Talk:Fad diet/Archive 1

"The Hollywood Tapeworm Diet"
Here is a fad diet / urban legend. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

misleading sentence
The sentence "The evidence supporting weight loss enhanced by anything other than caloric restriction is lacking" gives a single source, but I find this to be somewhat misleading because it's not clear what "caloric restriction" is. Weight gain or loss is not a function not just of caloric intake, but calorie absorption and calorie burning. Very active people can consume thousands of calories a day without gaining weight, and very inactive people can gain weight on less than average caloric intakes. Furthermore, the absorption of calories varies hugely based on a variety of factors. Also, this statement ignores psychological factors in dieting; from a practical standpoint, few people other than anorexics and perhaps a few athletes actually effectively restrict caloric intake outside a laboratory setting, they "slip up" from time to time, which is often a function of cravings, which is a function of what they are eating. I think this is one of the problems with fad diets, and this sentence is a bit misleading? For example, people who are restricting their fat intake may give in to various cravings and then end up eating too much, and thus, eating more fat could reduce the cravings (and result in weight loss). Cazort (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the source is called "Pandemic obesity and the contagion of nutritional nonsense", but if that article asserts that there is any evidence caloric restriction leads to sustainable weight loss, then D. L. Katz (whoever s/he is) is just as guilty of "nutritional nonsense" as anyone else. Caloric-restriction diets are also fad diets, just as untested, just as dangerous, just as ineffective as any other diet. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These assertions would require reliable sources, per WP:RS. Have you all any to bring to the discussion? Our opinions have no weight in terms of assertions made in articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof goes the other way. There are no sources indicating that caloric restriction leads to sustainable weight loss, so the claim should be removed from the article, since it can't be supported. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, thanks for adding a link to the abstract. Reading it more carefully, I now realize that "evidence that weight loss is enhanced by means other than caloric restriction is lacking" doesn't actually mean that there is evidence that weight loss is enhanced by caloric restriction either (although the casual reader could be misled into inferring that). His only positive assertion is "long-term weight loss is most consistently achieved by adherence to a fat-restricted diet abundant in grains, vegetables, and fruit", which says nothing about calorie restriction. 85.178.76.98 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm going to try to recast this to avoid copyvio issues, but we should really try to find some 2ndary sources. I'll also see if I can get access to the full article--if it is an overview of a number of studies, it may be a 2ndary source and not a primary. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanations used as evidence of validity of explanations?
I am unable to parse this phrase:"observations that prompt explanations are used as evidence of the validity of the explanation"Please rewrite it with better English syntax so it is understandable.

  Solo Owl   23:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)
 * That's some unfortunate writing.
 * I saw Gerald Ford trip while chewing gum. Theory: Chewing gum makes you trip. Faulty evidence: I saw Gerald Ford trip while chewing gum.
 * I saw Gerald Ford trip while wearing a red tie. Theory: Wearing a red tie makes you trip.
 * I saw Gerald Ford trip while chewing gum. Theory: Chewing gum makes you trip. Evidence: 500 men were randomly assigned to chew or not chew gum and were observed walking for one hour. Those chewing gum were observed tripping 25% more often than those who were not chewing. Red ties were not connected with more frequent tripping.
 * How about something along the lines of "theories are supported by the observations that lead to the theory"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not really that much better. I understand both, but I still agree that it's not very clear English ...in either case.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you word it? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'm not terribly eloquent myself, to be honest. "Use of observations to validate claims, where the observation itself is in need of explanation."? ... I'm not too happy with that either, though I do think it's better than the current sentence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://weightloss.about.com/cs/diets/a/aa011501a.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet
Removed the paleolithic diet link because the citation attached is literally a joke. Not a good source. 67.246.176.132 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * However there are dozens of refs that refer to it as a fad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

can someone explain why the paleolithic diet is on this page but veganism is not? is it just a matter of sheer number of followers? I really don't understand what this page is trying to be. Fennfoot (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not include diets based on them being restrictive, unhealthy, unnatural, of recent origin, briefly popular, etc. We include examples that reliable sources directly call "fad diets". The NHS calls the paleolithic diet a fad diet. We do not currently have a reliable source saying this about veganism. If you can find one... - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a "fad diet" to be a "fad", as is explained in the article.
 * The reason veganism isn't a fad diet, is because its purpose is not to be more healthy, or to reduce weight nor is it based on pseudo-scientific arguments ...and its healthiness, safety and effect on weight has been studied, and it has shown not to be unhealthy, unsafe or to have any particular effect on weight.
 * Thus it does not have any of the requirements or common features of fad diets, as described in this article. Thus it cannot really be said to be a fad diet (this is not to say that it is good, rational or sensible, just that it doesn't qualify as a fad diet)
 * ...and, of course, any diet added to the list, must be referred to as a fad diet, by a Reliable Source, as you say.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-title
I propose that this article be renamed Fad diet since that is what its content is mostly about, and is the term the sources mostly use ("food faddism" hardly at all). Alexbrn talk 08:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pulled South Beach, does not seem at all supported by references....
....at least one of which has to be a joke. A wine review?

Cohen, Larry et al. Prevention Institute, San Jose State University. "The O Word: Why the Focus on Obesity is Harmful to Community Health". Accessed 3 February 2014
 * South Beach Diet <

Anmccaff (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup, not a great source. I've replaced this with a strong source. Alexbrn talk 06:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where? The handout-out sheet, complete with hokey clip art?  The Social-"scientist"-cum-"community organizer"?  ...oh, wait, (or is that "oh, weight?") that albatross is hung around another neck now, isn't it?  Or the fruit-flakes-and nuts from Nature?  Or the one reference cherry-picked out of 20-odd?   None of these strike me as compelling sources, especially against, say, WebMD or Mayo.  NPOV failure here; look how badly a few of the diets fit in with the others. Anmccaff (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All these named diets are of a piece - they are marketing gimmicks. As much as you say here on Talk that you believe otherwise, you have not brought sources to back that up. 04:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That, Jytdog, would be either a lie, or sign of rather poor memory. As I've explicitly pointed out, WebMD explicitly endorses South Beach "Does It Work?"  "Yes. It's a healthy approach to eating that can help you shed pounds." [] and the Mayo Clinic has given it a qualified endorsement[], and itself adopted the most controversial aspect of it, the early carbohydrate restriction [][]. Anmccaff (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Scarsdale
here is a pubmed search for this diet. 4 primary sources, no reviews. This is how it is, with FRINGE approaches to health. So WP:PARITY applies here, and WP:MEDDATE is relaxed. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ...Four cites, none of which use the term fad diet, and two of which address congenital disorders. One shows that weight loss is equal to behavior modification at one year.  Hardly even convincing that this is a generally bad diet, is it? Anmccaff (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right? Lack of coverage in the standard biomedical literature is one sign of the FRINGEness of things.  Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's because reputable researchers generally don't focus on commercialized names, especially in the title, unless they are peculiarly relevant. Take a look, say, at [].  That could be any of several high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets; but it makes the case for all of them that claims of greater satiety are justified, and fears of widescale complications are not. Anmccaff (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"food fad" vs "fad diet"
"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. Thus, while called food fads, they are not always actual fads (which are defined by sharp but brief spikes in popularity).

I removed this section, because it seems totally wrong - that's a usage you will see for "fad diet," but I think a dying one, but not a known usage for "food fad." Is there any reason to keep this? Anmccaff (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Diabetes.org article stating it was "unreliable"
Hi, I have a keen interest in dieting along with both advantages / disadvantages. However, I referenced the below article that was deemed as "unreliable". This is following studies carried out on people who had used low calorie or "fad diets" in a bit to combat Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes UK are carrying out research into this and the study concludes in October 2018. This is stated on the website. How is this unreliable please?

Two small studies carried out in 2011 and 2016 respectively showed that Type 2 diabetes could be kept in remission 6 months after a low-calorie diet was completed. It also suggested that the diet was effective in people that had had Type 2 diabetes for up to 10 years. Diabetes UK are carrying out research into the longer term effects of such diets. The study concludes in October 2018.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:5605:900:15e:e5c8:a394:1d27 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Small studies are not reliable for stating (or implying) health effects. We need secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Short-term nature of fad diets
Here's the start of the article:

"A fad diet or diet cult is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices."

I think we aren't representing mainstream POVs fairly here. Here's a sample of typical sources:


 * "Fad diets, as their name implies, are short-term quick fixes that actually set many dieters up for weight-loss failure."
 * "A fad diet is the kind of plan where you eat a very restrictive diet with few foods or an unusual combination of foods for a short period of time and often lose weight very quickly." (also currently ref #1 in the lead)
 * "A fad diet is a diet that promises quick weight loss through what is usually an unhealthy and unbalanced diet. Fad diets are targeted at people who want to lose weight quickly without exercise."
 * "Diets which become fashionable, but which are not necessarily nutritious."

The definitions at https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fad+diet also seem pretty typical. The overall theme seems to be "temporary fix for a life-long problem" rather than what science does or doesn't say. There's nothing in the lead that indicates a short-term focus for fad diets, and given that it is a major (often the major) focus in definitions given by reputable dieticians associations and other sources, I think that factor ought to be included. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Things like "nutritous" and "unhealthy" and "weight-loss failure" (or not) are science; this is especially important since so many of the shillers of these diets try to say that they are science-y. UPMC is not a MEDRS source; we definitely do not want to reach for university web sites for this stuff as so many fad diets come from individual doctors who have sites at universities.  Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that these either work or they don't, but I think that's Dieting in general rather than Fad diet (aka Crash diet) specifically.
 * Thanks for reminding me that you're opposed to university websites; I've removed the LSU center from the lead. That source didn't actually support that "fad diets are any diet with bad science" definition either, since their "definition" is "Fad diets can lead to quick weight loss. Fad diets can also lead to quick weight re-gain.  Fad diets are really low calorie diets.", so it failed verification.
 * I think that the important point here is that a fad diet is only one of the multiple classes of bad-for-you diets. The definition given is IMO too broad.  Even veganism "promises weight loss" (see PETA's claims) without scientific proof that the weight will be lost, much less that it will stay off after you switch to a different dietary pattern, and it is "characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices", but I don't think that anyone would call it a fad diet.  I think we need to explain how fad diets are different from other kinds of diets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

More definitions:


 * "often promise dramatic weight loss despite being largely untested"
 * "Get-thin-quick" diets that promise substantial weight loss in a relatively short period of time. Many fad diets are starvation or semistarvation diets, requiring 600–800 calories per day or fewer.  Fad diets usually stress one food or food type to the exclusion of others and require drastic changes in the dieter's eating patterns."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is the last sentence of that last definition that pulls a lot of these money-making schemes into the definition. I do hear you that many of these (but not all) emphasize fast weight loss but that is not all of them. The exclusion/drastic change, and "fashionable, but which are not necessarily nutritious" are the key things. fads are things that become fashionable, hot, whatever, for a while, generally through heavy marketing by celebrity doctors or people who describe themselves as nutrition experts.  Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Celebrity Diet (which is more like diets promoted by actresses than by a celebrity doctor) redirects to Grapefruit diet, and it should probably redirect here.
 * I'm currently thinking that the key definitional points are probably these:
 * temporary/quick-fix: For example, that book says that the grapefruit diet was supposed to be followed for three weeks.  Anything that says "Lose 5 pounds in 5 days" falls into this category, as would detox diets.
 * fashionable/faddish (and with fashionably fickle followings): For example, liquid diets were popular in the 1930s, then the 1970s, and again in the 1990s.  They're promoted by celebrities or popular magazines.
 * weird "tricks": Eat only this, never eat that, only eat while hang-gliding, or whatever.  The drastic change, as you put it.  I suppose that a rigid list might help some dieters ("eat only the food we mailed to you" requires far less thought than "please eat a balanced diet, with lots of low-calorie vegetables, little or no refined carbohydrates, little or no alcohol, and everything else in small portions"), but the "trick" is characteristic of a fad diet.
 * Does that sound about right?
 * Fun fact: a quarter to a third of normal-weight American women are on a weight-loss diet at any given point in time.  Ten pounds or less seems to be a frequent goal, so the "five pounds in five days" diets probably have a sizeable audience, even outside the "I've got to fit into that skinny outfit this weekend" group.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * there should be another bullet about promising weight loss or other health benefits. And another, that there is almost a money-making thing (books, branded products, etc) and generally a "celebrity doctor person" behind it.  So five bullets. And of those five, the "quick fix" is only sometimes. The atkins diet is meant to be long term, and it and others talk about a whole "lifestyle" around it.
 * Marion Nestle is pretty moderate person; not a flamethrower. About the closest she gets is the pp 295-296 passage where she talks about low carb "craze" that was "fashionable", pokes gently at the chubby businessman and tells us what she didn't tell him.  Translating and summarizing: "fad diets that make you get all fussy about your food are silly, don't help you lose weight or be more healthy, and are bad science.  What a shame you are ruining one of life's simple pleasures". Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got no complaints with Nestle's book overall; my complaint is that the book does not provide a definition of "fad diet". An anecdote about some guy eating a buttered steak isn't the same thing as saying "A fad diet [as opposed to a poor diet, an eating disorder, or any number of other things] is a highly restricted diet with a whole bunch of fake science stacked around it".  It failed verification in the context of the specific sentence, and the quotation you supplied does not indicate that Nestle assigns this particular definition to this concept.  Not being suitable for supporting this single sentence doesn't mean that the book is unreliable in general.  It just means that this source does not meet the requirement to "clearly support" (i.e., without violating NOR) the sentence in question.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Low carb diet
Low Carb diet - I've really got to disagree with it being on this page. First it goes back about 150 years to Bantings "Letter on Corpulence." It's also been scientifically studied. This web article references at least 23 studies that have studied it. I don't want to take it out without discussion and I'd need someone with much better editing skills than I to do the edit.

-- RonLawHouston (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are lots of trashy sites like that on the internet. They are not relevant in Wikipedia.  What matters is what sources that are considered to "reliable " ( a technical term here in Wikipedia) say.  See WP:MEDRS for what kinds of sources are reliable for content about health. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Well, first, I disagree that the particular reference is "trashy" since most of the editors and authors are credentialed dieticians. However, what you need to do is (maybe) read it first? Then you will find 23 links to randomized controlled, peer reviewed studies in major scientific journals. Please review and then let me know what you think. RonLawHouston (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid reading links to sources that are not considered reliable in WP - way too many people show up here to spam WP. I checked this one out and it is not bad. Still not a reliable source in WP. and btw, "number of studies" is irrelvant.  There are over 20,000 papers in pubmed on acupuncture which is traditional medicine at best and pseudoscience at worst.  Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New England Journal of Medicine is not a reliable source? The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism is not a reliable source? I'm sorry but those are quite reliable sources. I submit it's not a fad diet. I present evidence. We either need to edit the page to show that there are at least 23 highly reliable sources that have studied it or delete the low carb diet as a "fad diet." I certainly didn't come on here to start an edit war, but calling it a fad diet is both unhistorical and simply untrue. RonLawHouston (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)73.77.66.42 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not everything in NEJM is considered a reliable source in WP for content about health. If you are interested in learning how this place actually works I will be glad to help you, but I am uninterested in arguing or listening to your assertions about what is reliable in Wikipedia and what isn't.  (some things are very non-intuitive here when people first encounter them;  they make sense once you understand their bases.  "Not immediately intuitive" is a different thing from "making no sense".)  Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily trying to start an argument. I do very little editing because I see so few things on Wikipedia that I feel are blatantly wrong. In a sense this page is filled with opinion rather than fact because what it considered a "fad" varies by the individual. However, if we are going to define fad as something that is done "without backing by sound science" then we need to delete not just the "low carb diet" but also the Ornish plan. Both have been studied extensively by very sound science. One standard for science to be accepted in a court of law is publishing in a peer reviewed journal. So, when you start trying to define what are good and not so good sources you're making a highly subjective evaluation and not one that I'd say would be accepted by most folks. Established, peer reviewed journals are, at least in my mind, and in courts of law very valid sources. I think the article is wrong. However, I don't want to edit it. What I want to do is leave this discussion on the talk page and let other people decide. If someone with Wikipedia cred wants to edit it, I encourage them to. In my mind the article is illogical and simply wrong.RonLawHouston (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS and maybe then WP:WHYMEDRS if it still isn't clear why we don't use primary sources for health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing low carb diet listed as a fad is quite odd to me given that my endocrinologist required me to perform it in combination with an antidiabetic medicine. This was in response to blood test which indicated my insulin resistance was too high. After following the diet and the medication for 5 months, not only a blood test showed my insulin resistance within acceptable limits, but i lost weight from 120kg to 85, a weight loss I couldn't dream of by any other means I tried before. Note that this diet requirement was also a general life recommendation and not done just because of the medicine. It was applicable to everyone too. I later did a test where I didn't use the medicine but continued the diet and observed similar weight loss. This is of course an anecdote but given that a real doctor used this as treatment makes me believe high fat low carb diet exists as a legitimate thing in medical literature or at least there are reputable people in academia who hold such a position. 92.154.36.123 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Being a fad diet and being a medically recommended diet aren't mutually exclusive. A diet could be a temporary fad for most people that try it and still have some specific legitimate medical uses for others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.196.194 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove the list
Should we remove Fad diet entirely? It is a regular source of disputes, and it will never be complete. (My favorite diet plan is fine, if it's not on that list, right?) I'm currently thinking that it would be better to focus this article on the characteristics of fad diets, and to name notable examples in prose when a source calls them out as a good example of a particular quality. Much of what's here seems to be the result of someone deciding that they didn't like a diet, searching for  in their favorite web search engine, and adding it to the list, which isn't a process that usually leads to high-quality results.

What do you think? Does the reader really need a laundry list of diets that someone has called a fad? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Fad
I think there are two related but distinct concepts here. One is food faddism in general, such as increasing and decreasing popularity of veganism and vegetarianism and fruitarianism and whatnot, which is probably not that interesting a discussion, being basically the same as non-food faddism in general. The other is fad diet, which deserves its own entry. --Delirium 09:15, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * If you can write more on fad diets and/or faddism or make it better, please feel free to do so. Peace Profound. Optim 10:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at the listing of vegetarianism as a "fad." While it is indisputable that many people dabble with such diets (as with any other kind of diet), vegetarianism has existed as a phenomenon in the west for all recorded history.  As a lifetime diet, it has been practiced by millions of Hindus and Jains (for Jains, in a much stricter, mostly fruitarian form), for thousands of years, not to mention age-old ascetic practices of Christians and Buddhists.  NTK 17:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Fad really means a short-lived craze, which certainly does not apply to vegetarianism, nor to low carbohydrate diets (such as Atkins) which have been around for longer than low-fat diets. Nowadays, 'fad' often just gets used as a term of abuse for any diet that the writer disagrees with. --Enlad 15:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this entire article is valuable. Food faddism should explore interesting food fads like grapefruit diet or canned bean diet or something interesting and ridiculous.  That's what I was looking for...Atkins? perhaps a fad...however misguided I think it is, it's been around for awhile...Breatharianism? that's not even a diet!  The ANTI-diet diet!  Veganism and vegetarianism are definitely NOT fads...c'mon let's see some talk about baby harp seal diet or something!
 * There are two different things going on here and I added a brief note to that effect. A fad diet relates to nutritional practices that are unhealthy, unscientific, or at least not fully supported.  A food fad is a style of food preparation, ingredients, or dishes, like squash ravioli, watermelon salad, home juicers, and so on, and does not have to be about dieting at all.  The commonality is that they are both fads, things that achieve a sudden popularity that cannot be attributed to a substantive change in culture or knowledge.  A fad may develop around a real, longstanding, or valuable thing.  There is a current fad over artisan olive oils, for instance, and artisan olive oils have been made for thousands of years.  Outside of food there was a "running craze" that was a complete fad, even though running is of course a very real sport and exercise.  Whatever your belief about their validity (and Wikipedia is not the place to argue over such things), things like the Atkins Diet enjoyed a big faddish swell.  Most fads go the way of the hoola hoop or pet rock, they disappear into obscurity or a lingering low level just as quickly as they came.  Others like microbreweries, organic food, retail farmer's markets, and the blender, are here to stay.  The fact that it's a real valuable thing, and ends up with staying power, does not negate that it was initially a fad.  If anyone wants to spend the effort I propose we divide this into two articles, one for the form of food abuse and the other for the fashion trends among foodies. Wikidemo 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "The Atkins diet is classified as a low-carbohydrate fad diet." is not supported by the source. " The diet was relatively popular as a fad diet, but “low-carb” would not become a buzz word for several decades." First, the source refers to the original Atkins diet as a Fad but implies things changed: "The diet was relatively popular as a fad diet, but “low-carb” would not become a buzz word for several decades." Second, the source refers to the diet as a fad originally, it does not offer "classifications" of diet, which the comment implies. The Atkins diet, has been around, and popular, for over 40 years, that really stretches the definition of "fad."CarbShark (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

More harm than good
This is my first edit on Wikipedia. I believe Fad diet entry might make more harm than good. There is something pejorative behind words "fad diet" even when the given diet provides health benefits and exists longterm. Even the Bible mentions fasting, there are lots of cultures worldwide following low-carb (Mongolia, Inuits, etc.) or plant-based low fat (Okinawa) diets. These cultures have a history of longevity and protection against civilization diseases.

Almost any diet except traditional food pyramid & calories-in calories-out is named as a fad diet. However traditionally recommended diet has very low effect in protection against obesity, civilization diseases (like diabetes type II) and are chronically hard to stick with longterm (low chances of not regaining the weight back on traditional calories in calories out approach are well described). From this perspective, the approach recommended by the majority of nutritionists & doctors is a fad diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.238.57 (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See Healthy diet for (what might be called) the "opposite" of a fad diet. Sourcing for these concepts is solid, and we follow that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fad therapies
A somewhat related concept: fad therapies. Here is a nice review on children, where we learn that it is estimated that 21% of the children in USA who receive medical care also use alternative therapies! --Signimu (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support creation of this category and identifying (what RS calls) fad therapies as such. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice But: 1. I won't do it as honestly I don't know how to do maintenance things :-(, 2. is one RS enough for creating a category and start labeling entries? Wouldn't it be better/safer to first add the source and pertaining info in the related entries (the fad therapies the source reviews) and see how it goes? I honestly don't know, you have more experience :-) --Signimu (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting fad diet according to academic definitions?
I would like to propose to attempt to rewrite the article according to the latest academic definitions. Indeed, it appears the fad diet's vague definition has raised much arguments in the past (see here for a somewhat long but interesting discussion) and will probably continue in the future. For example, I think ZarlanTheGreen's summarized it well: «A fad diet is not necessarily a fad, although they usually are». I think the two main points of contention usually arise from fad diets qualifying both the short-term popularity of a diet, and its potential dangerousness, although it's not always the case. The fact that popular definitions are covering these two points in both a AND and OR fashion (either or both aspects can be present), and that they can even not be present at all (neither are true, yet it still qualified as a fad diet) is important but adds a lot of vagueness to any attempt at a comprehensive definition. I would therefore like to propose to start from two academic works of the British Dietetic Association, who worked on this precise topic and question to try to provide more a precise definition. Also I suggest to add "novelty diet" as an alias based on. --Signimu (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * See also the interesting discussion on the MED project :-) --Signimu (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would love to see more academic definitions. A handful of high-quality review articles, from unrelated authors, that say "A fad diet is correctly defined as _____ – and it definitely excludes things fitting these conditions: _____, and these definitions are the correct and authoritative ones.  No matter how much some authors love to slap the 'fad diet' label on anything meal plan they dislike or misunderstand, if it doesn't meet these exact conditions, then really it's not a fad diet and should be called this other thing instead" would be extremely helpful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback Yes I will now try to revamp a bit this entry with more formal definitions, but however this will likely not change the labelling of "fad diets" as this is quite a blurry concept that is more "practically" defined than it is formally, as the Hart 2018 ref above notes. In other words, if a reliable source calls a diet "fad", then it has to be stated in the wikipedia entry, whether it's wrong or correct... But I hope the revamping will at least allow to give a more accurate definition of fad diet, as some diets (such as the ketogenic diet) are clearly not just pseudoscience but have established therapeutic usage, although they can also be "fad" in the sense that they are popular for a time  --Signimu (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, here is a sneak peak of my attempt at rewriting. For the moment only the lede and half of definition is done, I plan to rewrite the rest later and more specifically the history part since I've found nice refs All feedbacks are welcome! --Signimu (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I nailed the most common definition, in 3 primary points: a fad diet is:
 * Popular for a time.
 * Not a standard dietary recommendation.
 * Popularity has no association with the diet's efficacy, nutritional soundness or safety.
 * With these 3 points, I think we are covering nearly all cases where a diet was labelled as a fad, and the third point makes it clear that recommendations (notably health related) are separate from the popularity of a diet (hence the BDA's fad diet recommendations and why some diets are good or bad -- note that the BDA and most academic sources differenciate "bad diets" from "fad diets"). --Signimu (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a tricky question: why are some commercial diets, like Weight Watchers, ringing several red flags, not categorized as a fad diet, whereas Atkins and others are, while they have similar a scientific evidence base and weight loss results? On Weight Watchers, the MEDRS sources occupy only a tiny fraction of the long entry! I hope my attempt at rewriting will be a more accurate and comprehensive representation of fad diets, but clearly there are inconsistencies about the writing of some diets entries on WP. And I remind that I am not for lowering quality but rather raising the bar --Signimu (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Atkins is a quintessential fad diet. Is Weight Watchers? AIUI that's quite a lifestyle/group thing and is prescribed by reputable health orgs. So it's maybe a bit different - what do the sources say? Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weight Watchers has had at least two different diets, so we'd first have to say "which one?" before we could determine anything efficacy, nutritional soundness, or safety. It probably would qualify as "a standard dietary recommendation", in the sense that mainstream healthcare professionals recommend it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing is correct but anyway I don't care much about what is labelled as a fad or not since it's so much of a blurry concept. There are several sources that label WW as a fad diet, even now, but I think that's an outdated conception (like for the mediterranean diet, and probably other "fad diet" that are making the switch such as IF), and I've found a RS to adequately describe that. Now, the issue with WW is that the current article seems to escape from MEDRS because the entry is focused almost solely on the parent company's description, so it looks more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry (at least for the diet part). Since WW is at its core a diet, it's making health claims, so it should follow MEDRS IMO. I have made a draft of my proposition, the idea would be to WP:SPLIT to have one entry about the company (the current one, it's fine), and a new one about the diet, which would be under the WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Food and Drink, like any other diet. Let me know what you guys think about it: . --Signimu (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: let me clarify 2 things: 1. I thought like Alexbrn that WW was more regulated, but following his comment I've looked into the literature: no Cochrane Review, no FDA approval, no NICE approval despite a set of criteria for such comprehensive dietary plans, and very limited scientific evidence, on par with fad diets. BTW, the latest serious systematic reviews find that in fact WW does not perform any better than most other diets (as long as it's under a professional supervision), and even a bit less than the Atkins, see for example: and US2013 dietary guidelines by the AHA but it's under a no-brand name (low-fat vs low-carb). Let me precise that I have no exposure to Atkins apart from reading the name when I did this review of the literature, and I don't want to dig into that, already the WW is a side-work I didn't plan  --Signimu (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, is there a reason why Fad diet is not in the WikiProject Medicine? --Signimu (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And sorry if this lacks a bit of my usual smileys, I'm just a bit tired after so much reading and summarizing/writing --Signimu (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Made an article for Weight Watchers (diet) and proceeded to WP:SPLIT, let's see if this gets some feedback. I'll finish the Fad diet rewriting soon, and I suggest the new version to be added to the WikiProject Medicine --Signimu (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft for Fad diet finished, here: (please feel free to edit!). That was a lot more work than I intended, but I'm satisfied with the result, and I hope everyone will I'll now make a call for some kind of review or RfC to ensure it's good to go before moving  --Signimu (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the list
Fad diet gives a categorization scheme, which I've attempted to use to organize the long list of diets. Please boldly change the classification of any item that you think I've got wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I'm still working on a draft, it's almost complete apart from the History section (I have the refs, just need to do it ), would the categorization scheme I made based on the new sources look more adequate to you? Else would you suggest we merge our works? --Signimu (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's merge them after you're done. It's easy enough to rearrange the list later.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll take care of that, thank you --Signimu (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have integrated half of your changes, but about the reordering of the List of fad diets, I'm not convinced, because the categories are a bit arbitrary. Also, several diets fall between multiple categories (as can be seen when comparing multiple studies classifications), so I think it's hazardous to try to make such a classification. I suggest we stay with the unordered, non-classified list, let's not make this too difficult on ourselves --Signimu (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was one of the problems I ran into. An unordered list is hard on readers, but things don't always line up neatly.  I also wondered about converting it to a table, so we could provide other information.  It might say something like  "Cabbage soup diet – 1970s – focuses on one food" (name of diet, when it was popular, which qualities make it a fad diet).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello I have finished my draft, I have implemented your changes until we decide what to do. I would suggest to either:
 * reorder according to the BDA definition in Hart, Katherine (2018). "4.6 Fad diets and fasting for weight loss in obesity.". In Hankey, Catherine (ed.). Advanced nutrition and dietetics in obesity. Wiley. pp. 177–182.
 * do not use any order, as before (so that we don't risk placing diets in wrong categories, and there are diets that are in fact crossing multiple categories)
 * delete the list altogether.
 * Let me explain the last point: K.Hart (and other authors) themselves write that making a list of fad diets is a useless task, as the definition is ever changing and also subjective. And indeed that's what we see here: the list of fad diets we have is simply a game of finding a source writing "fad diet" (in title or anywhere) + the diet name somewhere, and not necessarily close or in obvious relation to "fad diet". A notable example is the Dukan diet, which is a commercial diet, not necessarily a fad. If the Dukan diet is dubbed a fad because of this source, I have others (and stronger per MEDRS) qualifying nearly all diets as fads, notably Weight Watchers, which is not in the list (sources can be found in my draft). So this raises doubts about whether this list is a good fit for WP. I would much rather see the qualification "fad diet" on entries pages, rather than a list here. But I'm not going to try to delete it, I'll leave that to someone else, I've done enough work and this is a minor point to me
 * So WhatamIdoing, depending on your feedback, we can rework the list (independently of my draft, I mostly did not touch the list), and if necessary we can ask other editors if we have doubts about what would be the best --Signimu (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Look, there is even one currently used source that lists the DASH diet (a medically designed diet recommended by US dietary guidelines) and the Gluten-free in the fad diets! It shows it's always possible to find a source that will call any diet a fad, the concept is just so blurry. --Signimu (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Another option to consider, from an external editor, who proposed we split the list into its own page, that may facilitate its maintenance and reduce the size of the entry --Signimu (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clinical lore
For reference, here are a few claims I tried to track down and apparently ended up being so-called "clinical lores": --Signimu (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 95% to 98% of dieters regain their initial weight or more after a few years: not backed by any source, the closest I've come up to is a 2007 review who found 1 to 2 third of dieters had slight (~1.5kg) or no long-term weight loss. Note also they could only use 1 RCT in their review, the rest is either combined therapies or observational. More recent reviews (on higher quality studies) and even guidelines on obesity (same population the 2007 review studied) now advise dieting and confirm there are long-term weight loss. I still added these infos in the rewritten entry.
 * Most of the weight loss from diets (fads or not, variation depending on the source) is due to water: most of the time, there is no source, and when there is, it's traceable to this one, which itself provides no source but a reasoning, so it's not evidence-based. This is stripped from the rewritten entry as it's dubious and I can't find any mention of that anywhere with a proper source, and also it contradicts the newer higher quality reviews and guidelines. There is however one exception: for VLCDs diets, there is indeed a big initial weight loss due to water, and this is well documented everywhere. So it's possible the original source had VLCDs in mind.


 * This is really good information, Signimu. Thank you for fixing this and posting this note.  I'll keep an eye out for this in other articles.
 * I wonder if these claims could be "sort of true", in the right context. Like "most dieters regain the initial weight", but their idea of "most dieters" is the woman who steps on the scale every morning, and goes on a "diet" every time the scale ticks up one number, until it's back the previous number.  Losing and re-gaining the same tiny bit is both "regain the initial weight loss" and "a normal weight maintenance strategy".  Or "most of the weight is water" is true, but they're only counting the weight lost during the first days.  It doesn't make sense to think that someone could lose a large amount of weight and have most of that be water (not counting the water that was incidentally necessary to maintain the extra adipose tissue).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you  I was going to write a detailed reply on your questions, but I just found a much shorter one thanks to Alexbrn: the authors of this study are part of the Health_at_Every_Size movement/hypothesis proponents, which is scientifically unfounded and contradicting the latest nutrition guidelines. Check the entry, the exact same ref is there. --Signimu (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's incredible and a bit ironic that the HAES fringe theory could still propagate false figures such as that diets do not produce long-term results in the minds of skeptics, who used it as a skeptical argument. Shows that the skeptical arguments are not necessarily the most intuitive ones, nor the ones that "there is no effect". The best may be to always raise doubts and question, if possible with bayesian reasoning --Signimu (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While reading about historical fad diets, I found this historical review which links to a primary study of a very-low-calorie-ketogenic diet (yes, diets are mix-and-match nowadays...), but what's interesting is that they looked at the water loss, which is a known effect in VLCD, and in fact it's only in lean body mass that the water loss happens, and only temporarily, it's recovered quickly after. But there is anyway a real loss of the fat mass. And we can see how it can easily be misinterpreted, here's what the historical source writes: "They may produce initial rapid weight loss, but this is more likely due to their lower calorie intake than the follower’s usual diet, and often consists of water loss." --> emphasis is mine, what is written is that only the "rapidly initial" weight loss, in other words the fact that it's so fast initially, is often a superficial and temporary effect caused by water loss, but the source does not mean that the whole weight loss is due to water loss alone, in fact she writes that it's also due to the lower calorie intake! And BTW it pertains to very-low-calorie diet, as is the common pattern I find when I can track down the source of the water loss claim (but a lot of fad diets rely on VLCD, but not all). I won't use that info in the entry, but this is a good example of how things can get deformed, notably by journalists (here it's an academic expert on the topic, so she is more careful and accurate in what she writes). --Signimu (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

New MEDRS draft
Hello everyone I have worked on a draft to update Fad diet (here is my draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet, starting from newer high quality sources. I would like some feedback/review to check if it's OK and viable to replace the current entry  To summarize what I did, I started from the latest entry's version, and went from recent MEDRS quality sources such as BDA (British Dietary Association) and other professional associations and encyclopaedias (for non health related parts) to rewrite the article. I tried not to remove what was already there except for a few where they failed verification (I detailed the biggest offenders at: Talk:Fad diet), and in fact I reused and extended sentences from high quality sources already there. The entry is not yet part of the Medicine WikiProject yet, but if my draft is accepted I'd like to include it in the project, as I mostly used MEDRS sources except for non-health related sections (History, Marketing, Statistics). Thank you very much in advance

The draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet - feel free to directly edit! All feedbacks are welcome! --Signimu (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice, also detailed at the Teahouse Q&A you initiated, is to not submit what you have created as a draft, given same title and much borrowed content from the existing article. Instead, edit the existing article, preferably one section at a time. David notMD (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * agree w/ David notMD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you very much for your advices! I have started preparing the draft so that I can copy each section independently without breaking the refs, I think it's reasonable to start with each section from top to bottom, and finish with the lede if all goes well I'll do that in a few days if there's no more feedback  I will also rewrite the "medically recommended diets" per your recommendation, I've got adequate refs, thank you for your feedback!  --Signimu (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you guys, I will finish a bit of cleanup and start revising the mainspace article before doing any subsequent updates --Signimu (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since today I started moving sections over. Please don't fix the references order right now, the order will be corrected when the new lede will be moved --Signimu (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

All done + cleaned up the low quality refs + moved the list of fad diets to List of diets + added the article in the WP:MED I will now stand back, I have exhausted my resources (see the Talk:Fad diet/Dumping ground for additional content that may be added, particularly for extending/completing the History section). --Signimu (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A good (old) resource?
Here's a good but old resource of the American Dietary Association published in 2001 advising physicians a list of sources to consult about (fad) diets. It's a bit old, the references might be outdated, but it might be worth checking, maybe at least for the history section? --Signimu (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to dumping ground. --Signimu (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Existing List of diets & Diet supplements as fad diets
List of diets exists. Perhaps Fad diets can be a subset within that. Most of the diets listed in Fad diet are already in the list article. David notMD (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that list before, but I honestly didn't think about doing that XD Nice idea! To avoid redundancy, I guess you'd suggest to move the diets there that are qualified as fad under a "Fad diets" section, is this correct? --Signimu (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits However I disagree with 2: the first because the diet Suzanne Somers's Somersizing diet is indeed listed on the website, the second because Hart2018 (the main reference we use for the definition) explicitly includes "herbal or other supplements", while not mentioning specifically those, the category should stay. I do think the list of diet is a very weakly sourced one and hazardous for an encyclopedy, but until it's agreed to remove it (if ever), I think we should stick to the definition and that any source calling a diet a fad is acceptable to make it enter the list. Don't you think?  --Signimu (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO the distinction is that diets dictate what foods to eat or not eat, and dietary supplements are products taken in addition to diet. Adding a LOOOONG list of supplements that have claims for weight loss would not benefit this article. On the second question, my opinion is that it would be better to bring content and references from Fad diet to List of diets rather than nominating the latter for deletion. David notMD (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok for the 2nd point, will start doing this tomorrow when this article will be fully revised For the first, yes the list might get very long, but it is already long with only non-supplements diets, and several sources qualify supplements as fad diets, including historically. So even if we remove them now, I can bet someone else will add them back later. --Signimu (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally I've done it already today, hope the result is OK, thank you for the suggestion --Signimu (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At the list of fad diets within the greater list of diets, I have again deleted dietary supplement products. Perhaps other editors can express their opinions on this topic. David notMD (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes would be nice to have the opinion of other editors, but Hart2018 clearly include supplements in fad diets, and historically there was also the arsenic pills during the victorian era, among others. So I agree before it was a mistake to link to diet pills which are regulated drugs, but unregulated weight loss supplements do include some fad products for sure (it's almost a tautology, since it's unregulated this is to be expected, as with any unregulated market). --Signimu (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I've looked for more sources, and dietary supplements are normally regulated in USA by the FTC and FDA, so I guess the BDA is talking either more about Europe's regulations or worldwide. I have added the FTC/FDA sources and extended the sentence in Health Claims, let me know if that is ok for you. About reinstating dietary supplements for weight loss in the list of fad diets, I'll leave it to other editors' opinions --Signimu (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted the dietary supplements paragraph again. Nothing to do with referencing. Per my Edit summary, there are not Fad diets which require/recommend specific dietary supplements. The examples deleted earlier were for weight loss dietary supplements sold as such. Often, marketing claims even went to the extreme to claim that dieting (reducing calories to lose weight) was unnecessary as long as people used the supplements. Sensa was an example. David notMD (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry David but I have to disagree, there are at least 2 major historical examples: the arsenic pills, and the sedative pills for the sleeping beauty diet. And if I take another look in the encyclopedias, I'm sure I have seen more (but they were less notable). I know it's more regulated (at least in the USA) nowadays, but the existence of such fad diets supplemments is attested historically :-/ --Signimu (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So to clarify I'm not arguing about the supplements that were in the list, I don't know them and didn't see them in the sources I have reviewed, but the statement in "Health claims evaluations" section by the BDA is accurate, at least historically. --Signimu (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is the deleted sentence, if anyone has an opinion to give --Signimu (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Until we have other editors responding to agree on a consensus, please stop adding content and images about weight loss dietary supplements to this article on fad diets. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just reused the illustrations I could from this source. --Signimu (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I removed them. Just because the reference is about fad diets does not mean the illustrations about supplement products are valid content for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But what you removed before was about health claims, here it was about the history, I just thought this ad existence + source ref being about fad diets was proof enough it was pertinent historically, but I now understand that you disagree with any dietary supplement being labelled as a fad. So ok, I exclude them from the entry altogether until someone comes by. --Signimu (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dietary supplements may be fads (raspberry ketones, Acai extract) or not (glucosamine, red yeast rice), but they are not diets, and thus have no place in this article. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for clarifying your pov I agree fad diet is a very wide and blurry concept, but it makes no sense either to include diets as fads when they are trending since decades, or even centuries as fasting... So sources can qualify as fad diets things that are either not diets nor fads. I chose here to stick to what the sources say, even if that does not make sense  Well, I'll leave the issue sleep until some other editor brings a new opinion on the table, I don't mind  --Signimu (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Paleo diet to be added
The paleo diet should be added on the article. It was popular in the 20th century. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have a historical reference, noting that it was a significant part of the 20th century's diet culture (because we can't add all fad diets as that would make the article way too long ), then please feel free to do so Maybe the Zoumbaris encyclopedia might be worth checking? Also, thank you for your recent additions, they enhanced the entry!  --Signimu (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Post-war famine studies
Hello  I would like to discuss about your revert. Both the review used here, and the source it cites, are both reviews per MEDRS standards. Not of the highest quality, but that's why there is also a systematic review. So the source is a review and traced back the claim to starvation studies (ref 11 is a review of starvation studies which indicate that people tend to overeat after a starvation period, and indeed extrapolates to dieting as the ref says), how could we find a better source than that for this kind of "debunking"? Tracing back claims is not something that we can systematically review, so IMO a review is the top quality that can be reached for debunking claim. And it's way better than what is usually used for debunking, such as newspapers or QuackWatch (which are OK, but a review focused on human clinical trials is no doubt better). --Signimu (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The desire for reviews is to see conclusions based on several studies. A review that mentions results from one poorly executed article (description of what happened to a few people after they recovered from starvation) does not justify mentioning the results nor any conclusions based on those results. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

recent articles about low carbohydrate diets
should low carb really and its variations (keto etc) still be considered a fad? a JAMA article from last month here show correlation between low carb (and low fat) diets are not associated with increased risk of death. additionally the ADA noted low carb as an option for people to manage their diabetes here. thoughts? should i post these in the dumping ground for this article too?Melodies1917 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A low-carb diet is not a fad in itself, but many of the variations of it are (Atkins, Scarsdale, Stillman etc). Just like low-fat diets are not a fad but variations of it are (Ornish, McDougall etc). The ADA does not support any of these variations.


 * Your first link, the conclusion reads "Unhealthy low-carbohydrate-diet and low-fat-diet scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy low-carbohydrate-diet and low-fat-diet scores were associated with lower total mortality. These findings suggest that the associations of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets with mortality may depend on the quality and food sources of macronutrients." How do they define an "unhealthy low-carbohydrate-diet"?


 * WP:MEDRS "Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used" Neither of the sources you provided were reliable as they are primary. The first was a cohort study, the other is a low-carb website. Look for reliable secondary sources or reviews. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation 58
When I go to Citation 58 it says "Error 404 Not Found" And archive site is blocked by school wifi so I can't fix it right now =(  AltoStev  Talk 21:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone fixed it. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)