Talk:The Cambridge Diet/Archive 1

Unbiased?
I note with interest that the majority, if not all, of the sources used to illustrate how dangerous the Cambridge Diet is date from 1982-1983 (the 2009 dates cited are misleading as this is clearly the date the articles were archived and made available online, not when they were actually composed). There doesn't appear to be a single source cited that isn't at least 25 years old. This leads me to question how unbiased the article is, not least because a much more favourable - and importantly a much more recent - article from The Times (London) dated May 18th 2009 has been removed from Wikipedia. At present the article reads as if it is determined to scare the living daylights out of people by deliberately using sources at least a quarter of a century old and potentially out of date.

As the composition of low calorie diets, including the Cambridge diet, have changed over the years (as the Times article states, and even this article admits) from 1984 onwards when problems were first identified, then citing articles from so long ago seems highly questionable, not least when a much more recent (and favourable) source has been deleted.Grev02 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements
I recently rewrote the article completely based on what I could find in reliable secondary sources. The previous version was basically promotional material with no references.

Although the diet is clearly dangerous for health, and a poor way of losing weight (like any crash diet), the new version is a little bit too critical and doesn't mention enough about the nuts and bolts of the diets and type of products sold today. So if anyone can find some reliable sources that discuss the diet (that aren't merely PR releases, or from a company selling the products), they could be used to improve the article. Phil153 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mel Coleman lost 4 stone and kept it off for 1 yr so far. When you say 'clearly damgerous for health' where do you base your assumptions? If you are fit and healthy you do not even have to ask permission from yr Dr. Its been going 25 yrs so if it was dangerous I dont think it could have done that? Yes, I am a convert - because it has changed my life for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.37.72 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've again removed blatant promotional material not sourced from reliable secondary sources. Where sources are given, they don't support the claims made. There's a lot of scope for improvement but it has to be sourced to reliable sources.  I merely rewrote an article from what I found in a broad survey of the most reliable sources. Phil153 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the diet was half as dangerous as you claim that it 'clearly' is, then the US and UK governments (not to mention most others) would almost certainly have banned companies from selling or marketing the products, or at the very least have issued public health warnings. They haven't.Grev02 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming anything - I merely looked up the most reliable sources (NYT, LA Times, Washington Post) in google news and reported what they said. The Cambridge diet today is near identical to what it was in 1982 - very low calorie pre-prepared foods supplemented with minerals, vitamins and protein.  The rest is company hype. Is there anything other than a single opinion column and company websites to say otherwise?  If so, please add it!  1. I don't own the article and 2. It needs more balance and recent information.  I've simply been reverting promotional material by single purpose accounts that doesn't meet our sourcing and neutral point of view guidelines. Phil153 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes today
These changes and this change removed MEDRS-sourced content and added unsourced content. this reversion restored the deletion of sourced content and the addition of unsourced content. None of that is OK in Wikipedia per the basic content policies WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * why do you say "unsourced content" when it sources external content, no different to existing? I will check content policies Nigew (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The WP:V complaint is not valid as links were provided Nigew (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You inserted text which was NOT backed by the sources cited (where anything was cited at all). This is an unambiguous policy violation. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not use refs like http://www.cambridgeweightplan.com/faqs/general. These are not appropriate in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Business aspects
So there is (at least) a UK group and a US group making money off this. I am looking for independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the business aspect. There is some stuff here from the UK group and other stuff here from a US group (which I got to from here) which led me here, but the company websites are poor refs (not independent) What would be ideal would be newspaper articles that just report on what has happened with the businesses. Am still looking. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated edits / removals of reliable references
Alexbrn, I have recently discovered articles in relation to The Cambridge Diet. I located this article here:

In 2016, 2,300 people with pre-diabetes did The Cambridge Diet for eight weeks alongside regular exercise. The findings were obese people reduced their diabetes risk. Experts claimed the risk could fall by 90% with a 10% loss in body weight.

You have stated this article is unreliable. Please can your provide your rationale?

There is a similar article referenced from 1980s that continues to be referenced on the page that I would deem as unreliable also.

What articles are you going to allow on this page? I have attempted to reference a couple of what appear to be well-balanced articles but you keep editing them?

Is it possible we can perhaps find a way forward to end what appears to be close to an edit war on some well balanced content from reliable sources?


 * Please read WP:MEDRS. Please sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request; change number in lede so that it accurately reflects the number in the body
Hi everyone, I noticed that the lede still states that the minimum calorific intake is 600 kcal which is now out of date. The body of the piece now states 800 kcal as the minimum amount of calories prescribed by the diet. Would it be possible to change the number in the lede from 600 to 800 please? Essayist1 (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It says 600-1500. Since we take a historical view of this topic (this is not a brochure) this seems fine. Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, Thanks for getting back to me. Just to be clear my client has no desire to use Wikipedia as a brochure, they have a fully functioning website for that.

I would like to ask another question if I may; you say the page takes a historical view of the subject, how come it is written in the present tense? Essayist1 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the diet still (just?) exists. Like the Floppy disk. Granted there might be some tweaking up to do, but the lede gets the reader "in the zone" and they can read the body for details about how calorie adjustment happened over time. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, thank you for your most recent edit. I couldn't help but notice, there appears to be some original research via synthesis. I have carefully read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6571242 and see no mention of the 415 calorie claim, possibly because it is only an abstract from a journal which is behind a paywall and therefore does not meet WP:verifyability. It seems to me that your new lede has been heavily synthesized from the 1984 Porcello paper which I believe examines a very old version of the diet in relation to sports. May I remind you that Wikipedia's policy towards WP:synth is clear: synthesis is original research and original research is unacceptable; and I quote " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." It appears your latest update joined A, an unverifiable source from behind a paywall and B ("Dietician Describes Cambridge Diet as 'Wishful Thinking'". Los Angeles Times. 24 June 1982. Retrieved 18 February 2009), a source which is no longer on the internet to create C: original research.

I should probably also state that Wikipedia's policy on original research places the burden of proving your assertions on the editor WP:proveit. WP:Vefifiablility also states, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups."

Bearing this in mind, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede so that it directly reflects what your source says, ie "Hypocaloric diet". Also as that source refers to a version of the diet which no longer exists, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede using a medical journal about the diet in its current form. This source is much more up to date and is free to access https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407

Thanks Essayist1 (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ledes summarize body content, and in fact probing a bit further, the Thomas source says the diet at one point stipulated 330 kcals/day. I have updated accordingly. Sources behind WP:PAYWALLs are not "unverifiable". Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=lJ1WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153 verifies the 415 number as the current minimum number (as of its 2008 publication date), and the next page verifies that 330 calories was original minimum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And the 2019 Cambridge News source says 440 kcal. So it's all a bit confusing. But what we have now is correct per the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, at least in some versions, that's the minimum for short-to-average height women. They have a higher minimum for taller women and men.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed: Four of the 150-calorie meal replacements, rather than three, which is still somewhat worrying. But that's according to the South African version of the diet. Maybe the relevant section needs fleshing out a bit. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for edit request
Good afternoon Wikipedians. As I have disclosed on my talk page, I am being paid by the Lucre Group to represent their client The Cambridge 1:1 diet on Wikipedia.

I would like to discuss the use of the word "Fad" in the page's lede and in this context. A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral; as the Cambridge Diet has existed in different forms for over thirty years I don't believe the word Fad is the right word to use. If I may, I would like to calmly discuss swapping the word "Fad" for a more accurate description ie "Meal replacement diet". My main reason for this is that the sources used to support the term "fad" are out of date by over thirty years and refer to an older version of the diet. While I agree that it is important to discuss the history of the diet and would have no problem with these sources being used in a historical context it is clear that the word "Fad" is being used as a derogatory term and thusly, violates WP:NPOV. I would be grateful if someone could contact me here or via my talk page to discuss these issues further. Essayist1 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sourcing as it stands is fine. Have your employers provided you with a source that shows the diet not to be a fad diet? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral" <- Actually, no. Read Fad diet. The whole basis of your request is thus based on a misconception. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that "the lucre Group" is a full on PR company. Interesting. (you need to learn to indent your posts on talk pages btw. I have done it for you this time) C,mon Alex.. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, {Ping|User:Roxy the dog} Thank you for getting back to me so quickly and I apologies for not indenting properly. There has been this recent study conducted into the diet's NHS feasibility. In the interests of transparency the study was funded with a research grant from The Cambridge Weight Plan but they had no say in the way the study was conducted or the eventual outcome and I quote; "The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The views are those expressed by the author(s) and not necessarily those of NHS, NIHR, or the Department of Health." The study was also covered in this BBC article. Essayist1 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The NHS feasability study cannot be used to support your assertion, nor can the BBC report. Did you read the Fad diet articlke Alexbrn referred you to? By the way, you made no mistake in formatting your post, that was Alex, who know how to do this sort of thing, but clearly forgot. I made the mistake of assuming it was you!! THere is no need to ping me, as I am watching this thread. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Roxy, my reply was to Essayist1 not you, so the indent level was intentional (sadly WP does not format this very well however as everything looks merged together in a block!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. Could we use the NHS feasibility study and other more up to date sources to correct some of the factual errors on the page? For example, the page states that "600 to 1500 kcal are consumed per day" and while I appreciate that this statement is merely reflecting the facts conveyed in the sources, the diet has evolved over the years and now the more up to date sources such as the study and the BBC's synthesis of the study's findings put the lowest number of calories consumed at 810 for the first eight days before increasing in subsequent weeks. Would it be possible to get the figure updated if I put in a proper edit request? Essayist1 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "reflecting the facts conveyed in the sources" is what we are obliged to do. So far as I can see this is a fad diet whose heyday is long gone. We need reliable sources to be able to say anything, and so far none have been produced. (Update: I have found a source for the higher calorie figure, with some handy background, and added that). Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the figure in the body and adding more background @Alexburn I accept that the diet fits Wikipedia's description of a fad diet and further sources are required to support the claim that the diet is not a fad diet. There has been some renewed interest in the diet in recent years as well as the aforementioned study, I appreciate that a Google search does return a lot of uncitable click bate but I will try and come back with some hopefully credible sources in the coming days. Thanks again for your edit and thank you for your time. Essayist1 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alex, I've read Fad diet. It begins "A fad diet is a diet that is popular for a time, similar to fads in fashion".  "Ephemeral" is not a completely unreasonable way of describing that.
 * That said, I'm not at all certain that Cambridge wasn't a fad. Do we have any sources that say that it wasn't popular for a (short) time/wasn't a fad diet?  All I've been able to find is the manufacturer claiming that it's not a fad diet.  In independent sources, I see statements like the one in ISBN 9780845116098 from 1984:  "The Cambridge Diet is currently the most popular fad diet".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can work out "The Cambridge Diet" is a thing from the past (and yes, a fad diet), which has morphed into being a colloquial term for a family of diets from the same company, the specific forms of which had received a lot less attention in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's looking to me like it's fair to describe it as being:
 * a fad diet,
 * a meal-replacement diet, and
 * a very-low calorie diet.
 * Alex, I think you'll be interested the entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Diets for this subject. It has a good history section.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just looked through that - handy! Is the phased approach for the UK-version only? Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they're all phased diets, but the details vary a little between places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Deaths
Looking for sources, the seems to be a concentration in the 80s when there were some deaths associated with the diet (by the FDA). From what I can gather it was public interest from these which prompted the FDA to get the calorie ceiling raised in the USA, while in other locales this didn't happen. I'm yet to find a source which gives a good overview of all this ... will keep digging. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd been wondering about merging this away to meal-replacement diets (so many brand-name diet products across the English Wikipedia, with so few sources for most of them), but I no longer think that's such a good idea. Pretty much any product that gets the FDA to change its rules qualifies for a separate article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: Please change minimum calorie intake from 330 to 800. The 330 minimum is factually incorrect please see more recent academic study into the diet. Explanation of issue: The false information based on an antiquated version of the diet is encouraging teenagers to develop dangerous eating disorders such as Anorexia_nervosa References supporting change: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407

Essayist1 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * NO mention is made of Anorexia in that reference. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 20:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What we have is accurate. The Cambridge Diet (in its earlier forms) was dangerous. The crazy low calorie stipulations is part of the accepted knowledge on the topic, as relayed in the RS we use. Alexbrn (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the current "has specified" is a good choice of words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the chief interest in this diet in RS seems to be its dangerously-low calorie levels in its heyday. Doesn't seem to have garnered much attention in RS since. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you can see them on telly:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, should "specified" be "advised" or "recommended"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it was a strict regime ... Will check ... Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the Thomas source you were only allowed to drink the shakes, and not eat anything else. Perhaps this needs to be brought out a bit? So far as I can see the current "1:1" diet is a (non-notable?) evolution of the Cambridge diet, with only some similarity. Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any 1:1 RS, but Corby-based dieting company’s overseas success is example to all was a little interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * However, Cambridge Medieval History, Shorter: Volume 2 speak of various diets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I found something from the local paper on the "1:1" name change. I've added it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that there might be some confusion about calorie counts because it's a "phased" diet approach. The lowest calorie levels (and the exclusion of all regular food) were meant for the first two weeks.  Basically healthy humans can survive that long on limited food intake.  This article should probably be expanded to explain that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going to need a citation for the "first two weeks". According to "How it Works", "Your step-by-step programme can move both up and down the chart, such as from Step 1A up to Step 6 or from Step 5 down to Step 1A and then back up to Step 6. The order should match your unique body needs." I can't see any restriction on the time spent on step 1A, nor any evidence that the "consultants" are medically qualified to supervise Very-low-calorie diets. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the beginning of the US version: "Do not remain on the (Fast start) program longer than 2 weeks at a time".  But the UK version does something very similar for the first four weeks.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for your imput on this. Perhaps subsections for different regional versions of the diet might be appropriate? I would be happy to draft these for you. Essayist1 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Essayist1, I think that would be helpful. I don't think a complete run-down of each phase in each country is a needed, but a quick compare-and-contrast, ideally sourced from independent sources, would be helpful.  It might also be handy to have another sentence or two about changes over time.  A little more information there might let us split that big section into two.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed sources
Hi, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of Lucre PR. My client requests that the following sources be added to the article.


 * https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/lifestyle/seven-things-ive-learned-on-the-1-to-1-diet-by-cambridge-weight-plan-1209707.html?ss-track=UD3JWz
 * https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/lifestyle/the-one-to-one-diet-by-cambridge-weight-plan-review-month-2-1208061.html
 * https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/lifestyle/the-one-to-one-diet-by-cambridge-weight-plan-review-1202733.html
 * https://www.northants-chamber.co.uk/news/the-11-diet-by-cambridge-weight-plan-transforms-as-it-celebrates-35th-anniversary

I have explained WP:RS but they still want to ask anyway.Essayist1 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sources" are not added to articles, content is (citing sources). So you would need to make a concrete proposal. However, these all look unusable to me. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What article-text would you introduce with them as refs? Obviously neither are MEDRS (but everything in the article does not necessarily need MEDRS). femalefirst seems like a blog or celebsite, couldn't find an "about" page. The other is a press-release, seems RS for things like Chris McDermott is Managing Director, but not "are an effective and cost-efficient way to lose weight long term." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)