Talk:Weight loss effects of water

Page not of worth
This page appears to have been constructed almost entirely on the basis of one press release/news agency story, reported in slightly different ways by a number of newspapers. If any of this can be backed up with a citation, it will refer (presumably) to just the one scientific journal article. This most definitely does not warrant the creation of an entire page within Wikipedia. I am removing the link from the page on water, and will nominate this page for deletion if no one has good reason to object.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I made this a Wikipedia article rather than keeping it a section of Appetite, as it was originally, was (a) I learned that there were two suggested mechanisms of action, only one of which was appetite effects, and (b) it was becoming rather long and detailed. I submit that this information is useful, notable, sourced according to Wikipedia guidelines, and it does not make sense to delete it from the encyclopedia altogether.--greenrd (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, this article now refers to multiple scientific journal articles, in addition to the secondary sources (which Wikipedia guidelines recommend using, and which contained useful extra information that I used in the article). I believe I have now answered all your stated objections, and I also think it is now reasonable to at least mention this page very briefly on the water page. What do you say?--greenrd (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to fall squarely under WP:NOT and should go to AFD.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Velella on this, Greenrd. Reading through the guidelines on WP:NOT, I think that it is clear that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of article. I would still suggest that this article is deleted.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can either of you be more specific about your concerns about the current version of the article? Can you state the specific part(s) of the full Original Research policy that you think this article goes against? It is not clear to me that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of article. I believe that it does not constitute Original Research, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term. --greenrd (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I suspect we must disagree and leave it to the wider community to decide, hence my AfD suggestion which I will implement now.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been some error made by someone, most likely you. I became suspicious when no replies appeared on the AfD discussion - and sure enough, there is no listing for this article at Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_7, so no-one has noticed it. I would venture a guess that you mistakenly put the AfD notice template on my User Talk page instead of on that log page, where it should have been placed.--greenrd (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's down to me doing things in a hurry before a weeks holiday. Thanks for pointing it out but I'm sorry but it doesn't change my view (but I guess you would have assumed that).  Velella  Velella Talk 19:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Two audiences
I'd just like to remind all editors that this article is likely to be read by both specialists and interested members of the public. It would be good to make it accessible to non-experts, yet still useful to experts.--greenrd (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless or irrelevant content
Several parts of this article are essentially without any meaning. For example: "The apparent weight loss effects of water are still a subject for further research"


 * What would not be a 'subject for further research'?!


 * That's a good point, but my intent in writing that was to emphasise that this is a relatively young research area in some sense, and therefore findings here should be taken with a bit more caution, than, say, "smoking causes cancer", which is very well established.--greenrd (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Popular advice to children regarding water consumption is often inaccurate."


 * What relevance does this have to the article?

"This evidence has been used by some of the scientists who worked on this research, and by others, to bolster suggestions that people who are trying to lose weight can benefit from augmenting – but not replacing – their dietary programs by drinking water, either before meals or at any time."


 * This is worded very poorly. It should simply read, "Weight loss may be increased through increased consumption of drinking water", if this has indeed been demonstrated.

"Such advice had previously been given by dieticians even before the most recent research was published."


 * This is completely irrelevant and I don't understand why it is mentioned here.


 * Since this advice is given by dieticians for the purpose of helping people lose weight, it is not irrelevant to the topic of the article. Although this article is focused on research, it is not solely a summary of research.--greenrd (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't go on, as I feel that the entire article is a summary of a handful of journal articles. Wikipedia is not intended for this purpose. I would sincerely suggest that the main author of this page systemically review the published scientific literature and publish that in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Such a review could then be quoted on the page for drinking water, and this page would no longer be necessary.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there already is a relevant review which I've added to the Further Reading section of this article. I don't believe that this Wikipedia article is unnecessary, even if it turns out to be worse than that review in every way, because (a) this Wikipedia article is free and that review is not, (b) this article can be updated with newer information in-place, whereas journal articles typically are not updated that way, and (c) many laypersons would not even consider reading a scientific journal article, even if it would have been quite accessible to them.--greenrd (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed discussion of the points I made. Unfortunately, the more I look at the article, the less faith I have in it ever being something worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia such as WP. I don't mean that rudely, but I really think that this article is a waste of time. I consider the title itself to be ambiguous, ill-conceived and appearing to be promotional of a certain viewpoint, the veracity and relevance of which is highly questionable (in my opinion, I should add). I could go through each of your points and continue the discussion, but as it is a distinctly minority-interest page by its very nature, the discussion is unlikely to broaden out to anything more than a conversation about our own opinions on whether the subject is worthy of an article or not. It seems that you are very keen to keep this article going, in spite of the recommendations given by myself and a couple of other editors, and as such I don't think I have any more energy to put into this. I would still prefer that the page be deleted, and sincerely believe that there are very good reasons for doing so, even if consensus wasn't reached on the first occasion.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Jimjamjak (as you might expect me to). "Drinking water makes you less hungry and you eat less and lose weight" - wow !, I would never have thought of that. Now what is it that bears do in the woods ? Sorry but it does lack any encyclopaedic value not matter how well dressed in apparently scientific clothes.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that it's not actually scientific, because it's obvious? That sounds like original research to me.--greenrd (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the refs, but I think the article is quite reasonably put together. @Velella, it is not at all obvious that pre-drinking is useful for older people and useless for younger people. I am intrigued that it seems pre-drinking may turn out to be more effective (and certainly safer) than most alternatives marketed by the multi-billion dollar weight-loss industry. BenevolentUncle (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Weight loss and water
Weight loss and water work together. If we do not drink at least eight glasses of water per day, weight loss stalls. PMerritt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmerritt (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I obviously agree that drinking sufficient water every day is very important. I disagree that drinking water immediately before every meal is good. Water dilutes the acids in the stomach that digest our foods so our body would produce more acid to counteract this. Over time our body would naturally produce more acid all of the time which would cause other problems. I am no expert but I do know that Europeans have a glass of wine with most meals which aids digestion.Geoff Malone (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is already addressed in the article - the dilution effect is not significant. Please read the article carefully before commenting on it on this page.--greenrd (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [3 years later] I see that some other editor has since removed the content about the dilution effect. This weekend I will find out when and why this was done, and I propose to re-add it, because some people might be afraid of drinking water before/during meals because of misplaced fears about dilution.--greenrd (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)