Talk:Ketogenic diet/Archive 4

Calories vs food energy.
A recent edit replaced most instances of "calorie" with "food energy" or "energy" with the comment "this isn't unit-dependent, don't be using names of units as substitute for quantity being measured, and those critters are hard to hold down to get a "number" count". Of the changes, some are neutral, some are grammatically wrong and most are non-idiomatic. Nobody talks about "energy-free drinks". "low-calorie" is the idiomatic term for food; "low-energy" is the idiomatic term for lightbulbs. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not the pedant.

I've looked at my journal sources, which one would expect to use acceptable terminology. The neurologist papers use calories everywhere. One set of papers by a US dietitian uses calorie everywhere. Another set of papers, by a UK dietitian uses "energy" fairly consistently in one paper (but never "food energy" and once "dietary energy") but is completely mixed in another paper.

The other change was the addition of kJ as a unit. I'm not aware that any country uses kJ as their unit of food energy. It appears as an additional unit on food labels in the EU, but nobody reads it. My dietitian papers all use calories ("kcal" when they are being precise). Only one paper out of over 200 offers kJ as an alternative to kcal. I wonder if there are any readers who benefit from this additional unit, which clutters the sentences. Thoughts? Colin°Talk 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the changes useful; people understand calories. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked in my kitchen cupboard; all of my packets of rice, dried pasta, flour etc are labelled with both kJ and kcal. None are labelled "food energy". The articles that I have checked on PubMed uses "calories". Most people understand "calories" in this context."Food energy" is not idiomatic. I suggest the changes be reverted—the expert reviewer did not criticise the use of the term. Graham Colm  Talk 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree - "calorie" is an accessible term to the lay reader, while "food energy" and "energy" is simply confusing. Considering that the sources use the word "calorie" as well, we should stick with that. If the sources switch to a different terminology, we can revisit the issue then. Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Globalize
There really are people who measure their caloric intake in the modern SI units, kilojoules, rather than archaic—and thousand-fold ambiguous, plus numerous variants in precise definitions at each size level, compounding the problem—non-SI metric units not coherent (in the metrology-jargon sense) with any system of units. That's part of the reason why this article already included some conversions to kilojoules, before I added more. See any European nutrition label, for example. Consider common usage in Australia. This diet isn't unit-dependent. And in any case, using the name of a unit of measure as a substitute for the quantity being measured is in general bad form. Doing so does not "exemplif[y] our very best work". Featured article criteria.

Another aspect of the globalization is that there are a whole lot of people who aren't going to understand why the units are written out as "calories", yet they use the symbol "kcal" with "k" for the "kilo-" prefix. That might be common in various geographical locations, or among specialized jargon within certain journals, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination a universal practice. I never see "kcal" used in any general audience publications in the United States, for example.

Consider also usage elsewhere on Wikipedia such as in Template:Nutritional value which only accepts energy in kilojoules as a parameter, and which, unlike common practice in U.S. nutrition labels, does not use "calories" not as a unit of measurement but rather as a substitute for the quantity being measured. Its output field identifies the quantity as "Energy", given in both kilojoules and calories in the infobox. There may be other usages in other templates in Category:Food infobox templates, but from what I've seen lately on Wikipedia, I would be surprised any of them seeing significant use would use "calories" as a field name, when what is meant is "energy". Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See, e.g., this paper dealing with guidelines for New Zealand found on a .au (Australia) website, "Food and Nutrition Guidelines for Healthy Adults: A Background Paper" http://www.broadmeadows.grassroots.org.au/library/community_resources/items/2004/01/71818-upload-00001.pdf
 * It uses kJ (and kJ/g, etc.) standing alone much of the time; in Table 3 there are conversions to kcal, but the text is always "kilojoules" or "kJ" (calorie is never spelled out, near as I can tell).
 * The other thing is constant is that the quantity being measured is always "energy", not "kilojoules" and not of course "kilocalories" (as I said, calories are never spelled out in this paper). Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Example 2: then, of course, we have SportsDieticians Australia talking specifically about ketogenic diets, saying things like:
 * "Low carbohydrate diets achieve weight loss because they are low in kilojoules, not because carbohydrate is fattening" and "therefore reducing the number of kilojoules you eat" and "will help you keep a lid on your kilojoule intake". This does use units of measure to mean the quantity being measured, the same problem this Wikipedia article has, just with different units.
 * Nary a "calorie" to be seen on that page, however. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the kJ measurements. Australia/New Zealand do seem to be trying to use those as an official measurement. However, Googling their websites (health, Weight Watchers, etc) show that every day people use the term "calories" just as we do. In Europe, both measurements appear on food labels but nobody in the UK talks about kilojoules when discussing diet. Yes we know that pedantically it is "energy" but nobody talks like that. I've removed the Globalize tag unless someone can show that some English speaking counties no longer understand the idiom "calories" wrt food energy intake. Colin°Talk 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I've made a few other tweaks which leave calorie/calories only for idiomatic (i.e., "energy") usage and use "unit of energy" or "kcal" in other cases.


 * Well! What can I say?  You've managed to leave me dumbfounded.  But I'll try to work my way through it.


 * Let's see if I've got this right. You are now convinced that you have everything in this article fixed so that "kcal" always means "calories", and so that "calories" never means calories but always means "energy"?  Wow!  That's profound.


 * And—the mind-boggling part—you think that now fixes everything? So much so, that this brilliant move on your part means that the issue is resolved, so you can unilaterally decide the discussion has to be over and on your own whim remove the link to this discussion from the article page?  Before you even get a response from anybody about your strange solutions?


 * I guess the good news is that now, if we do them in the right order, it will only take two simple search-and-replace operations to get the article so that it actually says what we intend it to say.


 * Note that the globalization issues do not have anything to do with "English-speaking countries" per se. But I'm probably at least partly at fault there, by not more clearly distinguishing the globalization issues from the bad-writing and clarity-of-expression issues. Usage in the rest of the world, in whatever language, is also relevant.  Nutrition labels throughout the EU use kilojoules, as to those in other places such as Norway and Japan; about the only place where they are rarely found is the United States.


 * You claim nobody in the British public ever uses the kilojoules which do appear on all their nutrition labels. Not real sure I believe that. But be that as it may, there is a more important factor about usage which you seem to be unaware of. Nobody in the U.S. general public ever uses "kcal" for calories, even though some researchers do use that symbol in some publications. And, unlike the situation in the UK, "kcal" never appears on any of our U.S. nutrition labels.


 * In other words, an unexplained jump from "calories" to "kcal" can indeed cause confusion. But you've come up with a really bizarre solution to that: let's just never use "calories" as a unit of measure, even though that's what a lot of people are familiar with, especially in the UK and the U.S.


 * I can come up with only one possibility that could possibly explain some of your recent actions. Are you laboring (sure, you'd probably be labouring, but unlike the Americans reading "kcal", you aren't going to have any difficulty understanding what I meant) under a misapprehension that the units really are and always have been "kilocalories", and that it is only through laziness in general usage that this has come to be abbreviated and shortened up to "calories"?  If so, you are flat-out wrong.  Furthermore, calling them "kilocalories" is actually what is new, a development that has taken place in my lifetime, and it remains a minority usage.


 * In fact, the large calories, the ones based on the kilogram rather than the gram, are the older definition of calories. The small calories, or gram-calories, came along later.  And all of that, of course, happened before people figured out the advantages of using "coherent" (a metrology jargon term, meaning each derived unit in the system is a unitary combination of base units) systems of units, such as the SI and its joules for energy (1 J = 1 N·m = 1 kg·m²/s² in terms of the base units in this coherent--because of those "ones"--system). You are likely too young to remember when physicists and chemists actually used gram-calories.  Those units are pretty much obsolete now—they survive only in the strange notion that there is still a need to distinguish the only calories still in use, the large calories used in a nutrition context, by using the inaccurate symbol "kcal" for them.  We can only get away with that because there never was any significant use of the prefix "kilo-" for the large calories used for nutrition, so we can use the symbol for 1000 small calories to mean 1 large calorie.  So when we are talking about nutrition, "calories" and "kilocalories" and "cal" and "kcal" and even the grotesque "Cal" and even more strange "kCal" all mean the same thing—none of them ever differs from any of the others by a factor of 1000, despite the appearance of the prefix kilo- or its symbol k in the usage of some writers and its absence in the usage of others (and my spell-checker flags kilocalories and kcal, too).  Maybe not exactly the same thing; seems there are some questions as to the precise definition, whether the International Steam table calories (4.1868 kJ) or the thermochemical calories (4.184 kJ) or one of the other variants should be used in this context, but it really doesn't matter because none of our measurements are precise enough to distinguish between any of those definitions.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The units on UK nutrition labels are kcal and kJ. Look at File:Nutrition-label.jpg for what I typically see on a packet. I reviewed all my papers on the KD (well over 200) which are written by dietitians and neurologists from over the world but with a tendency (both author and publication) towards the US. When precise energy units are required (e.g. 1500 kcal) then "kcal" is the form used and "kJ" is often given as an alternative. As noted above, papers by neurologists and dietitians use the term "calories" for the energy component of food just as the general reader does. These are papers are published in some of our most prestigious journals, which have high editorial standards. If they are happy with this usage of the word calorie then so am I. Wrt British usage of "kilojoule", try Googling a newspaper such as The Guardian. The term just isn't used. Colin°Talk 11:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's some typical American usage, from Seattle:
 * The Regulation to Require Nutrition Labeling in King County Chain Restaurants
 * (Chapter 5.10 of the King County Board of Health Code)


 * Chain restaurants are required to provide total amounts of the following for each standard menu item (acceptable abbreviations):


 * ▶ Calories (cal) || ▶ Grams of saturated fat (sat fat)
 * ▶ Grams of carbohydrate (carb)
 * ▶ Milligrams of sodium (sodium)
 * }
 * ▶ Milligrams of sodium (sodium)
 * }


 * Note that "cal" is used many times throughout this guidebook to help the restaurants comply with the law, never "kcal", which are not an acceptable abbreviation under this law.
 * But what about the real main problem here? Why do you insist on pretending that this diet is somehow unit-dependent? Local journals don't make the deliberate efforts to globalize their usage, as we do here. This diet does not only work if the units you use measure energy are calories, not if you use joules. The usage is particularly strange in this article as it stands now, given that you have so carefully eradicated any use of "calories" as a unit of measure. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gene Nygaard, I'm unaware if you have ever had an article on the mainpage, or realize what a stressful time it can be. Lowering the sarcasm in your responses, and raising the AGF collaborative factor, would be appreciated and would help reduce the TLDR factor.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "pretend that this diet is unit-dependent". You know very well that the use of "calorie" has entered the language in a way that no longer ties it to one measurement system or another. Even our Calorie article documents this usage. Wikipedia is replete with articles that are full of calories. Calorie restriction, Very low calorie diet, Dieting, Obesity, Diet and obesity. Go change all of them to talk about "low energy diets" and see how far you get. Wrt "kcal", I'm following the practice of our best sources, written by dietitians, including those published in the US -- a country you claim doesn't understand the term.


 * I strongly suggest that we just agree to disagree on this point. I had no intention of wasting today reading about the history of units or the laws of some US county. I'll have more important things to worry about tomorrow. If you continue to feel strongly about Wikipedia's abuse of these terms then I suggest you debate this and establish consensus in a bigger venue elsewhere, not in an article with a handful of watchers on an obscure diet eight hours before it hits the main page. Colin°Talk 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike the situation with the units of the International System of Units and of the few other units acceptable for use with it, where the CGPM has prescribed uniform, consistent symbols for use throughout the world, these calories are just like old software, legacy applications no longer supported and updated. There are no generally accepted standards for the use of them.  THUS, if we are going to use a symbol (kcal)  which is prima facie (on its face) incongruous with the generally used spelled-out name of that unit (calories), and one that is also different from the symbol many readers are familiar with, then some explanation is in order.  And it would cost little to make this article more readable by putting in an explanation.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The note (which is now in the Notes section along with usage of the term "fasting", etc) is a reasonable compromise. Let's move on. Colin°Talk 17:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not about "globalisation" at all. It's about one editor who does not like the fact that one useful word—used a few times in the article—was once an esoteric scientific term but is now well-established in everyday language. Calories, in this context is used on both sides of the equator and both sides of the Atlantic, even in Russia. Gene Nygaard, I am struggling to assume good faith here. It appears to me that you are not even trying to achieve a consensus, but are trying to win. There is no support for the changes you suggest. And yes, Colin is right, why choose on this article all of a sudden? There are many others. That ridiculous tag should be removed forthwith. Graham Colm Talk 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed the tag. I tried to fix the note, but may have bungled it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for formatting the note for me. And suggestions on improving the wording would be welcome.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, GrahamColm, if you had taken the time to address the issues here, rather than attacking me, that would help too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gene, if you continue to tag this article, over a trivial issue, this close to Main page day, I shall be requesting Administrator intervention on your editing abilities. Is that clear? Colin°Talk 17:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, trying to accuse me of some wrongdoing. You were the one who removed a properly added tag, in an incomplete discussion, a removal hidden away in an edit that didn't even mention that you were doing so.  I put it back, saying I was doing so.
 * Seems to me that we have some ownership problems here, too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that you are too close to the issue here, Colin, and can't see the forest for the trees. You've been at this long enough to understand full well that there are a whole lot of sources that use the word "calories" when spelling out the units, and use the symbol "kcal" when abbreviating it.  Including, of course, "our best sources, written by dietitians, including those published in the US".  Nobody needs to explain that to you.  That doesn't mean that the average Wikipedia reader is going to understand this incongruous usage without explanation.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it in the edit that fixed the globalisation issue (lack of kJ as an alternative to kcal). In good faith, I assumed this was the only globalisation issue. It seems there is no pleasing you. The globalisation tag is a bullying tactic to win your argument. You appear to have no concept of good faith discussion and the idea that people may genuinely disagree with your position. Rather than insulting me with claims of ownership why don't you please go gain Wiki consensus to ban the use of "calories" for food energy and ban the use of "kcal" for units of energy. Start with a bigger article or a Wikiproject talk page. If you have Wikipedia's interest at heart (rather than a selfish desire to win this argument) then argue your case somewhere there is less heat and more eyes. Colin°Talk 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Choosing to use one of the units of measure as a synonym for the quantity being measured, rather than choosing to use the other unit of measure for the same purpose, is part and parcel of the very same globalization problem.
 * I'll bet that if this article were instead written in the style of my Example 2 from Australia above, and it consistently used the word "kilojoules" when energy was meant as that Australian article did, you and some of the others backing your position here would be first in line whining about the need to globalise the usage here. Maybe we should just try that for a while, to see what happens.  Wouldn't be hard to replace every appearance of "calories" with "kilojoules".
 * This is the article being held out as an example of the best we can do now. It is the part of Wikipedia most in need of fixing right now; bad usage elsewhere isn't an excuse.  This article is quite reasonably, and should be, held to a higher standard.Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy asked me to comment on this. Looking over the discussion here, and particular this edit - I don't have a problem with giving the kcals and providing a parenthetical alternate measurement in kilojoules; however, relacing all instances of calorie with "food energy" ends up with clunky writing. Case and point from that edit I cited: The diet provides just enough protein for body growth and repair, and sufficient calories to maintain the correct weight for age and height. -> The diet provides just enough protein for body growth and repair, and sufficient food energys to maintain the correct weight for age and height. The former sounds natural, the latter does not. Raul654 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, this is a misuse of the globalize template. The issue at hand is an issue of WP:ENGVAR, not WP:NPOV.  It's not like some countries have a different perspective on the how much energy is being represented here:  they just have different units.  Whether we say "calorie" or "Calorie" or "kcal" or "kJ" is exactly as unimportant as whether we use British or American spelling.  I'd as soon fuss over whether Colin tells me his height in centimeters or inches.
 * The globalization tag is meant for situations in which different perspectives exist -- as in, "Those bally Orangemen might think that, but a true Green would never agree!" or "American and Japanese bankers aren't the only people in the world that have an opinion on Japan's financial situation." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Colin has admitted that a globalization issue existed. Maybe you need to go look at the article's history page, and get out your dictionary.
 * Find the edit summary "for the benefit of our Antipodean friends"
 * Read the actual discussion in this thread
 * Try to figure out what that edit summary meant.
 * Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you've misunderstood -- and if Colin actually thinks that the choice of units is an issue of systemic bias (which I sincerely doubt: I think he was using your chosen handle as a shortcut), then he's simply wrong.
 * The first thing I'd like you to understand is that "this isn't how we use that particular template" does not mean "please remove kJ units from this article." Personally I support the inclusion of such a conversion in all relevant articles.  Globalize exists to tag articles that have inappropriate geographic restrictions -- like only representing what's been published in one country about the diet (assuming that there were actually different views in different countries).  An article can't be considered either complete or neutrally written if it excludes major viewpoints.
 * However, whether you use kJ or kcal or both is an issue of style, not content. Converting it to kJ doesn't indicate that Australians believe something different about the role of nutritional energy in this diet; it's the same thing, just "spelled" differently. Globalize is not meant to identify differences in style -- even if this or that style is less accessible to readers in this or that country.
 * Wikipedia has a settled system for this specific issue, BTW. You'll find the ENGVAR-style overall information here, and a requirement that kcal be used as the primary unit here.  The use of kJ is neither required nor even mentioned.
 * And, I add, I didn't make these rules, and I can't change them. If you want to continue this discussion, then I suggest going to WT:MOSNUM and telling them that you think their long-standing preference for kcal is stupid.  Talking to me, or to anyone here, isn't going to change a single character at MOSNUM.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The guidelines at WP:MOSNUM are not prescriptive, so they admit some exceptions, if there's a good reason. However, in this article, I can't see any problem: each mention of kcal (the unit) is followed by a conversion to kJ. Just about any reader will be familiar with one or the other of those in this context, particularly as you've taken the time to make a note distinguishing between the use of calorie and kcal in this article. It works for me and meets the guidance at WP:MOSNUM:
 * When used in a nutrition related article, use the kilocalorie as the primary unit.
 * Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses.
 * What more could anyone want? --RexxS (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:WhatamIdoing, I've dealt with a number of national-varieties-of-English issues. This is not one of them.  There is little or nothing to do with national varieties of English in this article.
 * And sure, I probably could have added a copyedit tag and probably a whole bunch more of the various specialized maintence tags as well. But what would have been the point of doing so?  If I had put a bunch of them there, would that have fostered a better discussion?  I doubt it.
 * Back to ENGVAR. Let's just assume that the first major contributor to this article had indeed uniformly and consistently used "kilojoules" to mean food energy, as some people do, something I have already shown to be the case up above.  Then, would you be here arguing that in accordance with our national-varieties-of-English rules, the practices of the first major contributor need to be restored?  I doubt very much that you would.
 * But since I really can't speak for what you might do, let's just make it clear that I most certainly would not be doing so. It isn't a national-varieties-of-English issue. I'd be opposing that argument vigorously; I'd still be insisting that this needs to be presented in a neutral point of view, by using the word "energy" when we mean "energy", rather than using the name of one of the two units in widespread use to measure that energy as a synonym for that energy. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thirds of halves or wholes
"The diet is effective in half of the patients who try it, and very effective in a third."

Does this mean that the diet is ineffective in one-half or one-sixth? Are we looking at ineffective + effective + very effective being measured separately (17% + 50% + 33% = 100%), or are the "very effective" third part of the "mediumly effective" half?

If the numbers run 17% + 50% + 33% = 100% (ineffective through very), then the second clause should be re-phrased as "...very effective in another third". If the numbers instead run 50% + (17%+33%) = 100%, then the first clause should be re-phrased as "The diet is either effective or very effective in half...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the second case. Half the patients find it ineffective (reduces seizure frequency by less than 50%). Later we put it another way: "The ketogenic diet reduces seizure frequency by more than 50% in half of the patients who try it and by more than 90% in a third of patients." I was hoping that "effective" without any qualifiers (such as "moderately effective") would be assumed to include the "very effective" set of patients. For that reason "effective or very effective" reads oddly to me. I agree that it is good to be clear on this: something my sources don't always manage. Perhaps there's another way of phrasing it that is clear but simple? Do other people find the existing text ambiguous? Thoughts? Colin°Talk 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe just reverse it so it's clear the first is included in the second?
 * "The diet is very effective in a third of the patients who try it, and effective in half."
 * or:
 * "The diet reduces seizures considerably in a third of the patients who try it, but reduces them to some degree in half of all patients."
 * or something like that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * or something like that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * or something like that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The data would line up with the inelegant phrase, wouldn't it? Here are some other options:
 * ""The diet is ineffective in half of the patients who try it, helpful to one-sixth, and very effective for the remaining third."
 * "The diet is effective in half of the patients who try it. Although half of patients receive no benefit, it is very effective in a third."
 * "The diet is effective in half of the patients who try it."
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I misunderstand then; I thought Colin was saying the opposite. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm following the "misunderstanding" Sandy mentions. The half (50%) who find it reduces their seizure frequency by less than 50% may disagree that it was "no benefit" or that it wasn't reduced "to some degree". It is just that the 50% reduction is a typical benchmark for anticonvulsants being regarded as "effective". Colin°Talk 21:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's some examples from the sources: "the ketogenic diet reduced seizures by >90% in a third of the patients and by >50% in half" and "approximately half of children having at least a 50% reduction in seizures after 6 months. Approximately one third will attain a 90% reduction in their seizures." Colin°Talk 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two thoughts. First, how about just mentioning one (either the half or the third) and not mentioning the other? It is the lead, after all, and it doesn't need to mention every statistic. Second (and here I am to some extent contradicting the first point, but never mind), how about briefly saying what "effective" means rather than "effective", a word that is vague to the average reader? In short, I propose replacing the sentence with "The diet reduces seizures by at least 90% in a third of the patients who try it." By the way, congratulations (or should it be, commiserations?) on making the main page; I'll be watching, but will not be on-Wiki as much as I'd like. Eubulides (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. I like the simplicity and the focus on the major outcome (i.e., it may not work for you, but if it does, it really works).  If wanted, it could be extended to say "...and reduces seizures to a lesser extent in some other people."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Medium Chain Triglycerides in the graph
The graph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ketogenic_diets_pie.svg, seems to imply that all dietary fats are long chain, except for the medium-chain triglycerides included in that variant of the diet. However, I believe there should be appreciable amounts of short and medium chain fats in all of the diets. For instance, cream is cited as a major component of the standard ketogenic diet, and milk fat contains about 8% medium-chain fatty acids and about 3% short-chain fatty acids. Perhaps the graph should be clarified in some way. Bluethegrappler (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

19:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Colin - I'll look soon and get back to you. I thought this was one was better than the usual Cochrane review, many of which have far more severe problems than differences in interpretation, or errors in the background section. You definitely can't assume it's good quality just because it's any particular "brand", that's for sure - maybe even especially when it's so heavily marketed as this one is. I'll look more closely at the points you raised and get back to you - as well as checking whether there's a better systematic review. Hildabast (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look at all of this properly. I'm going to comment on each point separately. Firstly, the issue of two statements about history/bible in one sentence in the background. The first part (diet used for centuries) is unreferenced, but it's actually so vague that only a tiny number of eccentric people even would need to have avoided some food or other and this would be true. I did a quick search of an ancient tradition involving diet as medicine (Ayurveda) and the first thing I found suggests this goes back a long way in Ayurveda for epilepsy - possibly even thousands of years. So the statement is right. I checked the biblical reference (now there's something I haven't done in a long while - thanks Colin!!!!), and according to the King James version anyway, the Cochrane review is right: it does mention fasting. Even if this weren't correct though, I don't think it's material to the systematic review of the intervention, because you don't have to agree with every sentence written in a source when it's cited. I'll work progressively through the comments, but I'd also like to note at the outset that someone changed what I originally wrote to something that was no longer accurate (eg it implied per protocol analysis, not intention-to-treat analysis - wording changes were made which rendered the statements no longer accurate). Hildabast (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The next point - mixing in trials comparing types of diet or ways of introducing the diet with the one comparing to no diet is a very important point. And that relates more, I think, to how we describe it. The outcomes expressed were only using data from the trial with the comparison group not having the diet, but that wasn't clear at all in the very short wording. The review is actually mostly rather precise, and did not combine the data from these trials. But, the summary of findings table did make that mistake, and there are places in which they could/should have worded things differently. It's not perfect, but there isn't much that is perfect. I don't think this negates the value of the 3 other trials: they are just addressing different questions. The big issue though is not to give the impression that the evidence is stronger than it is, and I totally agree with you on that. That said, the previous version (just using the Neal trial) also had some of the same problems: it didn't mention adverse effects (and the adverse effects section isn't based on trial data) or the trial's weaknesses - such as the great risk of bias caused by so much missing data. I didn't try to work it out, but if a large proportion of those children who went missing actually had serious cardiovascular effects and increased epilepsy, the whole picture would change (not to say that they did,but just to make the point). Summary: I agree this requires a change of wording, but I don't think it means that the systematic review should be discarded. After all, the Wikipedia article is not itself a structured systematic review that can give readers confidence that all studies were found, whereas the search in the Cochrane review seems reasonably ok - I only found one other trial in another review, and that was again comparing diets, was small, low quality and in the 70s - so the oversight is pretty irrelevant. The Cochrane review includes a further 11 studies and I can't see that all of those were in the Wikipedia article. And there isn't a better review that I could find (I'll come back to that). Hildabast (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The third point was the explanation of why people stopped being over-simplified, and I can see what you mean. The review overall is relatively slim, and doesn't go into much detail - especially of the non-randomized studies. On the other hand, the evidence is so weak, it cannot really bear the weight of a lot of interpretation - and certainly not individual studies. Hemingway has long follow-up, but it is still not high quality evidence. Even if others might do it differently, that they took the RCTs more into consideration (and the toleration issues in the other trials are relevant here) isn't really enough to discredit their work. They have over-summarized - but less so than others have done, and at least it's a reasonable systematic coverage of studies that they're summarizing. Yes, there's much they don't mention. But that's an argument as to why this systematic review doesn't displace everything else - but not an argument to disregard it. The question here would be, is there a better one? I couldn't find one as good or better. There is the 2012 update of the NICE guideline/systematic review. It has the 1976 comparison of types of diet, but is missing the 3 that Cochrane has, and doesn't review non-randomized studies. I couldn't find a list of excluded studies or quite a few methodological basics I needed to see to assess it as a systematic review. So it's not a stronger review than Cochrane. I would have totally been prepared to reject the Cochrane one, but its main problems are in interpretation and reporting, not in itself as a systematic review gathering the evidence adequately. As systematic reviews go, the Cochrane one is reasonably ok and better than the NICE update. So I'ver changed the wording to reflect these issues: I hope I've improved it. Hildabast (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the research. I can guarantee you did more research into diet & epilepsy than the authors of that review. It's just a replay of other background sections in other papers. Anyway, I disagree with diet statement and the source you found doesn't confirm it. I will accept that Temkin is weak on eastern medicine. We must be careful not to confuse something one eats as medicine and a dietary change. Also other traditions emphasise dietary change more than we do, so this raises the question of (a) whether its use in epilepsy is notable there at all, (b) whether it was done to specifically treat "epilepsy" or some other imbalance/illness in the person believed to be associated (c) whether it was actually effective. One must consider why anyone would mention the use of diet in epilepsy in history. The statement is in danger of falling into the "Ford cars are green" trap: the statement can be shown to be true in some cases, but not generally and it is not a helpful statement to make. I think it is just puffery put in to imply there's some long tradition being drawn on, when in fact this is not the case.


 * Wrt Jesus. Modern translations, drawing on better source material, don't include "fasting". But even if they did, Jesus was talking to the disciples and was instructing them on how devoted their prayer needed to be. There's absolutely no hint that he intended the sick boy to fast, and nobody else in 2000 years has suggested this. This meme appeared in some KD background/history paper and has been uncritically copied since. I've looked at biblical scholarship on this story and find nothing suggesting the boy should fast. This to me is not only a stupid mistake to make, but repeating in the paper it shows stupidity, and one wonders if someone is trying to get holy blessing on the therapy, such is the desperation. Look: Jesus says you should fast for epilepsy. It is rubbish. It goes to confirm WP:MEDRS disapproval of using the background section of any paper as a source: this is weak material that is not critically peer or editorially reviewed. There's plenty proper scholarship on the history of epilepsy or on the biblical text that we can draw on here, and none of them mention this.


 * I'll look at the other issues later. I think the other RCTs can be useful in their areas in the article (induction protocol, ketogenic ratio, Atkin's variant) but they supply no strengthening data wrt efficacy and I strongly feel we shouldn't combine them to say "four randomized controlled trials of the ketogenic diet". The fact that they are RCTs is not a significant defining factor of those trials. They looked at different things and combining them at all is an apples and oranges mistake. Which RCT has the "missing data" problem? Colin°Talk 08:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Very convincing argument about the history aspect - if you had time at some point to comment on this on that systematic review, it would be good, as it should be deleted. Yes, agree about food as medicine - I wasn't trying to be thorough, just doing a quick check if food was seen as a contributor to seizures in other medical traditions, and Ayurveda was the most obvious one to check quickly. I've actually added detail about the number of studies: ordinarily I'd agree with you, but the article is actually itself a review speaking about lots of individual studies without a perspective of how many there are, in what category, and why the ones discussed have been selected. It's not to give the review more weight, it's because it provides needed perspective on the body of evidence. They didn't combine them: there was no meta-analysis. Doing a review that covers several questions and study types is legitimate. I can see why you wouldn't want to split that review into multiple reviews - but if I were the editor, I would certainly have wanted more clarity on the separate questions in the report, and doing that might certainly affect the way people interpret the results: it's another important that readers of the review need to know, I agree. Not discussing attrition bias is a worse problem, in my opinion. It was Neal 2008 - and Neal et al don't discuss the bias it brings, just that the rate of attrition was higher than in other studies. 32 missing out of 145 is 22% attrition, and that's noteworthy (see Biester and Dumville). There's even more bias in non-randomized studies, but it does mean that overall, there just isn't strong evidence about this diet, so all the estimates are fuzzy and all it would take is one good really strong trial to tip the balance. Hildabast (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The "as well as six prospective and five retrospective studies" addition helps because it makes the sentence a discussion of trial designs rather than before I felt it was a boast that LOOK we have four RCTs on efficacy (which is the section this is in). I agree that what the Levy review attempts to do (systematically review the trials) us a useful thing, I'm just sorely disappointed that their conclusions and "plain language summary" have mistakes. How does "However, all studies showed 30-40% reduction in seizures compared to comparative controls." work when only one of the studies had a control of children not on the diet. The "compared to" doesn't apply to the three other studies. What does "30-40% reduction in seizures" actually mean anyway? I'm interested to know what they are counting here.
 * I don't have the full Neal 2008 paper at present (it's at home). I'm not fully understanding your paragraph as to whether you are commenting on the Levy review or the WP article. I don't think there is any serious risk that another RCT could randomly "tip the balance". Sure some numbers are fuzzy but they are a long way away from the "no effect" line. The table at the start of the Levy paper is bizarre in that it offers no estimates yet warns the evidence behind those estimates is low and so they may change. In fact the more I look at this paper, the more problems I see. Their objectives are to find RCTs with controls that use a placebo/sham diet and/or standard therapy. This should have found just one RCT, not four. Wrt attrition, is this notable for our article? Levy's table 3 says attrition is either balanced among both groups or the numbers too small to say anything about what it means. I'd expect high drop-out rates for these very sick children on any trial so there is a danger if we mention it here we give attention to a fact that isn't an issue as though it is an issue. Colin°Talk 12:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Low-glycemic diet
Would the use of 'low-glycemic diet' (which has an entry) instead of low glycemic index treatment be a better option? Iztwoz (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the wikilink to low-glycemic diet as I think it makes the reader think that article is one on the "low glycemic index treatment". The latter is the name given to the epilepsy diet by the researchers, and isn't a weight-loss diet. Although it shares the low GI leading to stable blood glucose aspects of that weight-loss diet, the LGIT is still very high fat and low carb. It is really still quite a specialist diet (as is the modified Atkins) under medical supervision. There is a link to glycemic index in the section on LGIT. -- Colin°Talk 17:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"MCT Ketogenic Diet" to treat Lyme Disease and/or Multiple Sclerosis?
I was alarmed tonight to see this blog, Learn Lyme: It's More Than A Bug's Bite http://learnlyme.wordpress.com/, wherein the owner proposes an "MCT Ketogenic Diet" (with a link to this WP article) as a therapy for her/his illness. In some rather disjointed and incomplete posts, s/he talks about being diagnosed as having MS and of arriving at a diagnosis of Lyme Disease. I'm not sure if the blogger means that s/he was misdiagnosed with MS in favor of Lyme or whether s/he has both diseases concurrently. S/he does mention brain lesions seen on MRIs. S/he's also convinced that when a doctor wanted to prescribe a medication that was far more expensive than the one the blogger wanted her to prescribe, the doctor did so because she received kick-backs from the pharmaceutical company. "We all know doctors receive kickbacks, it’s even on the drug manufactures sites."

The blogger does not mention why s/he would want to be on what s/he refers to as an "MCT Ketogenic Diet", but states, "Eating healthy should be done whether you are “sick” or not. Proper nutrition allows your body to function properly, resist illness, and recover quicker. I follow the MCT Ketogenic Diet, which consists of:. . . " and goes on to list what is a far, far more liberal use of the term "ketogenic diet" than I have experience with. As you state in this article, a KG diet is not a normal diet. I don't know what this particular variant would be called - "low-glycemic" or "modified Atkins", maybe?

I have nursing experience with three disabled, epileptic children receiving KG diets in which most calories were provided by an MCT oil/died milk solids mixture. Anecdotally, all three truly did have reduced seizure activity with no side-effects that I recall, though to my knowledge nobody ever sat down and calculated a "percentage of improvement" figure. Two were quite disabled, non-ambulatory, and seemed to have limited awareness of their environments. They received tube feedings. The third child, although non-verbal, was perky, ambulatory, and well aware of her environment. The diet was a severe trial for her; she had to be watched every minute for fear that she would raid the kitchen. She would literally tear through a plastic bread wrapper and eat the slices in big chucks with both hands. I felt badly for her sense of deprivation.

The children were on the KG diets for about two years when I left the facility and continued to remain on them.

In conclusion, I have never heard of a doctor receiving cash kick-backs from pharmaceutical companies (lunches, free samples, brochures, pens: yes). Maybe I am naive. But is the "MCT Ketogenic Diet", as described in that blog, a trend in Lyme Disease therapy, or just an off-the-wall stab-in-the-dark? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at our Lyme disease article on the "Chronic Lyme" section. There's a lot of nonsense written about it. The Internet fuels the distrust of doctors and the mistaken trust of celebrities, bloggers and snake-oil salesmen. I don't understand it. The diets in this article are inadvisable about without proper medical supervision and have only been shown to be effective for epilepsy (though here is legitimate research in other areas). I don't know what we can do about dangerous blog postings other than to ensure the #1 Google hit for a topic is a reliably-sourced evidence-based article like this one. Colin°Talk 22:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Stafstrom 2012 review is theoretically relevant:
 * While the abstract namechecks MS, they don't appear to have found any papers about KD & MS to include in the review (nor did I find any except one on a mouse model). I found nothing on pubmed about KD & Lyme, but it certainly does appear that the alternative health crowd has started championing it. Ugh. (And for what it's worth, I'm sure Colin meant 'inadvisable without proper medical supervision' in his comment above.) Maralia (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I didn't look at MS. I'll try to search for that later, but don't imagine there is anything beyond research as Maralia found. Since the KD seems to affect the brain in unknown yet positive ways, researchers are investigating its use for a wide variety of currently-untreatable neurological conditions. However, it has metabolic effects that might be quite dangerous in some people or with certain illnesses. And self-experimentation is just asking for a trip to A&E. Colin°Talk 07:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I didn't look at MS. I'll try to search for that later, but don't imagine there is anything beyond research as Maralia found. Since the KD seems to affect the brain in unknown yet positive ways, researchers are investigating its use for a wide variety of currently-untreatable neurological conditions. However, it has metabolic effects that might be quite dangerous in some people or with certain illnesses. And self-experimentation is just asking for a trip to A&E. Colin°Talk 07:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Colin and Maralia. As I said, the blogger's interpretation of a KD is very liberal, but some cluck might come along who will think that if that version is helpful for Lyme Disease, then the really restrictive one will be great. At least this cautionary conversion is here online for someone who is willing to look. It always amazes me when people distrust painstakingly performed scientific research, but are willing to eat whatever goofy thing their best friend's car mechanic's brother's dog eats. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Unscientific studies shouldn't be mentioned

 * At four years, 16% of the original 150 children had a good reduction in seizure frequency, 14% had an excellent reduction and 13% were seizure-free, though these figures include many who were no longer on the diet. Those remaining on the diet after this duration were typically not seizure-free but had had an excellent response.

There goes your cohort study. Because this only proves that this study was probably financed by a drug company. If you would create a 10-year-study about the long term impact of smoking, would you include smokers that stopped smoking after 1year? Certainly not, only the people that continued smoking can be included! Above study is just inscientific, biased and - sorry - totally stupid. --178.197.236.45 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are limitations with this study but it provides interesting data. People do indeed do long term studies that include smokers who give up. They show that giving up smoking is really good for your health. Actually, the best study designs are "intent-to-treat" which means they include all patients enrolled on the study including those who drop out along the way (some drop out without even starting). A study that only included children still on the diet after four years would be biased as it would misleadingly conclude that the diet is beneficial to every child after four years, which is rubbish. Unlike a pill, the diet is hard work for the children and parents, and is readily discontinued if no longer working well enough to be worth the effort. It is also not great for the child's growth and bones, so doctors are often keen to wean children off it even if they are doing well, to see if they are still really benefiting from it. As for drug company finance, hmm. Unless the drug companies make cream and butter, I don't think so. -- Colin°Talk 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate exclusion of the most common type of ketogenic diet
This page deliberately excludes the most discussed and common type of ketogenic diet, the non-medical non-epileptic-specific diet. People looking for information on that subject are redirected to a page which does not discuss ketogenic diets specifically. Since the anti-epileptic diet is a small subcategory of more general ketogenic diets it makes sense to reorganise the pages so people can find what they are looking for. There are several ways of doing this
 * 1) Make this link a disambiguation page for anti-epileptic vs. general ketogenic diet, leading to pages with more specific titles
 * 2) Rename the anti-epileptic diet page to a more informative specific name, keeping the general "ketogenic diet" page name for the general ketogenic diet.
 * 3) Make the anti-epileptic diet information a subsection of the general ketogenic diet page at this link, removing the inappropriate redirection
 * 4) Make both topics subsections of the more general low-carbohydrate diet page (probably a bit unwieldy)

There needs to be more detailed information about the general ketogenic diet which I am happy to add, but we need to get a sensible organisation first. TobyK (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The diet for epilepsy is never discussed (other than in passing) in the same literature that discusses lifestyle, weight-loss or body-building diets that are also ketogenic. Therefore neither should this article. An article on low-carb diets should only mention this strict medical therapy to a small degree, in keeping with the literature per WP:WEIGHT. Most literature on low-carb diets note that diets that are so low-carb as to be ketogenic are the most strict form (or, for example, only one phase of the diet is ketogenic). For example, diabetes diets. A search on Google Scholar or PubMed confirms a huge amount of ongoing research into the neurological effects of this diet, with most focus still on childhood epilepsy. Whereas there is very little scholarly work on other areas. An exception is what some researchers are calling the very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet as a treatment for diabetes. They do this partly to have a name that is distinguishable in the literature. However, I don't think it is anywhere close to being a standard treatment. Even a standard Google search for "ketogenic diet" predominately gives articles on epilepsy, despite the efforts of those promoting their own fad diets to boost their Google ranking or buy adverts.
 * There is no such thing as a "general ketogenic diet". What particular usage of a ketogenic diet are you most interested in? I suggest you improve/expand low-carbohydrate diet on that subject, to the point where it can be split off to its own article. -- Colin°Talk 18:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it would be great to have you improve the article on low-carb diets. It ought to mention ketogenesis, and, to keep it in perspective, it should explain that most people on low-carb diets have normal or near-normal levels of ketones.  (Anyone metabolizing any fat at all, even the small amount of fat present in a low-fat diet, produces some ketones, so there's technically ketogenesis going on even if your diet is pizza, doughnuts, and beer.  But the unusual, high levels that some diet books talk about is not found in most low-carb dieters, because their low-carb diet isn't low-enough-carb to produce that.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Awhile back I added a section on a proposed title change when I should have made my comments in this section. I believe this article should be retitled "Ketogenic diet for epilepsy treatment" or something similar and it should be linked from a new page called "Ketogenic diet." The new page should give the broadest possible overview of a ketogenic diet regardless of the purpose. It should be separate from an article on low-carb diets, because not all low-carb diets are ketogenic. Specific purposes should be listed in a section of the article, and the article on a ketogenic diet for treating epilepsy should be linked from there, because it is only one of many applications of a ketogenic diet.


 * Here is what I think is a compelling reason to make these changes: People hear the term ketogenic diet from many sources and want to find out what it is. Many of them either search Wikipedia directly or they search Google or Bing and see the Wikipedia entry and click it. They start reading this article, and this article makes it seem like ketogenic diets are about treating epilepsy and nothing else important. The objections to this change that make reference to "fad diets" shows a bias against other uses of ketogenic diets and should not successfully block the general public from being able to learn the broadest possible perspective of ketogenic diets.


 * As for there not being a general ketogenic diet, of course there is. It is any diet which is low enough in carbs to result in ketosis. JD Lambert(T 14:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of this article says "The ketogenic diet is a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate diet that in medicine is used primarily to treat difficult-to-control (refractory) epilepsy in children," and that is what shows up in a web search for "what is a ketogenic diet". Unless someone can cite statistics for the "primarily" claim, that bias should be removed.


 * In the FAQ at the top of this talk page, it says "This article is only about the medical diet for treating epilepsy." Either the title needs to change to reflect that, or the article needs to be overhauled to cover all uses of ketogenic diets equally. JD Lambert(T 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand how articles work on Wikipedia. Our article on Houston does not cover all uses of the name "Houston" equally. Sometimes our articles just focus on the one most popular use of a term. I'm sure the good people of Houston, Renfrewshire think we may have our priorities wrong. There simply isn't a body of quality literature that discusses ketogenic diets together, and for good reason: the rationale for choosing such a diet, and the intended outcome of being on such a diet, is varied. And the population groups for the varied diets are quite distinct. A hammer and a screwdriver may both be composed partly of stainless steel, and derive some of their qualities from that composition. But nobody discusses them together other than in passing to mention both may be found in a toolbox. -- Colin°Talk 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done far more edits on Wikipedia than you have Colin, and I think I have a very good idea of how articles here work, and this article is failing in one major aspect. This article has a general-level title for application-level content. The content is very good where it sticks to information about ketogenic diets for the treatment of epilepsy. Yet with this title, it would be like someone created an article called "Physical exercise" and then added content only about resistance exercise, ignoring the many other types of exercise. Resistance exercise is a great topic for a Wiki article, and there should be an article for it (there is, called Strength training), but it should not dominate the article on physical exercise. It should be linked to from the Physical exercise article, with perhaps a subsection in the parent article with a "see also" link to the sub-topic article.


 * Regarding your hammer and screwdriver analogy, that has the same failing. There is a Wiki article on hammers, another on screwdrivers, and there is a higher-level article on hand tools. If the first person to create one of those articles started with the title of Hand tools and then made it only about hammers, they would be violating the very important general-vs-specific hierarchy, and that's what this ketogenic diet article is doing.


 * You are mistaken to think that a general-level article has to have a body of literature that discusses every subtopic, unless you can show me a Wiki rule that states that. There only needs to be enough literature for each specific subtopic that can be tied together at a higher level, and the subject of ketogenic diets is such a topic. If you think there are no quality studies or articles regarding the use of ketogenic diets for general health, weight loss, management of diabetes, and other areas in addition to the treatment of epilepsy, then let me know how many citations would satisfy you, and I'll post them here for you, up to a few dozen. JD Lambert(T 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your hand tool analogy is equivalent to diet, for which we have an article already. There is some quality literature on the experimental use of ketogenic very low carb diets for weight loss or diabetes, but I've yet to see this progress to become an actual treatment recommended by e.g. NICE or similar organisations. And generally the diet, when used for this purpose, is often compared with other methods of dieting to see which is effective/tolerable as one might for any of the 1001 diets for weight loss/health out there. You have chosen one adjective "ketogenic", similar to "is partly made of stainless-steel" that forms a weak link between some diets but it is not one that is discussed widely and in any depth in the literature. This is the aspect you are just not getting, and why Wikipedia should not have an article that discusses ketogenic diets in general (yet). All of the diets that are (partly) ketogenic for weight loss/diabetes have one far more important factor in common -- they are low calorie diets. The diet for growing children with epilepsy is not low calorie, nor is it high-protein, which is another factor that others may have in common. Tell me, what can you say collectively about "ketogenic diets" other than "they induce ketosis in the subject", which is no more than a dictionary definition. Your combined article would be original research. Please read Article titles. Our readers wanting to find out about "ketogenic diet" are nearly always wanting to know about the epilepsy treatment. It is the name of this therapy, not just an adjective and a noun stuck together. -- Colin°Talk 08:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And I tried to insert a section about the usual Eskimo diet (as before white men's food came into their area), which is ketogenic: "For thousands of years the traditional diet of the Inuit or Eskimos (meat, fish, blubber, little or no starch of plant origin, no access to sugar or honey) has been naturally ketogenic, and there are many documented cases of modern non-Eskimo humans living in these societies for extended periods of time. On the other hand, it is speculated that the Inuit may have a genetic predisposition allowing them to healthfully eat a ketogenic diet." (this diff) (for old discussions see ), but people keep deleting it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced, and I doubt there are any sources than link Eskimo diets to the Ketogenic diet in the sense that it's meant for this article. Alexbrn talk 09:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "I doubt there are any sources than link Eskimo diets to the Ketogenic diet in the sense that it's meant for this article." Of course not, because the FAQ at the top of this talk page says "This article is only about the medical diet for treating epilepsy." That's the crux of the problem, this title causes confusion between a specific use of ketogenic diets and ketogenic diets in general. I finally found the relevant Wiki rule: WP:PRECISION, regarding titles. "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."


 * "Ketogenic diet" is not precise enough to identify an article that "is only about the medical diet for treating epilepsy" and that leads to unnecessary confusion. I've been posting my ketogenic progress on Facebook, and I have had friends comment to me that they tried to look up what I was talking about and they were confused and asked if I had epilepsy. Guess where they got that from? This article and it's insufficiently descriptive title.


 * Another type of confusion it has produced is with some of the editors of this article, on this talk page, who appropriately want this article to adhere to the standards for a medical article, because this article is a medical article, but inappropriately want to apply those same medical-article standards to a non-medical article about ketogenic diets in general, which should absolutely include a discussion of the Inuit and other aboriginal low-carb, high-fat diets. I have started a sandbox article on ketogenic diets in general, and there is no shortage of interesting, useful information, with excellent references. It will be a long article, and none of it will be original research. It should be titled "Ketogenic diets" and this current article should be titled "Ketogenic diet for treatment of epilepsy" or something similar. "Ketogenic diet" should then lead to a disambiguation page. The "Ketogenic diets" page and the "Keto...epilepsy" page should both include disambiguation notes at the top, pointing to each other. JD Lambert(T 14:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As others have said "ketogenic diet" is a very precise term, for a well-recognized form of diet used in mainstream medicine. And this article does have a "other applications" section for its non-epilepsy uses. Alexbrn talk 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * While "ketogenic diet" may be a very precise term in a medical context, that does not exclude it from also being a general term in a general context. For example, Reddit's /r/keto (over 131,000 subscribers), where the term is popularly used in reference to weight loss, or /r/ketogains (over 18,000 subscribers) in reference to exercise performance.


 * While this article has an "other applications" section, it is only 4 short paragraphs limited to a medical perspective. It does not mention ketogenic diets used for athletic performance, weight loss, or other non-medical uses, and all previous efforts to include non-medical information about ketogenic diets have been rejected from this page. I have no complaint about keeping this excellent article as a medical-only article, but the non-precise, ambiguous title is inappropriate and confusing, and intercepts people who want to find a general explanation for "what is a ketogenic diet" from a broad, popular perspective, as opposed to only a medical perspective. Your stubbornness is a disservice to this much larger population.


 * Since several of you show no indication of willingness to change or compromise on the insufficiently precise title of this article, I intend to proceed with my sandbox article until it is a decent stub and then request arbitration to resolve this title issue. JD Lambert(T 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter for the arbs; it is a run-of-the-mill difference over content. You have not achieved consensus, but once you have an article in sandbox, others can more easily suggest under what article name that content might find a place on Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course this is a matter for arbitration. It is an unresolved dispute where I claim that this article's title violates the precision rule, and others disagree. It is a matter for arbitration because we have not achieved consensus, and appear very unlikely to. JD Lambert(T 17:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you mean mediation rather than arbitration (the latter tends to be for serious behavioural issues). But I think the consensus here is clear. Alexbrn talk 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been a long time since I have participated in a controversy that required intervention, so yes, you are probably right about mediation prior to arbitration, but arbitration is not just for behavioral issues, it is the last resort when discussion, mediation, and other efforts fail to resolve a dispute. You are correct that there is a consensus to keep the article title as is, in violation of the precision rule, but there is another group with a conflicting consensus. Just because my group has been here less frequently does not mean that there has not been and are many people who strongly disagree with your group. When I have the stub ready for initial release, I will make the appeal for input from a broad group of Wiki editors, and then we will see how otherwise disinterested editors view the current use of this title. JD Lambert(T 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article titles are based on guidelines, not "rules", and consensus is important. As well as sources. In the most reliable sources "ketogenic diet" is not just a random pairing of adjective and noun like "low-fat diet", "low-carb diet", "sugary soft drinks", but the actual name of a medical therapy. So it is a thing, not a collective term, in its most common usage. On Wikipedia we can't have more than one article with the same name, so as I mentioned above, the people in Houston, Renfrewshire lose out through no fault of their own but simply to the far better known US city. The people of Refrewshire may well be upset when they Google and are mislead by the results but they deal with it, as you should. By all means start Ketogenic diet (weight loss) or whatever dietary-goal you wish to write about. Your sandbox currently just looks like 100% original research. The cancer text you quote is a review of research and various hypotheses surrounding very low carb ketogenic diets for cancer -- but this is not a mainstream therapy: the clue is the title: "Is there a role for carbohydrate restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer". You will run into trouble with OR when you start having sections like diet guidelines for various ways of achieving a KD or supplementation, since all the uses of KD will take a completely different approach. The supplementation that a bodybuilder may take is 100% different to what a 5 year old child might need. The research, such as their is, on long-term effects of the KD in children (e.g. kidney stones, bone loss, lower stature, etc) is different to that for grown adults or those using a high-protein variant. None of this is combined in the literature and so neither should we. Oh, and you complain about us applying "medical-article standards". I've news for you: MEDRS is simply the application of our policy to a subject domain. High quality sources are required throughout WP, particularly so when making claims that may be queried. And dieting to achieve any health goal (weight loss, body building, whatever) falls under MEDRS absolutely. Your claim, for example, that ketogenic diets reduce heart disease risk seems to be 100% OR. Please cite the randomised controlled trial of KD that showed fewer heart attacks and strokes in the group on the diet. -- Colin°Talk 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing multiple points. "By all means start Ketogenic diet (weight loss) or whatever dietary-goal..." That is one purpose of a ketogenic diet. Treating epilepsy with a ketogenic diet is one purpose of a ketogenic diet. There is no article yet that gives a broad, all-inclusive introduction to ketogenic diets for all purposes, just this one about a treatment for a single medical problem.


 * "Your sandbox currently just looks like 100% original research." It is a sandbox. It is not even a rough draft yet. It is barely at the conceptual stage. Everything in it is merely a placeholder, for idea generation. I can't say it will be extensively revised because there isn't much there yet to revise, but I can say it will be extensively added to, including sources. That should be obvious, but you seem to have missed that. Look at the original version of this current article [], which has a quality slightly less than the current version, and my sandbox is not even half-way close to being that far along.


 * As for the comments in my sandbox about LDL particles, I have read 3rd-party information about keto diets increasing the average size of LDL particles, and that it is the smallest sized LDL particles that cause risk. I may end up including mentions of those in my general article, with references. I have not reviewed those studies yet, so I do not know how good the quality is, but that is another point you have missed. A general-level article is not a medical-quality article, and should not adhere to the strict standards of medical articles. It should not, because the purpose a general-level article is to provide a broad scope, even including conjecture, if a conjecture has become popular and there are 3rd party sources to document the conjecture. Sources can be magazine articles, pop books, or many other non-medical quality sources. If the conjecture has been debunked, in a 3rd-party source, then it should be incorporated.


 * A general-level article about ketogenic diets should answer most general questions the general public comes up with when they hear the term "ketogenic diet" and want to become more familiar with it, regardless of whether the context that initiates their interest is about weight-loss, epilepsy, or any other purpose.


 * Again, while "ketogenic diet" may be a very precise term in a medical context, that does not exclude it from also being a general term in a general context. For example, Reddit's /r/keto (over 131,000 subscribers), where the term is popularly used in reference to weight loss, or /r/ketogains (over 18,000 subscribers) in reference to exercise performance. These people are just as important as the people interested in treating epilepsy. JD Lambert(T 22:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we've just reached the point where you and I are repeating. Your ideas on article naming guidelines are mistaken imo, as are your ideas about the quality of sources required to make health claims, as is your concept of what OR is (such as your LDL synthesis). There is no "on general-level articles the sources can be crap" clause in WP:V. A "general article about KD" is what we have disambiguation pages for and they are not articles. I strongly suggest you focus on one aspect of these diets such as weight loss and collect high-quality sources on this. People do not just, on a whim, decided to alter the metabolic state of their bodies by radically restricting a major food group -- they do it for some purpose. And really, the focus is on very-low-carb and often high-protein diets so much more can be added to our articles on low-carb diets. -- Colin°Talk 09:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have also come to this article expecting it to be about the diet not the treatment of epilepsy. Just to show my support with JD Lambert and to argue a few points above.

--Stefan talk 05:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 14 July 2014 Colin wrote, "Even a standard Google search for "ketogenic diet" predominately gives articles on epilepsy, despite the efforts of those promoting their own fad diets to boost their Google ranking or buy adverts." When I checked just now, if we exclude wikipedia beeing first, only the 3:rd (The Charlie Foundation),  8:th (www.epilepsy.com/), 13:th (www.webmd.com/epilepsy/the-ketogenic-diet) and 14:th (www.webmd.com/epilepsy/guide/ketogenic-diet) links of the first 15 are about epilepsy, to me that shows that at least today epilepsy is not the most common use for ketogenic diet. As for those promoting their fad diet in 9:th place we have a article by The Guardian.
 * To do a more internal check to see what Wikipedians thinks this article is about, so I checked what links here. If I do a totally unscientific (I did not even open the links) check of the first 20 links I find one about epilepsy and 10 that probably are not about the epileptic treatment and 9 that probably are more generic. Continuing to read there are a minority that are about the epileptic treatment. So as per my possibly wrong estimate the majority of links TO this page are for the more generic ketogenic diet.
 * There are lots of good sources for health claims, but very few published as medical papers. The issue is that there are lots of papers published with very weak claims 'against' high fat diets and it will take very long time to get good new papers that really can prove anything. The argument here is not if there are enough sources saying that the diet is good for your health, the issue that I though we where discussing was if this pages should be be about the epilepsy treatment or the generic diet. I think that we can find enough and good sources stating that there is such a thing as a generic ketogenic diet that is used for (right or wrong nevermind) weight loss, diabetic treatment, body building or whatever, I think that there are more such sources than sources for the epilepsy treatement.
 * As I have said before, please create Ketogenic diet (weight loss) and attempt to write a good article with scholarly sources. Then we can discuss disambiguation pages, parent articles and whatever. But, as I keep saying, the scholarly literature does not write about these different diets (other than in passing) in one article. The people doing research on children with epilepsy do not collaborate with the people investigating whether this or that diet might help some adults lose weight. There's almost nothing about the two "patient" groups that could be reliably transferred. If I search the scholarly literature, there is more research and reviews published in one month on the diet in epilepsy than on all the other aspects put together. Look, people come to all sorts of Wikipedia articles expecting them to be about something other than their original thoughts. And if you guys are particularly interested in KD for health/weight-loss then of course you are going to be concerned with that. I see no policy-based argument for having one ketogenic diet article on all these things: there is no generic ketogenic diet. No such thing. I don't care if the publish literature thinks KD is good or bad for weight-loss/health, the point is this is still a minority of research and scholarly discussion and it is also quite distinct from any literature on epilepsy. Have you tried searching PubMed? There is some early-stage research on the KD for all sorts of things, but vastly outnumbering all those are papers studying this 100-year-old widely-clinically-used medical therapy that is promoted by health bodies worldwide. Go find me the papers covering "The effect of the ketogenic diet on intractable childhood epilepsy and on obese western adults". -- Colin°Talk 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * But the issue is that a ketogenic diet is not only for weight loss, but THIS page is ONLY for epilepsy, so the name is wrong!!! and i think that there is less use of the term ketogenic diet for epilepsy then for all other reasons for using this diet (except in pubmed, which does not decide what goes into Wikipedia?), therefore it is OK to 'share' this page, or maybe move this page to ketogenic diet (epilepsy) interesting blue link :-) and start making this about the all the other uses. My search in pubmed with ketogenic diet gives about 1000 hits with the word epilepsy and 500 without, that is not vastly outnumbering, majority but not vastly, and it is a very bad search criteria since the papers talking about weight loss, diabetic and endurance training still might mention that this diet is used for epilepsy and therefore my search is not fair. Also don't try to argue that ketogenic diet is a new fad and epilepsy treatment is 100 years old and therefore should have this page, the weight loss diet have been around for more than 150 years see William_Banting. Why do we need papers in PubMed? Why does that decide the contents of this page? Sorry please show me the policy? --Stefan talk 10:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:NPOV. We need to reflect "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If as is claimed (but which I strongly doubt) there are sufficient WP:MEDRS for a Ketogenic diet (weight loss) article, then it'll be a snip to write it. Then come back and we can discuss reorganising content, re-titling, etc. Until then this is a groundless argument. Alexbrn talk 11:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you discuss WP:NPOV or WP:MEDRS when the topic is Inappropriate exclusion of the most common type of ketogenic diet. Why do you ask to write a ***new*** article, when we want to include info about other diets that exists in this page (or split this specific article out) or are you really arguing that there is only one ketogenic diet, i.e. the one the help epilepsy??? I'm confused. The previous argument that google did not have any hits on ketogenic diets that where not for epilepsy was good, but I do not think it is valid any more. Sorry I'm missing your point --Stefan talk 13:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dieting and health impacts are health-related, so reliable sources must be WP:MEDRS. If such sources don't exist we ignore the topic; if they are scant we can use them in our "other applications" section here; if they are plentiful there might be a case for the supposed "inappropriate" exclusion this thread argues for. So which is it: none, some or many? without these good sources this is a pointless thread ... we're not going to build article content out of any-old pop diet books scraped out of Google search! Alexbrn talk 13:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at Paleolithic diet, it have a page and is flagged for factual accuracy, neutrality, OR and needs more med refs. I don't understand why, every sentence in the article have a caveat in it, every sentence have words like 'premisis', 'proponents', 'claims'. That is OK, I understand what WP:V means and know that today this article (or the one about the diet, not the epileptic treatment) would be the same, but that does not mean that WP:MEDS forbids a article about a keto diet, because it does exists. --Stefan talk 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your technique of searching on Pubmed leaves something to be desired. I could do some proper analysis of the recent published literature if you like, but it isn't a top priority for me. You may not believe it but obesity is a serious health issue (certainly as serious as epilepsy in terms of medical importance) and studying what therapies / lifestyle changes can help with this is a serious topic of study. Proper studies of diet for this purpose follow the usual scientific methods of recruiting volunteers, following them on the diet, recording side-effects, drop-outs, success and failure and then publishing results in a peer-reviewed journal. That's a lot more thorough than "this worked for me" followed by publishing on a blog or a self-published book. There are people studying the KD for weight loss, diabetes and other things, and I'm very interested to hear of research in this area, but so far I haven't seen this become an accepted recommended treatment by any authority. Any claim that a ketogenic diet is an efficacious therapy / lifestyle-choice for lower weight or healthier, longer life needs to be backed up by WP:MEDRS sources such as a review in a respected medical journal or a book by a professional medical/health publisher. As for the "so the name is wrong" argument, please read the endless cyclical discussions above and our policy on naming. Lots of articles have this issue. We deal with it. But not necessarily in the way you want. Really, there isn't much more one can say about a "generic" ketogenic diet than would fit in a one-sentence dictionary definition. That does not an encyclopaedia article make. Have you actually read this article? In what way could one shoehorn some text about weight loss diets into it? It would be like trying to fit text about Orange (the mobile phone company) into our article on Orange (the fruit).  -- Colin°Talk 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree that I don't know how to search pubmed, but that is what I got. Again a WP:MEDS does not forbid a article about a diet that becomes popular just because there is no papers about it! If I invent the water diet, if it becomes popular, written about, people will die from it, but the press will write and people will 'eat' it, then it should be described in wikipedia, including that most people dies from it, even if there is no paper in WP:MEDS. What did you get from google???? The sv:Statens_beredning_f%C3%B6r_medicinsk_utv%C3%A4rdering have stated this, I quote one small bit But the overall research shows that even strict low carb also leads to lose weight. In the short term, six months, advice on a low carbohydrate diet is more effective than low-fat diets for obesity. (bolded my translation that google did not manage and slight grammer fix), so there are state authorities that recommend this. You can read Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories which is 450 pages plus and an additional 120 pages with references and notes written by Gary Taubes who have been awarded Science in Society Journalism Award an MIT Knight_Science_Journalism_Fellowships so he should be acceptable even under WP:MEDS?? So I think we should be able to shoehorn in more than 1 or 2 sentences. Im sure both articles about the Oranges have more than a few sentences and can co exists as two pages, just as we are tryint to argue. --Stefan talk 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is determined by reliable sources. Not blogs. Not self-published books. Not internet forums. Not cookery books. So if diet X is really really popular that it will be mentioned by reliable sources saying the diet is popular (newspapers, etc) and so we could write about it somewhere on Wikipedia to mention it is popular. But to make health claims (in our voice, rather than "Dr Quack claims his new onion diet ...") we need sources that are considered reliable for health claims. And PubMed is a good source of those (but the secondary literature like reviews, not the primary literature like primary research papers) and publishers for health professionals are a good source too. A press release isn't a reliable source (they get so many things wrong often) but we can go back to the original systematic literature review if we find it. And what they say is nothing new. And what you missed out in your quote was that in the long term pretty much all weight loss diets are similar. In some studies the low-carb diets show short term benefits. But these "random population group" studies are not the whole story. There are genetic and psychological reasons why some methods of weight loss work for some people and not others. And there are some world cultures where low carb is unthinkable. The study you quote talks about "strict and moderate low carbohydrate diets" -- the problem is that those terms aren't quite the same as "ketogenic diet". There isn't really a standard term in the literature for the stricter low carbohydrate diets, which makes writing an article on WP difficult to avoid WP:OR.
 * You say we can shoehorn in one or two sentences but I ask you again to actually read this article. It is completely focused on the epilepsy therapy for children. Nearly every sentence would need rewritten to make it clear what only applied to the epilepsy therapy and what only applied to the weight loss diet. It would be a nightmare and tedious to read.
 * Just compare the two diets. One is a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate, adequate calorie, intensively-medically-supervised dietary therapy for treating intractable epilepsy in children, where continuous ketosis is so vital that consuming a sugary sweet might lead to serious epileptic seizures, and that is recommended by medical authorities worldwide and typically initiated in tertiary specialist hospitals. The other is typically a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate, low-calorie diet for weight loss diet for adults, which is rarely medically supervised let alone recommended, where consuming a sugary sweet is considered naughty but of no higher consequence, and is typically initiated after reading a popular book or blog. Now there might be degrees of ketosis in both but that's just about the only adjective in common. Please, that's a different article. -- Colin°Talk 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT can be used against a none ketogenic diet(i.e. 'normal' diet), but there is no WP:WEIGHT argument between this keto page and a generic keto page, as you say they are quite different. A Generic keto diet page should have enough WP:N to exists on its own and that is determined by WP:N, not WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:V, WP:NPOV or all the other WP's that have been discussed.
 * You said shoehorn first, I responded against that in a sarcastic manner, what I meant was that if someone can write a 400+ pages book about a topic I think we can have a page about it in WP. but we agree that the two topics is not the same, so I suggest that there should be two pages AND that the generic page should be called ketogenic diet and this page should be moved to Ketogenic diet (epilepsy).
 * To make it clear, when I say generic keto diet, I'm NOT talking about a weight loss diet, I'm talking about a generic page for a diet that is used for yes weight loss, diabetes treatment or even cure, endurance exercise and general health, and that is my problem, I do not think that this page should be called Ketogenic diet (weight loss), or WP:Ketogenic diet (weight loss, diabetes, endurance, whatever. I did not find this page ookign for weight loss, it might be the most common 'use' of this diet (for sure it is more common than as a epilepsy treatment) but I think that is the wrong name. I think that we should move/rename this page and make this a generic page (which will include a short section about epilepsy cure) and a link).
 * See the incoming wiki links, don't you agree that there are more of them for a generic diet and that most of them are plain wrong for a page only about epilepsy treatment? See the google hits today, do you get more about the epilepsy treatment, I for sure do not? See the example from reddit above, I quickly checked reddit (and I am not an expert on reddit either), but I get 2,050 subscribers to /r/Epilepsy compare to 131,000 for /r/keto (when I check now it is 134,922 so that makes it at least 2,992 new readers since 20 jan, so more new subscribes in a month than the epilepsy channel have in total. --Stefan talk 00:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While WP:N is a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for an article, WP:WEIGHT determines what we can write. I don't think you can write a WP:NOR article about your so-called "generic ketogenic diet" that goes beyond the dictionary definition "a diet that results in ketosis". That's all these diets have in common. Absolutely nothing else. Not one thing. Different food ratios. Different population group. Different purpose. Different mechanism-of-action. Different side-effects. Different duration. The book and research you quote are on low carbohydrate diet and you are welcome to improve that article. If some incoming links are inappropriate then perhaps a Wiktionary link would be more appropriate. Much of the research on weight loss and diabetes is really just on low carb dieting, which may or may not be strict enough to be ketogenic. Your book Good_Calories,_Bad_Calories has no sections on ketogenic diet. An Amazon search for "ketogenic" in the book finds just five results, three of which are in the bibliography. Clearly that term is of negligible importance to that author. Please, the research or low-carb diets is really interesting and I would like WP to have better coverage of it, but start with low carbohydrate diet. One cannot take research and books that study low-carb dieting in general and apply those results to the kind of low-fat high-protein ketogenic diet that some adults have put themselves on after reading a few reddit pages. I don't think reddit has any bearing on what WP writes (it isn't a reliable source) -- what makes you think the parents of seriously ill children get their advice from reddit rather than, you know, from their consultant physician? -- Colin°Talk 08:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:N demands WP:RS you should know that, just read WP:N don't nitpick. Again WP:WEIGHT does not apply between keto and keto epilepsy. Again I agree there should be two articles. But I still think the two has a lot in common, they have same mechanism-of-action (as a diet), obviously they will not have any epilepsy improvement in none epilepsy users. That book and other, can be used to argue against the supposed negative impact of the diet. Which I find very little about in this article. I never said reddit was reliable source! I just used it as a argument that maybe ketogenic diet was much more than a epileptic diet which you seams to claim and that it was pretty popular topic. I think the discussion here is about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think that this page is not the primary topic and the generic diet is. --Stefan talk 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How can something which does not exist beyond a dictionary definition possibly be a primary topic for a full encyclopaedia article? No, the mechanism of action is not the same -- do you have a single reliable source that even suggests such? Whatever it is that suppresses seizures (and it is still a mystery) is quite separate from whatever it is that encourages weight loss. The weight loss on a strict low-carb diet is probably due to multiple factors like eliminating the insulin spike from high-GI carbs, or the filling effect of lots of protein or simply what happens on any food-restriction diet -- people go off their food. The ketogenic aspect of such a low-carb diet is only one theoretical factor and the word "ketosis" on its own isn't a mechanism-of-action. That book is on low-carb diets. In general. And it sounds very much like that is the topic you should be writing about, which strict very-low-carb-ketogenic variants as a sub-topic in that article. -- Colin°Talk 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you say that this diet does not exists beyond a dictionary definition? What do you even mean by that? That no one is using it?? Really? A high fat, low carb diet does not have to be a food restricted diet, it is just carb restricted. I don't understand what you mean with 'one theoretical factor'. Ketogenic is the'purpose', or definition of this diet, not sure how it can be theoretical. Low carb is much broader topic, and I don't want to write about that, only the keto diets interests me. and they all have one thing in common, the are ketogenic! I have no sources that even try to compare the 'mechanism of action', and I dont think it has enough WP:WEIGHT to be described, Im just responding to you. I don't understand how you can say that a set of diets that all have the same goal, i.e. to induce a ketogenic state, cannot be described, but one of the subsets of them, which is used as a treatment for epilepsy is the main topic. --Stefan talk 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me a book or reliable sources that talk about "ketogenic diets in general". Actually, none of these diets have the same goal. The "ketogenic state" is just an attribute that can be measured and which may or may not contribute part/some/most/none of the effects that are the desired goal : control of epileptic seizures, weight loss, diabetic control, longer life, whatever. If you read this article, this diet was constructed to mimic some of the effects of fasting, which was found by chance to help epilepsy. One of the effects of fasting is ketosis, so they tried to mimic that. Somehow a diet that also induces ketosis appears to also help epilepsy just as fasting does. Nobody actually knows if it is the ketones that make the difference. The mechanism is unknown. Similarly, we know that for some people low-carb high-protein diets help them lose weight. There are probably multiple factors in that. One of which is food restriction (of course it is a food restricted diet -- many common foods are essentially just carbs, high-gi carbs too). There is a certain population that likes to take dieting or healthy living in a scientific way and the ability to measure one's conformance with a strict diet -- by measuring ketones in the urine or blood -- has a great appeal. So while you may be aiming for a ketosis on your diet, you are just measuring a proxy. The actual goal you have is something else. People have theories as to why ketosis might influence the body in various ways but research on this is at early stages. From what I have read, the effects of strict low-carb high-protein diets are best discussed under the umbrella of "low carbohydrate diet" as that is where all the factors that could help it work lie. Ketosis is just one measurable component. -- Colin°Talk 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Keto Clarity: Your Definitive Guide to the Benefits of a Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet', not sure if you call it a WP:RS but I think it will stand up to that claim. It claims to explain a 'generic' keto diet (I have not read it, I'm just doing a amazon search for you). Show me the book that claims that a ketogenic diet is best discussed under the umbrella of "low carbohydrate diet", or where every you read that?? Not sure I understand when you talk about by measuring a proxy? What does it have to do with anything? Sure, the goal for most ketogenic diest is not ketosis, but that does not mean that it might not be the definition and a good name for a group of diets or that they cannot have their own article because of that. That group is smaller than low carb diet and bigger than your 'Ketogenic diet (epilepsy)' and I cannot understand how the smaller and larger groups are worthy of articles, but the middle is not. --Stefan talk 06:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh goodness me. That's a weight-loss book by a vanity publisher. No it doesn't count as a RS in anyone's book. And the author, writes a "low carb" blog. Low carb is the topic. They use "ketogenic" in the book title because it sounds all scientific and medical, which appeals to a certain kind of dieter. *sigh*. -- Colin°Talk 08:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *sigh*, what about   all three talking about ketigenic diet, but used for three different things, none of them epilepsy. Did you have a book about the suitability for discussing keto diet under the topic low carb?? --Stefan talk 10:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can find individual papers looking at a ketogenic diet for many things. What that doesn't give you is a body of literature that discuses ketogenic diets in-general for many things together. A keto diet is a subset of low-carb diet and any reasonable reading of the literature would support that -- there a large body of research into low-carb diets that mention ketogenic forms or ketosis. The results for Taekwondo teenagers training for a fight with lean bodies has very little in common with patients with brain tumours or obese adults with diabetes or children with the most extreme kinds of epilepsy. What you need is a body of literature that brings these various disparate research studies together -- it isn't something a wikipedian is allowed to do.
 * I've found one review paper that will interest you. (full free text). This is the sort of thing you need. But you need that to be what the literature is full of, not just a single paper.  Note that their favourite precise term is "very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD)", which is used by some researchers to distinguish from the very specific epilepsy diet. It may be that term is used widely enough to justify a Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet article, and a disambiguation link at the top of this page. Note that the authors of that paper are in the advantageous position of being able to select research on low-carb diets and research on keto-diets and apply one to the other. It is less easy for a wikipedian to do this (some things will be safe as keto is a subset but others are not because keto is stricter). That is why it will be very hard to write a decent sized article without engaging in OR unless you find a dozen such review papers or professional textbooks. -- Colin°Talk 11:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will read the paper, but please help me, explain why a article in wikipedia needs many sources to define the topic? which policy states that? A collection page like I envision would have to have sources from multiple sources, each specialising in different parts, I dont have to show any connection between diabetes treatment and Taekwondo, except that both can use a ketogenic diet. I dont see how it can be an issue listing people/diets like William Harvey, William Banting, Elliott P. Joslin, A.W. Pennington and Atkins even though most of them did not call what they did ketogenic diet, as long as their respective diets made the body go into ketosis, their diet is a ketogenic diet, if someone (and that can be someone else) defines what that is (e.g. less than 50g carbo per day, or 15 or whatever). I have never heard of that policy or that argument applied to sources. Please help point me in the right direction.
 * I think you agree now that the topic exists? The paper you link to shows that it does (name aside)! If there are lots of sources that argue that it does not exists, OK fair, but I doubt that there is any decent sources that will say that. I understand that you are arguing against the article, not the title of the article, or do you only argue against the title? If so I have already given up trying to convince you on the title, that fight will happen when/if there ever is a page, and I'm very slow writing nowadays :-). --Stefan talk 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic that you want is a dictionary definition. There are sources enough for that and the place for it is Wiktionary. See Notability. It gives good advice. There is not a significant number of reliable sources talking about ketogenic diets in general and in detail (rather than in-passing). We've found exactly one. Among the thousands of research articles and hundreds of review articles that have been published on the KD for epilepsy, and among the hundreds individual research articles on various kinds of low-carb keto diet for other purposes, the body of literature does not do this. That should be a huge clue that doing it ourselves is highly likely to lead to an article with original research. Which is absolute policy - no. Now, within some domains such as weight loss, there is enough material to write a short article about ketogenic diets for that purpose. But, as our guideline on notability helpfully says, it is probably better to cover this stuff under the parent topic of low-carb diets. That is what the body of literature does. For example, the Atkins diet is only somewhat ketogenic in the induction phase. For the rest of the diet plan, it certainly is not. So that makes it a low-carb diet but not strictly speaking a ketogenic diet. And as I keep saying, but it doesn't seem to sink in, most of these other diets are high protein and low calorie, which has importance for body-building or for hunger satiety or growth. In its composition it is an utterly different diet. For a different purpose. With one adjective in common that scientists can't even agree is the vitally important part. -- Colin°Talk 08:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will research WP:N more, but with my current understanding I think there is enough out there to write the article (but it was long since I read it). I know you are talking about low carb high protein, but I'm not and have never, I think low carb, high fat (med protein). --Stefan talk 10:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

John M. Freeman
Hi, all. I've put together an article for John M. Freeman, the physician largely responsible for the resurgence of the diet at Hopkins in the 1970s and onward, but I'm not all that comfortable editing an FA-level article. The Freeman article has sourcing on this, and I hope someone more skilled than I am, if they think it's a good idea, includes him properly in the History/Revival section. Kajabla (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Title change
There are other uses for ketogenic diets beyond the treatment of epilepsy, as this article acknowledges, but the current solution of referring other interests to the low-carbohydrate article seems questionable to me since ketogenic diets are a subset of low-carbohydrate diets. I suggest a better alternative is to rename this article to "Ketogenic diet for epilepsy treatment" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlambert (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "ketogenic diet" is used in scholarly literature to refer to this epilepsy treatment in the vast majority of cases. If I search on Google for "ketogenic diet" then the epilepsy treatment absolutely dominates the results, despite the efforts of fad-diet bloggers and self-published booksellers. The diet for epilepsy is not a form of weight loss diet, nor is it a body-building high-protein diet. The fact that these diets are (sometimes) ketogenic is interesting, of course, but they aren't really discussed together in any serious literature. So neither should we focus on that link as though it is of article-level importance. Carrots and oranges are share a colour, but little else. -- Colin°Talk 08:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ketogenic diet" for epilepsy used to be the vast majority of scholarly articles and may still be the majority, but its percentage has declined due to the increase in other topics: E.g., clinical trials. Yes there are a lot of fads and for-profit promoters dominating general search results, which is why an unbiased perspective in Wikipedia is important. "...they aren't really discussed together in any serious literature" is no longer true. Your carrots and oranges sharing a color analogy is inapplicable because color is not a defining characteristic of vegetables or fruits, whereas every ketogenic diet is defined by its effect of inducing ketosis regardless of the purpose. JD Lambert(T 10:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is promising that the ketogenic diet is being researched for brain cancer/injury, as this article notes. Until such usage reaches standard recommended practice, it isn't very significant. The epilepsy therapy went past the "pilot trial" stage nearly 100 years ago. If such therapeutic use of a strict ketogenic diet were to become common, this article could accommodate that. But the other diet kinds such as weight loss, body building or life-extension are a different beast and, believe me, the scientific literature does not compare them. Some of these diets mention the epilepsy therapy in passing or to try to give themselves some respectability, but there isn't really much to say beyond that. Very sick children have little in common with young fit adults looking for the latest trick to improve their health or body image. Often these other diets are high protein and low carbohydrate with ketosis only one aspect of their design, and some do not feature constant long-term ketosis. (Colour is a defining characteristic of food -- green vegetables and red meat for example). -- Colin°Talk 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my replies under the "Inappropriate exclusion of the most common type of ketogenic diet" section. JD Lambert(T 15:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)