Talk:Fit for Life

Notability
The "tag and run" editor fails to post here about his/her motivations. The book and diet are highly notable, as the book was a best seller. We have a responsibility to thoroughly document this, just like any other subject. Badagnani (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest. The tag is pretty self-explanatory. WP:NB sets out sample notability criteria for books. This book appears to meet zero of them, at least based on the info provided here. Hence the tag. MastCell Talk 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and interesting opinion. However, it is clear that the article is not simply about "a book," but about an entire diet craze, similar to any other widely promulgated and popular diet craze covered at Wikipedia. We don't simply blank all those articles because a single editor doesn't like them. Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but we do tend to delete articles that fail to provide evidence of notability. In the form of actual independent, reliable secondary-source coverage. The tag is a request to provide such sources. Take it for what you will. MastCell Talk 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Books search. Hundreds of mentions in other books. 12 million copies sold. It would be great if your tagging wasn't simply because you don't like this diet, because that would be disruptive. There is nothing preventing this article from deconstructing the diet or its claims, something Wikipedia is very good at doing. Every notable diet craze deserves close scrutiny here. Badagnani (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why dance around the issue so defensively? Notability criteria for books are spelled out here. Google Books hits and copies sold are not among them, as far as I can see. I'm just asking that the article provide some indication of how this book meets WP:NB. I don't like or dislike the diet, nor do I feel a need to "deconstruct" it. I'm talking solely about notability as defined by Wikipedia; I had hoped the tag made this clear. MastCell Talk 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ascribe "defensiveness" to me, you are free to. My only motivation is the preservation of knowledge in our encyclopedia, and preventing the blanking of notable articles. Your "sigh" is very telling of your attitude toward other editors, as well as our readers. I have already pointed out that this article covers not just "a book," but also a highly notable diet craze--one of the biggest in recent memory--with hundreds of mentions in other books and millions of copies of the books sold. As such, this diet has been adopted by huge numbers of people all over the world and is a phenomenon Wikipedia should not be in the business of willfully ignoring (or blanking). Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have indeed "pointed this out" repeatedly. What's missing are reliable, independent secondary sources that verify that this is in fact a notable diet, book, or what have you. That's what I'm requesting, and they remain MIA despite all of the talk above. MastCell Talk 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I provided links to mentions in not a few, not tens, but hundreds of actual print books with ISBN numbers. Likely you could find even more. Badagnani (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You provided a link to a Google Books search. How many of those Google hits are usable reliable sources? I see maybe 1 (Handbook of Obesity Treatment) among the first 3 or 4 pages. MastCell Talk 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, you are now actively considering sources rather than simply "tagging and running." That is good. Here are 99 "New York Times" archive hits. Badagnani (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest that rather than being snarky and handing out laundry lists of largely unusable references, you dig through these and find some reliable secondary sources that cover this topic in a usable and non-trivial manner? That would go a long way. I'll look through as well, but please stop relying on search-engine hits as de facto evidence of notability while not bothering to look through and pick out individual sources to cite. You're attacking me for requesting actual sources, but the article currently contains one reference, which is to a nearly totally unrelated topic, and a handful of iffy external links. It's actually the responsibility of editors to supply sources when adding content; attacking others as deletionists because you fail to do so is poor form. MastCell Talk 20:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you, MastCell ... I think you're either talking through your hat, just plain ignorant in your remarks, or are running some kind of agenda! Even over here in Australia, this book would have to qualify as one of the truly most notable among all books on the subject of nutrition ... it has in the past, often been recommended reading by various health professionals to clients expressing health concerns ... and many people have benefited greatly by its ideas. The mere fact of its 12 million sales who quite clearly be sufficient to register its notability! Further, why would books be different in notability than songs, for instance?? We have songs that may have only sold a half million 'records' that are placed up for article on Wikipedia.121.220.229.136 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious
The article discusses trans fat in a... novel fashion. It suggests that the Diamonds were lone voices in the wilderness claiming trans fat was harmful, and that this idea was disdained by "some dieticians" until just recently, when the Diamonds were personally vindicated by NYC's trans fat ban. Needless to say, this is inaccurate. Again, sources would go a really long way here. MastCell Talk 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that, as it seemed a definite NPOV violation. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal; it's factually wrong to say that the Diamonds were the only ones to warn about this. Some of the editors complaining below added it back in a more mellow form. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in the "criticism" portion of the page, there seems to be no relevance to the diet itself that his son was involved in a ponzi scheme. That information would be better suited to a page on the authors themselves, rather than their book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.253.87 (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted blanking
See. Badagnani (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have characterized it as "unwarranted blanking", but I don't think it really make any difference either way. I don't think the statement implied a relationship between popularity and scientific endorsement, but no useful information has been lost by removing it. -kotra (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Despite" implies a normal causational relationship: "Despite her attack on X, I admired her" implies that if she attacked X, I would normally be unlikely to admire her. "Despite its popularity" implied that normally popularity would mean fewer scientific criticisms. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "In contrast to" would've been a better word choice. Though in the grand scheme of things, what's popular usually corresponds to what's scientifically valid (eating a variety of foods, getting adequate Vitamin D, breathing, etc), but maybe I'm splitting hairs. In any case, it's fine removed. -kotra (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? Astrology? Feng shui? Slavery? Creationism? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I said "usually". This isn't worth debating, though. I'm fine with the phrase being removed. -kotra (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More large blanking without consensus
See. Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no information in that (unsourced) paragraph that's not covered elsewhere in the article (with sources). Xasodfuih (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this book is noteworthy
This book has its place in the annals of veganism, which is a significant movement. One of the first editions of Diet for a New America by John Robbins is endorsed by Harvey and Marilyn Diamond. The arguments made against dairy products in this book are fantastic and helped me get off dairy. To me, this book is a classic. I also appreciate the section on protein. To me this book anticipated Diet for a New America. Omvegan (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No shortage of believers. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And an even lesser shortage of your typical, ignorant, useless cynics! Wouldn't you say? 121.220.229.136 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

2008 book
Some discussion of this book would be appropriate in telling the story.

From the publisher: "After ten years of research, Marilyn Diamond and Dr. Donald Burton Schnell expand the FIT FOR LIFE message, stressing the all-important mind/body/spirit balance and incorporating the latest scientific findings on nutritious food, effective exercise, and healthy thinking."

http://www.amazon.com/Fitonics-Life-Marilyn-Diamond/dp/0380789671

Pnm (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

American Dietetic Association
The link is broken and I couldn't find a new one: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/media_11092_ENU_HTML.htm

It's cited at the end of the introduction.

Pnm (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dairy
The claim that removing dairy will not provide sufficient calcium is incorrect. Many cultures have no tradition of dairy consumption and have no clinical predilection towards diseases associated with calcium deficiency. The american academy of nutrition and dietetics states: "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate". http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357

75.92.189.203 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fit for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031050409/http://www.fitforlifetime.com/ to http://www.fitforlifetime.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006193052/http://www.chasefreedom.com/fitforlife.html to http://www.chasefreedom.com/fitforlife.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Other Criticisms
"It’s a quack book, full of deceptions, misinformation and fabrications, with lots of advice harmful to your health if you follow it. Children can be killed by the advice in this book." -- Victor Herbert (hematologist)

"Masters of pseudoscientific double-talk and ruthless exploiters of the gullible, the Diamonds are phony health scientists, complete with sham credentials from a sham college run by a high school drop-out cult leader named TC Fry, who the State of Texas forbade in 1986 to continue calling his diploma mill a college. In 1983 the US Senate Committee on aging described such operations as schools for scoundrels, run by con artists to teach other con artists how to make a sting." -- Victor Herbert (hematologist) (Source: Kurt Butler, A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine, p. 19, Also Kurt Butler, Lying for Fun and Profit, p. 71) Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)