Jump to content

Talk:Alkaline diet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Maffty (talk | contribs)
114 edits
→Systematic reviews: The later emphasis is wrong. oldid=1099774432
Maffty (talk | contribs)
114 edits
→Systematic reviews: add explain
Line 157: Line 157:
I'm talking about original research. Neutral sources such as WebMD are misused as negative sources.
I'm talking about original research. Neutral sources such as WebMD are misused as negative sources.


* Stephanie Vangsness of Brigham and Women's Hospital. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150327162238/http://www.intelihealth.com/article/alkaline-diets-and-cancer-fact-or-fiction intelihealth] (2013)
* Stephanie Vangsness of Brigham and Women's Hospital, dietitian. [https://web.archive.org/web/20150327162238/http://www.intelihealth.com/article/alkaline-diets-and-cancer-fact-or-fiction intelihealth] (2013)
:wrote: She does not recommend this diet. (Because? The text continues) Animal studies only. In humans, ongoing on bone health. No studies on cancer at this time(2013).
:wrote: She does not recommend this diet. (Because? The text continues) Animal studies only. In humans, ongoing on bone health. No studies on cancer at this time(2013).
*Sonya Collins, Health Care Journalist. [https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/alkaline-diets WebMD], (2014, This date written in Wikipedia)
*Sonya Collins, Health Care Journalist. [https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/alkaline-diets WebMD], (2014, This date written in Wikipedia)

Revision as of 03:03, 23 July 2022

Former good articleAlkaline diet was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2014Good article nomineeListed
April 10, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kelsh2012.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Reassessment

Alkaline diet

DELIST
*Summary: Consensus exists to Delist this article.
  • Reason A strong consensus developed throughout the discussion to Delist this article. I have therefore returned it to its B-class rating. It is important to point out that this closure does not set any sort of precedent - it applies solely to this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Due to ongoing content disputes and edit warring for the last month, the article clearly fails GA criteria 5 and is not stable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues with this article that indicate it might not fulfill the GA Criteria 2B (reliable sources), :
  1. Ref 15 is dead and cannot be verified.
  2. External link to an anonymous blog.
  3. Ref #17 is to a charity that has a a 1-star rating from Charity Navigator and is not very highly-regarded (see Chicago Tribune, Charity Watch - which gives the American Institute for Cancer Research a grade of F - I am not sure that this organizations' publications should be regarded as reliable sources or that the group itself should be cited within the article's text as an expert-organization.
Fails GA Criteria 1A & 1B regarding prose & MOS guidelines.
  1. There is a POV-statement in the lead section that "Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals,[1][2] though several have noted that eating unprocessed foods as this diet recommends may have health benefits.[2][3] [<-bolding mine] Several? Which "several", how many "several"?...apparently 2. And is this statement supported within the main text? Sure doesn't seem so, Ref #3 is repeated but I fail to see this "several" that the lead mentions.
  2. There is a single section called "Adverse effects" which implies by omission that the rest of the article is about the good effects but reading through the rest of the article the claimed good effects are just that - unsupported assertions, seems to me the adverse effects section could almost be the entire article.
  3. Agree with the statement by Alexbrn about how the article mixes up fad diet claims in with legitimate research - the article needs to undergo a somewhat-ruthless re-write to deal with these issues.
The "Historical uses" section fails or, at least gives the appearance of failing 1A, 1B and 2B.
  1. It makes several vague statements about the usage of this diet in the past using words like "historically" and "years ago" but the word-choices are somewhat vague and the sourcing for these statements is also somewhat lacking - it is possible that the information is contained in Ref #20 & #21 back these statements up. If this is so, including refquotes from the sources that are within the paragraph would go a long way towards assuaging any doubts. Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronic kidney disease?

I am not good enough to correct this wiki but do want to mention: alkaline diets are indeed beneficial not only for people with chronic kidney disease but also for many of us including High-Performance Athletes: check out this paper

Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32722186/

Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2020 Jul 24;17(15):5332. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155332.

and these

Medical Nutritional Therapy for Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease not on Dialysis: The Low Protein Diet as a Medication. Cupisti A, Gallieni M, Avesani CM, D'Alessandro C, Carrero JJ, Piccoli GB. J Clin Med. 2020 Nov 12;9(11):3644. doi: 10.3390/jcm9113644. PMID: 33198365 Free PMC article. Review.

Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes. Baranauskas M, Jablonskienė V, Abaravičius JA, Samsonienė L, Stukas R. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 24;17(15):5332. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155332. PMID: 32722186 Free PMC article.

Plant-based diets to manage the risks and complications of chronic kidney disease. Carrero JJ, González-Ortiz A, Avesani CM, Bakker SJL, Bellizzi V, Chauveau P, Clase CM, Cupisti A, Espinosa-Cuevas A, Molina P, Moreau K, Piccoli GB, Post A, Sezer S, Fouque D. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020 Sep;16(9):525-542. doi: 10.1038/s41581-020-0297-2. Epub 2020 Jun 11. PMID: 32528189 Review.

Dietary Acid Load: A Novel Nutritional Target in Overweight/Obese Children with Asthma? Cunha P, Paciência I, Cavaleiro Rufo J, Castro Mendes F, Farraia M, Barros R, Silva D, Delgado L, Padrão P, Moreira A, Moreira P. Nutrients. 2019 Sep 19;11(9):2255. doi: 10.3390/nu11092255. PMID: 31546888 Free PMC article.

Dietary Care for ADPKD Patients: Current Status and Future Directions. Carriazo S, Perez-Gomez MV, Cordido A, García-González MA, Sanz AB, Ortiz A, Sanchez-Niño MD. Nutrients. 2019 Jul 12;11(7):1576. doi: 10.3390/nu11071576. PMID: 31336917 Free PMC article. Review.

Thank you to the good person, better than me, who takes up this challenge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.203.242 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources seem to be WP:MEDRS, except for ones which are not relevant to this article? Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These were single studies. But, There is legitimate scientific research going on on this topic.
  • Dietary Acid-Base Balance in High-Performance Athletes (2020) PMID 32722186.
  • Dietary Acid Load: A Novel Nutritional Target in Overweight/Obese Children with Asthma? (2019) PMID 31546888. --Maffty (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's stuff in MDPI journals. In any case, Wikipedia needs good sources before anything can happen. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by ip

[1]

Original lede:

Credible laboratories have done extensive research on this subject and have proven the theory to be false, not supporting the claimed mechanism of this diet. Due to conclusive evidence, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.

Changed to:

It has not been found to have any effect on cancer.[1][2]

Addition to "Proposed mechanism":

Acidic urine under the influence of acidity is considered to be the cause of urinary tract stone formation.[3]

Addition to "Historical uses"

Several clinical studies have been conducted on this hypothesis, and a textbook on clinical nutrition from the 2010s mentions an alkaline diet. It is a theory of urinary tract stone formation.[3]

References

  1. ^ Vangsness, Stephanie (16 January 2013). "Alkaline Diets and Cancer: Fact or Fiction?". Intelihealth. Archived from the original on 27 March 2015.
  2. ^ "Alkaline Diets". WebMD. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
  3. ^ a b L. Kathleen Mahan; et al. (2016). Krause's Food & the Nutrition Care Process (14th ed.). Saunders. p. 703-706. ISBN 978-0323340755. or, 13th edition, pp803-806

Looks like the typical problems we get with this article. I'm assuming that the lede had previously met all content policies in this heavily reviewed article. The other additions seem inappropriate for the sections they were added to and could use more context. Adding similar content into two different locations in the article seems undue without better context. --Hipal (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of NPOV has been raised: #Community Reassessment. Krause's book is a textbook for dietitians. The textbook cites many articles. The textbook is WP:MEDRS. In contrast. The two sources (intelihealth, WebMD) are opinions. --Maffty (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast" to what? WebMD and Intelihealth are fine for providing sane context in WP:FRINGE topics such as this. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast WebMD is fringe. WebMD is one opinion, not the textbook. This is a violation of WP:PARITY.
It was also an original research. WebMD is positive or neutral, not negative source. As of 2013, there is not enough research. These references say so. "Credible laboratories have done extensive research" is wrong. Details here #OR. --Maffty (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Health Organizaton is unreliable?

The following are reliable sources. But, All of my edits will be revert.

--Maffty (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not about the "alkaline diet" are not reliable for content about the alkaline diet. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic already included these: "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease", "Influence of diet on acid-base balance"
Please read the Krause's Food & the Nutrition Care Process. These are alkaline diet. --Maffty (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is another irrelevant source. Just because the words "alkaline" and "diet" appear in a source, does not mean it's about the specific nonsense that is THE alkaline diet as described in this article. This diet here is not a topic within legitimate science. Are you a native English speaker? Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are all negative sources only included in this article? So do we separate legitimate scientific articles? The following references are legitimate science and therefore not appropriate for this article. "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease" Please explain the separation criteria. --Maffty (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both will be written in the milk article: A clinical trial that milk is not good. Opinions that milk is poison. --Maffty (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a health scam. Legitimate science goes elsewhere. The fact these two things got mixed up was the reason why this article was de-listed from GA. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic reviews

The systematic review is also WP:MEDRS. The topic has been found to be associated with health problems.

--Maffty (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these actually about "The Alkaline Diet" as defined by this article? Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, these studies often use the term like "acidic diet". It may also refer to "acid/alkaline foods" or "alkaline diet" or "acidic foods".
--Maffty (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's called WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. It is well-known many high-acid foods are generally unhealthy. That has nothing to do with the quack claims of the Alkaline Diet, except by your editorial leap. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is original research. If you read over most of these papers they are using the Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL) score. I am surprised we don't have a Wikipedia article on this, but there is some mention of it on the bone health article, an article which is actually in poor shape and cites many out-dated sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks and research papers often use the term "acid/alkaline diet/food. Because it is the same topic. PRAL should follow the History section. PRAL allows estimation of urine pH. Then there was an increase in research leading to systematic reviews.

And, You focus on sources that are outdated, have no citations in the medical paper, and look like blog posts. These articles refer to the availability of study. Because it is the same topic. However, the following is not a systematic review. It will be poorly researched, out-dated.

I'm talking about original research. Neutral sources such as WebMD are misused as negative sources.

  • Stephanie Vangsness of Brigham and Women's Hospital, dietitian. intelihealth (2013)
wrote: She does not recommend this diet. (Because? The text continues) Animal studies only. In humans, ongoing on bone health. No studies on cancer at this time(2013).
  • Sonya Collins, Health Care Journalist. WebMD, (2014, This date written in Wikipedia)
wrote: She is not opposed to this diet. There are early studies of kidney, bone, muscle, heart, etc. Researchers aren't sure about all of them.
  • Gabe Mirkin, MD, Mainly allergy and immunology. quackwatch (2009)
wrote: No clear pros or cons. Scientists believe that excess protein weakens bone health.
wrote: No evidence for weight loss, heart, cancer.(2012?).
wrote: Similar to a diet that lowers cancer risk. But It needs to be modified. Lack of clinical trials. (2010? 2020?).

--Maffty (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alkaline_diet&oldid=1099884950"