't only a fad diet. Fad is a descriptor which describes the Zone Diet. Multiple mainstream sources do not use the descriptor, so we are obliged to note the description is not definitive and we can do that easily by saying, "has been described as...". No one is suggesting we use that phrase with every description of the diet, a strawman argument, but I am suggesting labeling needs to be seen as labeling, and not as definitive. We need to assert neutrally and deliberately leaving out the context for this diet is not neutral. Jytdog you have made your position very clear when you say, "This diet like other fad diets is an effort to make money by exploiting people's fears about food...", a personal opinion which seems to underpin your desire to use fad diet to the exclusion of a phrase that would give the reader context and understanding of how this diet is viewed. Your position looks a lot like one that comes out of a personal bias which again makes discussion, compromise, and resolution almost impossible.

You are both, given my experience with you treating this like a fringe topic. Its just a diet; one of many. Some work some don't. And yes, people make money selling diet books; they make money selling cars too, and working in hospitals healing the sick. Its assumptive to assume any of these people do what they do just for money, and somewhat short sighted to suggest some people can work for money while others cannot. The Zone diet from the reliable sources I have looked at actually has several positive aspects, so from a health vantage point can be useful. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

Diets like Zone and the rest that have names and elaborate descriptions of what to eat and not eat are by definition fad diets and are just geldmacherei. Mainstream advice about healthy eating is simple - eat mostly fruits and vegetables, eat mostly whole foods, avoid processed food and sugary/salty food and drinks, and don't eat too much (and they always add, get exercise every day) Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an opinion and has no place in writing this article. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

Nope, that is what the bulk of independent MEDRS sources say about food and health. That is the definition of following NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a specific article on one specific topic. It is not the place discuss your interpretations of sources on food and health, an area so immense as to be mind boggling. Jytdog we are discussing one very short phrase. I don't see any arguments that tell me we can ignore the context surrounding a term in favour of a definitive definition based on opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

You cannot indent or use {{od}}? yes, the specific content is about a fad diet; the context is healthy eating. The "fad diet" description is sourced. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have something new to bring to this discussion we have no reason not to include a phrase that qualifies fad diet. Context is the overall field of sources on fad diet some of which describe the Zone Diet as fad some of which do not. Yes, we have established long ago fad is sourced, so is the content that does not describe the diet as fad. By the way multiple sources indicate several aspects of the Zone Diet are healthy. You've run out of arguments and we need to move on. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

If we have consensus to not provide context no matter how biased the result is, I will abide by consensus.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC))

COI?

Hi BKrudy. Would you please finish the discussion about conflict of interest on your user page? Once we work through that I would be happy to teach you the basics of editing WP. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Medical Journal References

Hey @Alexbrn Alexbrn - Why are the latest secondary sources siting the most respectable medical journals in the country not being accepted for this page? The data is reliable and unbiased.

@bkrudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrudy18 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Those were primary sources. See WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 30 November 2016

The zone diet does not fit the commonly used and accepted definition of the word fad, nor does any word with such a negative connotation belong in a fact based article such as this. It is also not a low carb diet. 2/3 of your intake on the Zone 'Diet' is Carbs. That's a known, published and verifiable fact. The repeated and deliberate mis-information, mis-characterization of facts and citation of obsolete and out of date sources to justify the negative slant in this article is unwelcome and goes against the spirit and intent of this Wiki and misleads people who read this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneisman (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done We reflect good sources on Wikipedia. What you're saying is counter to what they say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes today

User:LaPort O1 The changes you are making include unsourced content and you have removed well sourced content. Please discuss the changes you would like to make. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Biochemistry&Love, about PMID 26816783 that you added in this diff, Translational andrology and urology is published by AME Publishing Company is a predatory publisher and we generally don't use them. Would you please self-revert? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Eep, good catch! Thanks for letting me know! Yes, I'll happily revert it. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 01:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)