Talk:Max Lugavere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality concerns[edit]

Non-productive suggestions to improve article. No reliable references suggested. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Wikipedians,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent alterations made to this page (I am Max, the subject). As a health and science journalist, I have dedicated my career to promoting evidence-based approaches to diet and health motivated by my mothers battle with dementia. However, it has come to my attention that the current state of my Wikipedia page does not accurately reflect this commitment.

It is evident that certain edits have been made with a clear bias against me. While I respect diverse perspectives on nutrition, it is crucial that any content presented on my Wikipedia page remains neutral and accurately represents my work and viewpoints. I am not a proponent of carnivore diets, or even "high meat" diets. If you look into any of my published work, I do regularly promote the consumption of animal source foods, including red meat, but always alongside other healthful foods such as dark leafy greens, fruits and vegetables, nuts, olive oil, etc. My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover. I also rarely discuss supplements as a primary focus (always food first), do not sell any supplements of my own, and always clearly disclose when I have a brand relationship (such as when I promote a product on my podcast). Further, I have never "blamed" vegan diets  for causing dementia, though I have expressed concern that they deprive the brain of important nutrients, which I feel strongly about in part because my mother, who had dementia, was a vegetarian for most of her life.

The deliberate insertion of defamatory statements and the omission of significant contributions to the field undermine the integrity of the page and mislead readers. My focus on evidence-based nutrition encompasses a wide range of dietary approaches, including the benefits of consuming animal source foods, which have been supported by scientific research. As a journalist who is always transparent about his background (i.e. I never misrepresent myself), I also host many viewpoints on my podcast—vegan, carnivore, credentialed nutrition experts, and general wellness enthusiasts—and push back when appropriate. Though some personalities may be disagreeable to some, I believe that having these conversations is within the scope of my work as a journalist. I don't always get it right, I'm not perfect, but I try my best to be a valuable contributor to the public health conversation.

I can share my most recent talks on The Today Show (this is from 1 month ago) which clearly showcases a balanced approach, and one which is evidence-based. https://www.today.com/video/feel-better-from-the-inside-out-with-this-food-reset-203011141957

I can share a profile and interview in The Times which clearly showcases my views are not fringe, and deeply personally motivated: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dementia-killed-my-mum-this-is-what-i-wish-id-known-about-brain-food-7cwll26kk (this is behind a paywall but I'm happy to email the PDF to anybody)

I can also share my academic review, published by Springer. All research articles, and most other article types, published in Springer journals undergo peer review. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93497-6_14

My newly-released documentary, which documents why I do everything it is that I do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpVS8ZF10I

Nutrition is a polarizing field. Nonetheless, I've dedicated my life to helping others, and have achieved respect amongst both mainstream media and the community at large. Hopefully it is clear that I'm not in fact known for "fringe claims and opposition to veganism," but for doing my part to help to mitigate suffering in the world.

I urge the Wikipedia community to uphold the principles of neutrality and accuracy in content creation. I welcome constructive dialogue and collaboration to ensure that my Wikipedia page reflects a balanced portrayal of my work and positive contributions to the broader public awareness of the power of nutrition to impact health. Vinestreet97 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have made a common error by assuming that Wikipedia's neutrality policy means that we should have a 'balanced' article. But that is specifically not what is done on this site, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the reliable, independent sources are critical, so too will be the Wikipedia article. Note they your own talks, documentaries, and interviews with you are not considered to be independent. The 'Neutral' in WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia reflects the tone of the best available sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for coming here rather than editing the article yourself, per our WP:COI policy. Ok, I'm not watching this article, but came here from WP:BLPN to take a look. First, to clarify any bias of my own, I have been a devote carnivore all of my life. I was raised on a hunter-gatherer diet for the most part, not for any nutritional reasons, but because this isn't farming country I live in.
First, a bit of advice, and this is purely meant to be constructive criticism. If you want people in the scientific community to take you more seriously, you may want to avoid the cum hoc fallacy and other logically flawed arguments. Just sayin'...
With that out of the way, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for. You provided us with a bunch of primary sources for the most part, but no specific details about what you see as wrong, biased, needs to be added or changed? One problem about having a Wikipedia article is it will reflect both the bad opinions people have as well as the good ones, and balance doesn't mean an equal portion of each but we apportion them the same as reliable sources do. (See: WP:An article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.)
We are not news investigators, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source, like any other encyclopedia or book you'd find in the reference section of the library. We cannot use primary sources in order to give our own interpretations of them. Secondary sources do that. We need to get all our interpretations from secondary sources. Where primary sources can be useful is for reviews, critiques, and otherwise the opinions of people qualified to speak on the matter. It is unlikely that the negative reviews will end up getting deleted, but it may be possible to find positive reviews to add to them. Those are the kinds of things you should look for and bring here.
But then you need to be very specific about what it is you feel should be added or changed. We're not mind readers, ya know. Spell it out for us, don't just expect us to see what you do. ie: "Such and such sentence needs to be changed to this" or, "This information should be added there." Tell us exactly what you think should be done so people will better understand your line of thinking, and keep in mind that you most certainly have your own biases -we all do. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim about evidence-based is an odd one, considering that Max tells us to go to his YouTube podcast. On Max's YouTube podcast his regular guest speakers are carnivore diet and low-carbohydrate diet influencers - Steven Gundry, Dave Asprey, William Davis, Mark Hyman, Jason Fung, Mark Sisson (of paleo diet fame), David Perlmutter [1]. A few days ago Shawn Baker the most well known carnivore diet influencer appeared on Max's podcast, "The Case for Carnivore" [2]. I listened to about 45 minutes of the interview. Nowhere did max make a single criticism of the carnivore diet, he agreed with Baker on everything. It should be noted that functional medicine that Max is also involved with [3], has been strongly criticized as a pseudoscience (check our Wikipedia article on functional medicine). Max says he has been interviewed by reliable sources but this doesn't appear to be the case. He is a regular guest on Steven Gundry's podcast [4] and carnivore diet Paul Saladino's podcast [5], [6], Mark Hyman's podcast [7] and David Perlmutter's podcast [8]? There seems to be a pattern here with this guys strong involvement with the alternative medicine and carnivore diet community. As for WP:RS he hasn't listed any. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, can it get any worse! Max above tells us to look at his new documentary trailer [9], both Nina Teicholz and Mark Hyman are in the trailer as key speakers. This is about as fringe as it gets. As for the today.com video [10] not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reliable source(s) for the claim in the article that Max Lugavere is "known for: Fringe dietary claims". Without that, I do not see how we are meeting the essential requirement for NPOV on a BLP. 69.249.103.131 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a well known advocate of pseudoscience [11]. Max Lugavere is heavily involved with functional medicine (a well known alternative medicine), he is the opposite of evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source you linked here (mcgill.ca) make the claim that Lugavere's dietary claims specifically are "fringe"? I don't see this language in their article, nor is there any mention of his "opposition" to vegan/vegetarian diet. Kalem014 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings. I'm also following up in response to your WP:BLPN post/s. I'll keep my response limited to BLP policy. It doesn't look like the sources you have offered comport with requirements of our Reliable Sources policy. At this time, that failure appears confirmed by consensus, which is how we decide things. Now as to the content you find problematic, could you please (as Zaereth requested) quote the text you oppose, propose specific changes, and provide relevant supporting citations from reliable third-party sources? Also, do try to refrain from using terms like "defamatory" as we get your point, and we have our limits for that kind of talk here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've closed the BLPN discussion because this is the correct forum for the content discussion. It should be in one place at a time. Please resort back to BLPN in case a consensus does not emerge. At this time, it appears no resorting back to BLPN will be needed. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking over this in more detail. Basically Max has an upcoming low-carbohydrate documentary on diet and dementia called "Bread Head" to be released on 19 April 2024 [12]. He has never taken interest in his Wikipedia article until now. The documentary features Mark Hyman and Steven Gundry. The real issue for Max appears to be this source on his Wikipedia article [13] which a blocked IP tried to remove many times [14]. The source is reliable, there is no valid reason to remove it. Max talks about "defamatory statements" but doesn't list what these are. There is no defamation.
Of note, there may be a possible canvassing issue because he has advertised his Wikipedia page on Twitter [15] Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Max's claim above "My book Genius Foods, which was co-written with a medical doctor, clearly shows this on the cover". The medical doctor he is talking about is Paul Grewal who describes himself as a "paleo-friendly functional medicine physician" [16]. It is incorrect to try and pass off a paleo diet book as a "balanced approach" to nutrition. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think comments about user behavior, such as canvassing, maybe COI editing as an IP, etc. belong on noticeboards like WP:ANI and WP:COIN and maybe eventually WP:SPI but not talk pages. I'll gladly review a ping if you go there. But I don't think we are there yet. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus for NPOV template[edit]

There is no consensus for this [17]. Max is currently on his Facebook and Twitter promoting conspiracy theories that his Wikipedia article has been seized by vegan activists and is telling his keto and paleo diet fanbase to come and edit here. There is an obvious issue here of Wikipedia:Canvassing and WP:MEATPUPPET. The NPOV template is not being added in good faith. There is no valid consensus to add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required for Template:POV to be placed. However, consensus is required for removal of the template. The neutrality issues are highlighted here, and in the above "Neutrality concerns" topic, which is sufficient to apply the banner for now.
Also, challenged/contentious unsourced "known for" fringe, etc. must be removed from infobox Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Kalem014 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a new user with only around 50 edits on this website and you have hardly edited any articles. It's a bit silly if you are trying to lecture experienced users who have been here for years. I am well aware about the guidelines. You are saying no consensus is required for a NPOV template, actually there should be. Just because Max Lugavere and his meat-puppets want an NPOV template inserted, this is not a valid consensus. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV templates are not badges of shame to be maintained on an article - there would need to be some sort of actionable discussion topic ongoing to keep the template up. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy I have over 50 edits. Please assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Valid neutrality concerns were raised, which is my only interest (rather than any personal/ideological interest in the subject of the article itself whatsoever), sincerely.
MrOllie Thank you. I think removal of the template is fair assuming no further action is needed on the unsourced "known for" content, which I have removed. This was by far the most glaring contentious item in this BLP to my eye. Kalem014 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in this article, we need new editors to help out and improve articles related to WP:Fringe but dumping an NPOV template on an article when there are not any valid NPOV concerns is not the correct way to do it. That's not the way Wikipedia works. If there were 2, 3 or 4 users here complaining about this article saying it violates NPOV there would be a valid case but the drive by IP edits and new accounts are clearly suspicious. That is not a valid consensus. This seems to be more of a case of WP:MEATPUPPET than genuine concerns about NPOV. I have seen this this happen many times on fringe diet related articles. Max is telling his fans to come over here and edit his article but none of these IPs have suggested any WP:RS. If you know of any new reliable sources we can use to improve the article let us know. I am always interested in expanding articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement. My concern was entirely policy-based and the necessary correction was made, which improves the integrity of the article overall. No Meatpuppetry here and again, we are in agreement on the removal of the POV template at this time. No further concerns on my end. Kalem014 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 'unsourced' - infoboxes summarize the body of the article, you can find sourcing there. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If infobox is the summary of the article, then the article clearly is not neutral and does not reflect reality. Where is the language from a reliable source that subject is known for fringe claims? Not even the 6 year old McGill source referenced contains that language. From that source, regarding his claims on an interview: “I can’t argue against any of [his claims]. In this one-hour interview, he ends up sounding balanced and well informed.” No other claims are deemed fringe, the article just acknowledges business ambitions. Please clarify. 69.75.163.74 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed every referenced source in the article. None state or even imply his "dietary claims" are "fringe". A further cursory search for reliable sources on the web turned up no associations in these terms either (other than the WP article itself). Unless a reliable source is provided to support that specific statement, it appears to be a WP:SYNTH, unsourced contentious claim on a BLP that must be revised or removed. Particularly given the infobox item is highlighting what he is most "known for".
There does however seem to be at least some basis for what could be construed as opposition to the vegan diet. It seems somewhat UNDUE to me given this does not appear to represent the primary focus of his work (the emphasis seems to be more broadly on keto/low-carb advocacy [18]), but given this broader context seems fair. Kalem014 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[19], It's quite obvious from reading that source that Max is promoting fringe views on his podcast. "He brings a holistic health coach on episode 2, whose father had terminal kidney cancer and, she claims, cured himself by abandoning Western medicine and fine-tuning his nutrition instead. In episode 9, the guest is a “functional dentist” who says crooked teeth happen because we’re not eating healthy. His website promotes recipes for homemade mouthwash and for healing cavities naturally. And the episode gets a sponsorship from a Toronto-based supplement company. Lugavere really likes their “gut health powder". Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is your WP:SYNTH. It may seem obvious to you, but with respect, you are not a reliable source. If we can find a source for the assertion specifically that Lugavere's "dietary claims" are "fringe" than we can let it stand. It simply must be sourced to allow on a BLP. Kalem014 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:Synth to say that source says he is promoting fringe ideas about nutrition. The article admits some of his views are not backed by science, even the very link includes the word "quackery". You are being difficult just for the sake of it. I see you have been warned in the past about fringe issues [20]. There are millions of articles to edit on Wikipedia you are not doing yourself any favours by going down this route. Edit warring usually leads to a block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To say Lugavere is known for "Fringe dietary claims", first and foremost, is a bold and very specific statement that must be supported. What is the source? I am not being "difficult for the sake of it" Wikipedia:Be civil. We don't need "millions of articles", just one, from a reliable source stating he is making "fringe dietary claims". Again, my only interest here is in preserving the integrity of the overall article and WP. My comments and edits have been 100% Wikipedia:CONPOL based.
Regarding your note on blocking, I am only compelled by the policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately... The burden of evidence rests with the editor(s) who add or restore the contentious material." Note, that the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Kalem014 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV template contains the sentence Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. It does not make sense to add the template without previously starting a discussion on the Talk page that can be linked in the template. Templating without such a discussion lets other users guess what exactly is POV about the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hob Gadling, the template removal was not disputed beyond the initial removal. The discussion seems to be focused on removal of contentious unsourced WP:SYNTH from the infobox. Specifically regarding Lugavere being primarily known for "Fringe dietary claims". Kalem014 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. And I did not talk about template removal disputes, I explained why the template did not make sense in the first place. The removal of the template was correct but did not give the correct reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for Fringe Dietary Claims"[edit]

Moving this into it's own topic. To summarize, the statement in the infobox that Lugavere is primarily "Known for" his "Fringe Dietary Claims" is unsourced and contentious material as discussed in previous topics ("Neutrality concerns" & "No Concensus for NPOV template"). Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states such material must be removed immediately and burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the contentious material.

The main dietary intervention he appears to promote the most based on the existing references (and online review) is a ketogenic/low-carbohydrate diet (e.g., [21]), which is certainly mainstream enough to be considered not "fringe".

There does seem to be basis to the claim that Lugavere is otherwise "known for" some "opposition" or concern with the vegetarian diet, which in fairness is the subject of extensive ongoing research & debate and does not rise to the level of being a "fringe" perspective (both pro- and anti-Vegetarianism are popular mainstream dietary beliefs).

Editors have further mentioned his association with sponsors of non-dietary products, and anecdotes from guests on his show as somehow supporting the assertion of his "fringe dietary claims", but these are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources (not to mention Association fallacy).

It is not for WP editors to determine his dietary claims are "fringe" Wikipedia:Synth -- We simply need a reliable source that we can attribute to the specific assertion of being known for "fringe dietary claims" or the contentious statement needs to be revised/removed. Kalem014 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to summarize sources, and it is a fair summary of the McGill source. We don't stitch together Wikipedia articles by quoting exact phrasing. The must be removed immediately language you reference refers to content which is unsourced or poorly sourced and this is neither. MrOllie (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kalem014, you are in agreement he promotes low-carb/keto but you seem to dispute any "fringe" claims. As stated above we have the McGill source that covers this not in regard to his keto/low carb views but his general fringe views on diet. As for the keto thing. A keto/paleo/carnivore diet for weight loss or supposed heart health benefits is not supported by any dietary guidelines or dietetic associations. The ketogenic diet for children with epilepsy is a scientific diet done under controlled conditions - it should not be confused with what Max is promoting. Are you arguing he is promoting mainstream dietary advice in that keto article you link to? Max has a long history of promoting low-carb/keto/carnivore for supposed health benefits. You can see that with the keto link you cited. I am not sure how that article helps your case.
Let's just look at this from a mainstream point of view briefly to put this in context, the American Heart Association have stated "there is insufficient evidence to support any existing popular or fad diets such as the ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting to promote heart health" [22]. But as you know, Max is promoting this keto fad diet for exactly that reason. I understand you are a fan of Max but please do not pretend he is not advocating fringe content. That's like claiming Steven Gundry is not fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be hard for you to believe, but I've never read any articles by or about Lugavere prior to yesterday, and have never seen his podcast. He is not a source of health/diet info for me personally. Please Wikipedia:GOODFAITH as I have extended this policy/courtesy to you. Let's discuss the merits; sources and content policy. This is my only interest.
That said, would you be so kind as to point to a specific passage of text in the McGill article that you believe supports the assertion that he is "known for fringe dietary claims" [23]?
If anything, the author (Jonathan Jarry) states that "he can't argue with" the claims he listened to in an 1-hour interview and that they are "balanced and well informed", and only took issue with the apparent "switch" to sales tactics at the end.
This does not read as a overt declaration of "fringe dietary claims". Let's dig into the content and find the specific attribution. Kalem014 (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be hard for you to believe, but I've never read any articles by or about Lugavere prior to yesterday
Then you should probably learn more about the subject before coming here to argue on behalf of his viewpoints. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject to recognize missing or poor sourcing. I'd argue it makes my assessment more objective:
What is the source for the statement that Lugavere is specifically "known for fringe 'dietary' claims". It's an honest question that remains unanswered, other than by means of Wikipedia:SYNTH. -- Kalem014 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference where Lugavere promotes ketogenic diets or low carb diets? Reliable source from 2023 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dementia-killed-my-mum-this-is-what-i-wish-id-known-about-brain-food-7cwll26kk states: "One area he’s changed his mind on is carbs and the fashion for avoiding them. Previously he followed a very low-carb diet but now eats plenty of slow-release carbs to give him more energy to be active. He still gives refined carbs — and sugar — a wide berth 'as they drive hunger, so it’s smart to minimise those'." This statement is evidence based. It's also clear from his interview here https://www.today.com/video/feel-better-from-the-inside-out-with-this-food-reset-203011141957 that he recommends carbohydrate and is not recommending a ketogenic dietary pattern. The McGill article makes no mention of ketogenic diets, low carbohydrate diets, or that Lugavere is known for fringe claims. Can you provide evidence, Psychologist Guy? 76.50.244.14 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very strong overlap between the above IP and this account [24] which claims to be Max. There is already a keto source cited by Kalem014 that is on the article [25] which gives your views on keto, "Here is how Lugavere's philosophy and the keto diet come together...Lugavere said. "For beef, you want 100 percent grass-fed/grass-finished. Eggs should be pasture-raised or omega-3 enriched. Chicken should be free-range and antibiotic-free. Want to try out a keto-like style of eating for yourself? Lugavere's number one tip is adding extra salt to your diet". A scan through your public social media reveals that you spent 7-8 years promoting keto [26]. There you are promoting "keto snacks". In your own words, you said your book promotes "intermittent ketosis".
All of your social media posts are tagged "#lchf #keto #lowcarb #ketogenic #lowcarbhighfat #paleo #ketosis #primal #ketodiet #paleodiet #paleolifestyle #glutenfree #atkins #grainfree #ketogenicdiet #whole30 #sugarfree #jerf #ketofam #ketolife" which you added, there are literally 1000s of posts by you supporting keto and paleo diets. You have spent a lifetime promoting it. You have not listed any reliable sources. If you have now given up keto or paleo there are no reliable secondary sources published on this. I personally find it hard to believe because less then 14 days ago you were promoting the carnivore diet [27]. There is meat-puppetry and socking here and you are not being honest about what you really promote, so I won't be further discussing this with you. Other editors can weigh in. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add, I have just spent this afternoon reading Max's own book which promotes many fringe ideas about nutrition. It is online for free, so anyone can read it Genius Foods Become Smarter. Here is Max in his own words "The Genius Plan (fully outlined in chapter 11) is no doubt a variant of the ketogenic diet. It combines intermittent fasting with low-carbohydrate eating to increase ketone availability to the brain". The diet promoted in Max's book is a low carb diet high in animal fat. Anyone can read this book and see that. I believe the above account claiming to be Lugavere should be blocked until there is proof it is him. This may well be an impersonation. I find it odd this user is claiming Max is not low-carb when he has written a whole book promoting it. I will report this to Wikipedia:ANI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there seems to be no shortage of sources, including very recent, where Lugavere speaks favorably of keto/low-carb type diets. However, more to the point of the topic, keto/low-carb diets are not fringe, nor have I ever seen a reliable source (among the article's existing references or otherwise) claiming it is. -- Kalem014 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keto diets may not be fringe, but Lugavere’s claims are patently ridiculous. Low-carb diets will not make you smarter. Veganism will not increase your risk of dementia. These are clearly fringe claims. And no I don’t need to cite that because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dronebogus, if I'm not mistaken, it looks like you added the content being discussed under this topic. Here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Lugavere&oldid=1214767157
I'm happy to suggest closing this discussion if you could just highlight where this specific assertion is made in any reliable source. Just so we all clearly understand. It will help to avoid future objections as well. -- Kalem014 (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Not supported by scientific evidence” = fringe. Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False definition of "fringe". 69.249.103.131 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then define fringe. Babysharkboss2 was here!! I killed JFK 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fringe (noun) frinj
often attributive
1: an ornamental border consisting of short straight or twisted threads or strips hanging from cut or raveled edges or from a separate band
2a: something resembling a fringe : EDGE, PERIPHERY — often used in plural
b: (chiefly British) Bangs (an area of hair hanging over the forehead)
c: one of various light or dark bands produced by the interference or diffraction of light
d: an area bordering a putting green on a golf course with grass trimmed longer than on the green itself
3a: something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity, process, or subject
b: a group with marginal or extremist views
c: FRINGE BENEFIT 69.249.103.131 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Marginal or extremist views" pretty much sums up Max Lugavere, he claims incorrectly that grains increase Alzheimer's disease risk and that seed oils cause cancer. The only people that make bizarre fringe pseudoscientific claims like this are from the online carnivore diet and keto crazy community. There isn't a shred of evidence that seed oils or grains increase Alzheimer's or cancer risk. Claims like this are very much the definition of fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"According to a 2018 Gallup poll, 5% of U.S. adults consider themselves to be vegetarian." I could call that marginal or fringe as well, but without a direct reliable reference for such a claim, that would be POV pushing, which is what you are doing. You need to provide a reliable source where it is stated that Lugavere's claims are "fringe", in quotes. You can't be the source for this claim. You know the policy. 69.249.103.131 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor analogy. Plant-based diets are supported by evidence-based medicine and are endorsed by the worlds leading dietetic and health organizations who have put out evidence-based guidelines and reviews on the topic. In contrast none of Lugavere's claims are supported by scientific evidence. Your claims are WP:OR. We have several references on the article noting that Lugavere's views are at odds with the scientific consensus [28], [29], [30], "Max Lugavere is a somewhat controversial figure in the world of health and wellness, advocating a high-fat, meat-heavy diet that has been lauded by many (indeed, he’s a New York Times bestselling author) and greatly criticised by others. He also spends a lot of time on Twitter/X complaining about ‘vegan propaganda’ and creates content for PragerU, a conservative media platform that has been accused on countless occasions of spreading misinformation around climate change, racism and LGBT+ issues. I know you shouldn’t judge a man by the company he keeps, but unfortunately much of this company shows up in Little Empty Boxes, as the film evolves into something quite different from what its first 30 minutes promised." It's funny that you are arguing his views are not fringe when all the evidence and references says they are. You are not acting in good faith here and are just trolling this talk-page so this discussion should be closed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Lugavere&oldid=1227150030"