Talk:Nina Teicholz

Criticized
User:Capricornthought -- about your edits here and here.

The New yorker piece says " In promoting red meat and rejecting grains, the paleo diet challenges just about every precept that nutritionists have been pushing for the past fifty years. In effect, it turns the familiar food pyramid on its point. This is an increasingly common inversion, if not in academic circles or at the U.S. Department of Agriculture then on the talk-show circuit. ....Though the paleos, the anti-glutenists, and the lard-ons are not exactly anti-vaccination or Area 51 types, they are, by necessity, conspiracy theorists. There must be some reason that the U.S. government has kept the dark truth about spelt and tofu hidden from us. Durant blames “the vegetarian lobby.” Teicholz suspects “olive oil money.”"

If you do not see that as "critical" then I would be interested in seeing how you characterize that. This is probably the weakest source there - I used it just so I could bring in that great quote.

The Economist review is the real "meaty" source here. It says:
 * "But the vilification of fat, argues Ms Teicholz, does not stand up to closer examination. She pokes holes in famous pieces of research—the Framingham heart study, the Seven Countries study, the Los Angeles Veterans Trial, to name a few—describing methodological problems or overlooked results, until the foundations of this nutritional advice look increasingly shaky."
 * Yet even now, with more attention devoted to the dangers posed by sugar, saturated fat remains maligned. 'It seems now that what sustains it,' argues Ms Teicholz, 'is not so much science as generations of bias and habit.'"

The other sources here are clear on this as well. In the Medscape interview Teicholz says: "That hypothesis seems to be fundamentally wrong. It's not a matter of slightly shifting course but completely overturning it." (this is not just "investigation" but "criticism" indeed tearing down and "overturning")

The Politico piece starts out with "When Nina Teicholz called out the authors of the federal dietary recommendations for shoddy science and conflicts of interest in a prominent medical journal late last month, she left out some key details about herself. While she presents herself as a journalist, her approach is more crusading than impartial. Her most recent book is a take-down of the nutrition establishment called, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” which advocates the health benefits of a high-fat diet – considered heresy in many quarters. "  Again - this is unambigious "criticism"

The rest of the sources say the same.

In Wikipedia we summarize sources. In my view "criticize" is a much better summary than "investigate". Please explain your reasoning. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog. It sounds like we just have a bit of differing opinion on use of the word “criticized”. Happy to explain my reasoning. You used some variation of “criticized” in nearly every paragraph of this page, so I was initially looking for synonyms. Given Teicholz career as an investigative journalist, and her interviews on the subject, it seems to me that “criticism” of nutrition science was merely the conclusion from investigations into the foundational studies behind the food pyramid. Given how you use “criticized” on the rest of the page, mainly surrounding negative criticism of her book, it just felt to me like your initial sentence sounded like Ms. Teicholz had a vendetta against the saturated fat industry. It seems that’s where we disagree. What about replacing “criticized” or “especially criticized” with “analyzes” or “critically analyzes”? Capricornthought (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting observation about the word "criticized". I hadn't realized it was in here so much.  I am happy to replace it with an actual synonym for more pleasant style variation, but not with something that waters it down.  Teicholz is an unabashed advocate who is looking to turn things upside down and attacks/criticizes the mainstream view, and her views have in turn been attacked/criticized.   We need to describe  that here (we have to be careful not to replicate that here per WP:Beware of tigers).  "investigate" and "analyze" are too... weak.
 * by the way she is opposed to the mainstream view of diet that seeks to minimize fats (flipping that, she is an advocate for including saturated fat in people's diets). you stated her view backward above. Jytdog (talk)17:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I like "criticized" and think it is inherently appropriate for one whose career is built on debunking mainstream science. I don't see a good reason to soft-pedal things. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Capricornthought is a confirmed Cougarsurf/BurritoSlayer sockpuppet . Nina Teicholz is likely a client of the reputation management firm Go Fish Digital, so expect new sockpuppets coming. --MarioGom (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

studies
User:Sirlanz, what is the source for what Teicholz studied? Would be great to add that but we cannot, without an RS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic
The article seems more interested in criticisms of her views than the views themselves, which is problematic, and which I hope to address. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to factual description of the views, but another editor has advised me at WT:WikiProject Medicine that they should apply reliable sourcing applicable to medical articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources are mostly critical of Teicholz's views, then our article should be mostly critical of Teicholz's views. A biographical article doesn't just exist to promote the views of the subject. See WP:FRINGELEVEL which says "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". -- Colin°Talk 11:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)