Talk:Alkaline diet
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alkaline diet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Alkaline 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
Community Reassessment
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 • • 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)
- Delist. The article is incoherent: it mixes up a fad diet with legitimate research into body acidity. Needs a complete re-write (as discussed in Talk). The edit-warring is a symptom of this I think. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delist Agree needs significant work. Needs further organizations. The medical aspects section contains lots of non medical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delist Agree with my colleagues above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delist I'm in lockstep agreement with all the above. It's going to end up being a good article, but for now it's not something we want to highlight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delist due to content disputes concerning NPOV. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Retain G article status - This means any article that generates new editing should be delisted. If the article was stable when it was reviewed, then it was stable. There is no condition of a continuous state of stability to retain its status or we would be doing massive reevaluations of all G articles. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- And why not? Besides, if you would have a look at the talk page and edit history, you would see that it's not simply a case of "new editing", but rather an ongoing dispute regarding neutral POV, with accompanying edit-warring. I'm guessing that such problems are why WP:GAR exists in the first place. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS) The reassessment page says that you should use the process "when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria". The criteria linked does include 'stable'. This indicates to me that GA's should at the very least not have ongoing content disputes, even if the dispute happens after the review. While I agree that simple content changes should not generate a review (which would at the very least be highly impractical), edit warring and long term content disputes violate Criteria 5. If what you say is common practice, perhaps we should discuss updating Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-8. In any case, other users have raised other issues with retaining it as a GA. InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Delist.
- There are a few issues with this article that indicate it might not fulfill the GA Criteria 2B (reliable sources), :
- Ref 15 is dead and cannot be verified.
- External link to an anonymous blog.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- These were single studies. But, There is legitimate scientific research going on on this topic.
Recent changes by ip
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:
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
- ^ Vangsness, Stephanie (16 January 2013). "Alkaline Diets and Cancer: Fact or Fiction?". Intelihealth. Archived from the original on 27 March 2015.
- ^ "Alkaline Diets". WebMD. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
- ^ 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
World Health Organizaton is unreliable?
The following are reliable sources. But, All of my edits will be revert.
- joint FAO/WHO expert consultation (2002). "Chapter 11 Calcium". Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements. p. 80.
- joint FAO/WHO expert consultation (2004). "4.10.2 Protein". Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements Second edition. p. 80. ISBN 92-4-154612-3.
- joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation (2007). "Chapter 13 Protein intake and health". Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. p. 223-233. ISBN 92-4-120935-6.
- "Dietary, metabolic, physiologic, and disease-related aspects of acid-base balance: foreword to the contributions of the second International Acid-Base Symposium". J Nutr. 138 (2): 413S–414S. February 2008. doi:10.1093/jn/138.2.413S. PMID 18203912.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|authors=
ignored (help) - Vormann, Jürgen; Werner, Tanja (August 2020). "Foreword to the contributions of the 3rd International Acid-Base Symposium, Smolenice Castle, Slovakia, 2018". European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 74 (S1): 1–2. doi:10.1038/s41430-020-0682-8. eISSN 1476-5640. ISSN 0954-3007.
--Maffty (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sources not about the "alkaline diet" are not reliable for content about the alkaline diet. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Systematic reviews
The systematic review is also WP:MEDRS. The topic has been found to be associated with health problems.
- Systematic review of the association between dietary acid load, alkaline water and cancer (2016): "lack of evidence" from 1 study. But...
- Dietary acid load and the risk of cancer (2022) : "associated with an increased risk of cancer" 9 Studies
- Association of High Dietary Acid Load With the Risk of Cancer (2022) : "may be associated with a higher risk of cancer"
- Dietary Acid Load and Relationship with Albuminuria and Glomerular Filtration Rate in Individuals with Chronic Kidney Disease (2021): "contributing to a decreased renal function."
- Dietary acid load, kidney function (2021) : "association with risk of CKD" "increased DAL can decrease urine pH significantly"
- Dietary acid load and risk of hypertension: A systematic review(2019) : "association between dietary acid load and hypertension"
- Elevated hypertension risk associated with higher dietary acid load(2019) : "potential risk factor of hypertension"
- Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance (2020) : "cardiometabolic risk factors"
- The Associations of Dietary Acid Load with Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes (2019) : "some evidence of an association between dietary acid load and type 2 diabetes"
- Dietary acid load and risk of type 2 diabetes (2018) : "might increase the risk of type 2 diabetes"
--Maffty (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are any of these actually about "The Alkaline Diet" as defined by this article? Alexbrn (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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".
- Dietary acid load and the risk of cancer (2022) : "acidogenic diet is associated with an increased risk of cancer"
- Association of High Dietary Acid Load With the Risk of Cancer (2022) : This article used the word of "acidosis diet".
- --Maffty (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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".
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.
- Canadian Cancer Society (2012, This date written in Wikipedia)
- wrote: No evidence for weight loss, heart, cancer.(2012?).
- American Institute for Cancer Research, (2010, This date written in Wikipedia. But Updated on 2020)
- wrote: Similar to a diet that lowers cancer risk. But It needs to be modified. Lack of clinical trials. (2010? 2020?).
- Delisted good articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Physiology articles
- Mid-importance Physiology articles
- Physiology articles about renal physiology
- WikiProject Physiology articles
- B-Class Alternative medicine articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages