Talk:Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

Merge
Should this article exist? It feels like it ought to be split among the history and general references for the Low-carbohydrate diet article, but I am happy to turn the debate over to those better qualified than me, I can recognise a can of worms when I see one :-)) FlagSteward 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 years later, no merge in sight. Although both articles maintain a facade of NPOV, the general tone of this article is anti-low carb diets, while the general tone of Low-carbohydrate diet is pro-low carb diets. A number of research items favorable to low carb diets are missing here, while a number of research items raising concerns are missing there. I propose that this article be used to flesh out the "Criticism" section of Low-carbohydrate diet, at the very least. Warning: A naive merge could end up near completely washing out the primary article, since there are plenty of studies that touch the surface of the topic and come up to contradictory conclusions. The other risk here is that the list of references may end up being longer than the article proper. 99.58.56.123 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
I don't believe this kind of article is appropriate for inclusion on wikipedia for many reasons. Therefore, I propose deletion. OccamzRazor 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It can be covered in the main article.
 * 2) It implies a comprehensiveness of the subject that it can't deliver.
 * 3) It is easily biased to show primarily research that supports one point of view (as this article is clearly biased toward demonstrating positive aspects of low carb diets).
 * 4) It consists of brief summary statements of detailed clinical studies with various parameters and additional findings.  Unless people read the entire study, the implications are unclear.
 * 5) It's simply a list with no actual conclusion and wiki is not a site of lists.
 * 6) Allowing this kind of page to remain invites additional articles to be created about medical research with various biases.
 * 7) In this case, it seems to be used to support commercial ventures - the profit-drven low carbohydrate diet business.


 * This artlcle seems well-sourced and has a viable subject. I'd suggest either merging with Low-carbohydrate diet or putting it up for WP:Articles for deletion.  Dreadstar  †  03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is extremely biased toward supporting the main subject and primarily cites small, clearly flawed studies that don't reach general conclusions about the subject. Some studies that reached conclusions contrary to the pro-bias have already been deleted.


 * Because you objected to an uncontested deletion, I am going through each study and deleting the clearly flawed ones one by one, explaining each move in detail. I will also nominate if for WP:Articles for deletion as I believe this is a POV fork and contrary to the purpose and pillars of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 08:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent - almost exactly per my suggestions! The material in both articles needs to be cleaned up, so thanks for taking that on.  I'd also suggest checking both articles for WP:NOR, it looks like there may be some original research in them.  I haven't looked at the article size, but it may be that merging them will cause readability and article size issues, so this may actually be an article spinout rather than a POV fork. I'll leave that up to you, tho!  Dreadstar  †  08:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.. this page was edited by people having no idea about ketosis, ketogenic diets,low carb diets or anything connected to the subject! Just some hopefuls looking for some edits to put on their wikipedia cv, sadly i do not possess the skill to restore it nor do i have the time to learn how. This isn't what wikipedia is about.. i was reading the history of edits, a crime! -A pissed off wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.18.10 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To undo the edits, just find the version you like, click on "last", then on "edit", make an edit, then click on "save page" at bottom of version.--Phenylalanine (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Folks, I have not visited this article for some time and am severely disappointed with some questionable judgment in how this article has been butchered.
 * For what it is worth I created this article because
 * In the Low Carb Diet article it is difficult to generalize about the scientific consensus on the subject since there really isn't a consensus (among other things because even the "experts" tend to make "strawman" arguments defining "low carb" to suit their arguments). As such the only way to objectively understand the scientific conclusions is to look at the research.
 * Including a long list of research in the main Low Carb article would make that article too long.
 * There were many research articles removed from the list here arguing that they do not specifically discuss the benefits or problems with low-carb diets. That does not make their inclusion inappropriate since they are still relevant to the debates surrounding low carb diets. Some articles were removed because they did not document clinical studies. This again does not make them inappropriate. OccamzRazor wants to argue that there is not enough "con" research presented here. He is free to add it if he likes but that does not justify this unethical behavior.
 * For now I am restoring the deletions as I see no justification for what was done here.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original proposal to delete this entire article, well, I just came to Wikipedia looking for information on the medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets, and although that isn't the precise search term I used, what I found (this article) is precisely what I wanted. If there's a problem with NPOV, fix it, but the article itself should not be deleted. 67.160.213.41 (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

refimprove
Phenylalanine added a refimprove tag but has not discussed what specific sections or issues are of particular concern. I have trouble understanding where there could be a general concern since virtually every sub-section is associated with a specific reference.

Please elaborate or else remove this tag.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead and synopsis sections are unsourced. As such, they contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. (WP:SYN). Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * References have been added extensively to both sections and the RefImprove tag has been removed. If there are further concerns please add Fact tags and appropriate explanations. Thanks!
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good resource
FYI: I found this page:
 * http://charm.cs.uiuc.edu/users/jyelon/lowcarb.med/

It's not appropriate to reference directly since it is just some student's homepage but it appears to have a very detailed list of medical research. I have not gone through it all but if anybody is motivated to do so and look for articles that bear inclusion feel free to do so. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Move
This page does not belong on wikipedia but is more suitable for wikibooks.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Improper reference
I don't understand why this phrase is in the article: "A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2002 concluded[56] that fat-restricted diets are no better than calorie restricted diets in achieving long term weight loss in overweight or obese people." The study compares low-fat with low-calorie diets, but the article is about low-carb. I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.73.164 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a warning about the validity of studies on rat and mice ?
I am a bit surprised that people study human diet using rat and mice. It seems to me absolutely grotesque. It is a bit like if we would like to study the effect of a purely carnivore regime on a cow or pure grass on a polar bear or a lion.

Everybody knows the answer: all of them would die. And studying all the cascade of horrible consequences due to this improper diet which cannot be metabolized properly is may be entertaining but has probably very little direct application to human patient. It it is not that we have to be carefull in generalizing as the author so, it is just that these studies are not relevant at all in this matter but pertain to fundamental zoology and understanding metabolic functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kervennic (talk • contribs) 19:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How is it grotesque when rats and mice tend toward omnivorous diets? While both do largely eat vegetable matter, they also scavenge meat from carrion and eat insects on an opportunistic basis. Hence, your comment is both extremely POV, opinionated in a vacuum of fact and overall nonsensical, as rats and mice are well established medical models and what differences are present are extremely well documented. One may as well claim rats are a lousy model because they cannot vomit.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Low-carbohydrate diet
Content is intrinsic to the proposed target article Alexbrn talk 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Undid Revert
Replaced links to article summarizing a comparison of LC and LF diets. The source is comparable to many of the sources linked to on the LC diet page.A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The link looks like spam Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)