Talk:John A. McDougall/Archive 2

Lacey Bourassa

In regard to this edit [1], the article cited [2] was written by Lacey Bourassa who is not a registered or qualified dietitian, nor has any training in nutrition. According to her profile [3], she has a BA in English and she is a long-term vegan. This is clearly not a reliable source. Dietitian Barbie Cervoni did not author the article, she is a reviewer for the website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

[4], this is obviously original research because the paper cited [5] does not mention McDougall. Sorry but these are not good edits Edsanville. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about these edits, but my earlier edit was reverted because the next line claims "there is no scientific evidence that the McDougall Diet is effective," which is clearly false. I anticipated that you would reject primary sources, so I added the secondary source. You are rejecting it despite the fact that it was reviewed by a registered dietician. Let me ask you this: what, exactly, do I need to provide in order to demonstrate the clear invalidity of such a strong claim as "there is *no* scientific evidence that the McDougall Diet is effective." It's like a catch-22... if I provide scientific evidence, it is immediately removed from the article. If I change the wording of the statement to be weaker (and more accurate), then it gets reverted because someone thinks it's fine as-is. Edsanville (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have known about this diet for years and the problem with it like many others is that there are no positive results for it in the medical literature so it shows us the diet is not supported by science. So the statement is not false. In medical science that deals with nutrition we need reliable evidence from many different studies and trials to show that a diet is effective and best thing to rely on is a systematic review or meta-analysis where they look at loads of studies but none have ever been published on the McDougall diet. There is absolutely nothing in the peer-reviewed medical literature to show the McDougall diet is effective.

John McDougall's results have not been replicated by independent researchers and reported upon in any decent medical journal. I do find it interesting because his diet has been around since the 1980s but only his Medical Center or people associated with him report results about it which is an obvious bias issue. McDougall sometimes publishes results on his diet, for example this from 2014 [6] by McDougall showed some promising results after 7 days but this is extremely short term. There are no long-term trials in the medical literature reporting results from his diet from independent researchers. His diet is very low in fat so its not surprising if there are cardiovascular benefits from his diet but there are no reliable references that say this so we can't include it per no original research policy etc. I have done a massive scan on pubmed, JSTOR, Google books and many others there is simply nothing there that we can used as a reference to claim the diet is scientifically effective. You may not like what is in the article but until a reliable secondary source is found you should not change the text about the diet not being effective. All evidence points to this being an ineffective fad diet. I don't see this changing any time soon. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The studies specifically on the McDougall Diet may be sparse, but the literature is absolutely full of studies and reviews that demonstrate the effects of whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, as well as the negative effects of high sugar, high saturated fat diets. Since the McDougall Diet simply stresses the positive components, and limits or omits the negative components (as determined by decades of studies), how can you say that there are no scientific studies that show the effectiveness of this diet? I'm honestly speechless about this, to be honest. This diet is really not very radical or new... similar diets have been the tradition on every continent for thousands of years. Maybe they didn't call them "The McDougall Diet," but that's not the point here.

Meanwhile, in the first paragraph of the article, it flatly states that this diet is a "fad diet," and cites a table in a textbook that lists what the author classifies as "fad diets." The table has only one source... but the source doesn't mention the McDougall Diet at all. I checked! Therefore, I would argue that this citation is a PRIMARY source, not a secondary source. (Alters S, Schiff W (February 22, 2012). Chapter 10: body weight and its management. Essential concepts for healthy living (Sixth ed.).)

To me, it seems like biased editors just have it in for this guy or his diet, and are violation Wikipedia policies when it suits them. However, when someone calls into question the assertion that there is NO scientific evidence in support of the McDougall Diet, they are meticulously criticized using any Wikipedia policy available for the purpose. Edsanville (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Per original research policy we can't go and find studies that demonstrate good health effects from consumption of vegetables, whole grains, legumes or low-fat dieting because none of those references or studies mention McDougall. McDougall's fat intake is lower than what is recommended by the Dietary Reference Intake and his diet excludes all animal products, nuts, olive oil etc. Standard dietary guidelines and health agencies around the world do not recommend his diet, what he is suggesting is too extreme and can lead to various nutritional deficiencies. What he is promoting is definitely a fad diet. Most fad diets have one or two sensible nutritional themes (in this case McDougall telling people to eats lots of vegetables etc) but they are out-weighed by the unsafe or unscientific claims they make. You have not been able to list any reliable scientific references that specifically mention McDougall's diet is effective. You might want to check out the article on Science-Based Medicine about this diet [7]. I am not aware of any scientific evidence in favor of the McDougall diet after spending years looking, none exists. There are no biased editors here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing about biased people, is that they can rarely see their own biases. You will immediately point out the bias of someone who writes a secondary article about the diet, because she personally does not eat meat. However, you would never point out the bias of a critic simply because they personally DO eat meat. That's an example of bias right there.

You fail to provide any scientific evidence that this diet "can lead to nutritional deficiencies." Remember, it has to specifically mention the McDougall Diet, or it doesn't work as a valid reference according to you.

Just recognize that you are, in fact biased. We all are, to one degree or another. Edsanville (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

On the article itself, it says "McDougall's followers risk deficiencies in protein, phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc, vitamin B₁₂ and perhaps other nutrients. Children on the diet are especially at risk for calorie deficiency, which can have disastrous consequences." This is sourced to a reliable nutritionist Kurt Butler. You can find his book, it's on archive.org if you want to have a read. So what I am saying is back by scientific references that are actually sourced on the article. Did you read the Science-Based Medicine article on the McDougall Diet? It is not about what I think, it is about what the sources are saying. You have not shown any reliable sources that support the McDougall diet and this type of discussion had happened many times before on this talk-page it appears (check the history). If you want to raise any concerns I suggest you speak to an admin at the noticeboard but I believe they would tell you the same thing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it ultimately is about what you think. You are choosing to reject articles and authors based on your own preconceived notion that this diet is dangerous in some way, (which it is not). You are assessing one source as "reliable" and another as "unreliable" on essentially arbitrary grounds, so that you can control the article's narrative. Why do I get the feeling that no matter how many secondary sources I cite that describe the McDougall Diet as safe, you will always nitpick some issue with it? And, I'm sure Kurt Butler is a genius, but has he provided any evidence of a person or cohort who adopted the McDougall Diet and developed a deficiency of any kind? As there are thousands of people using this diet, you'd think there would be enough actual cases of deficiency to be able to cite some of them. Edsanville (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Some Fad Diets" table

Edsanville you say this is a primary source [8], I don't see how that can be true. It's a table on fad diets sourced to Bryd-Bredbenner, C, et al. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes! I know! That's what I said. The table has one source, and that source does not mention the McDougall Diet anywhere in the text.Edsanville (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a medical textbook, a high-quality source per WP:MEDRS. Please do not try to second-guess it. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to second-guess whatever I want. I don't believe everything I read, just because it's been printed and bound into a book. It may be officially considered a "high quality source," but it's still a PRIMARY source for this assertion. Edsanville (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's not a "medical textbook." According to its ad copy: "Essential Concepts for Healthy Living, Fifth Edition, is “the” critical thinking personal health textbook." Edsanville (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an established medical textbook in its field.[9] This is an ideal source per WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia follows these kinds of sources. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The word "medical" is nowhere on that page that you linked. I'm not sure why you think you're the ultimate authority on everything, but I'm not buying it. Edsanville (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You can quibble about whether courses on nutrition are medical or not, but it's a textbook for that and a fine WP:MEDRS for ensuring we get this article right, and that the fringe nature of this silly diet is made clear. You seem to want to whitewash this article. Note you have been warned about edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me make this clear to you: The actual source cited is a primary source that makes the unsubstantiated claim that this is a "fad diet," (which is not a scientific term). In fact, there isn't a single occurrence of the word "fad" in the entirety of the reference cited for the table in this textbook! Just because something is a textbook does not make it an infallible source of information! I also warned YOU about edit-warring. See your Talk Page. I'm not sure why you think you "outrank" me on a crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, but it's grating on my nerves. You're statement that "the fringe nature of this silly diet is made clear" alone demonstrates your obvious bias. Edsanville (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

there isn't a single occurrence of the word "fad" in the entirety of the reference cited for the table in this textbook! ← doubtful - you've read the whole of the 8th edition of Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition looking for the word "fad"?

We follow good sources, and from them we know this is just a.n.other fad diet. As with all these diets, it has its boosters but Wikipedia is bound to take a more reality-based approach. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I used Google Books to search the entire textbook, sir. There are zero occurrences of "fad" in the book. Zero occurrences of "McDougall" as well. Edsanville (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's notoriously unreliable, especially for searching inside tables and figures. So you're accusing a textbook of falsifying its source based on a Google Books search? That's ... interesting. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have evidence that McDougall is mentioned in this textbook, then present it! Don't badger me with bullcrap about the unreliability of Google Books. I searched, and it was not there. Edsanville (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is it's cited as such in a reputable, published textbook. Wikipedia follows published sources, not the amateurish original research of random editors with a POV to push! Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So, you believe some third-rate textbook without feeling the need to consult the one single reference that is cited for the table in question. Bravo, you're obviously far more rigorous than I am. Edsanville (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Google Books, now matter how rigorously you type into the search box, does not equate to "consulting" a book. And in any case, we follow good sources. Not sure why you call a respected, established textbook "third-rate". Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it bad you know. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read the entirety of every reference you've cited. Respected or not (the book only cites a single source for table, and uses unscientific terminology like "fad diet"), you still have not demonstrated that the reference cited even mentions McDougall or fads. Edsanville (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition Updated with 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Tenth Edition (published 2016) has a chapter on Fad diets pages 342-348. We know this because the contents of the book have been published [10]. The book itself is unfortunately not online in full but we know it has a chapter on "Fad diets". It is very likely the McDougall diet is included on this list of fad diets. Edsanville is wrong when he/she says this book does not mention fad diets. A few minutes ago I have paid out and ordered a physical copy of this textbook. I should have it next week. When I have seen this textbook in person I will let you know exactly what it says. It's quite clear the other nutritional book which cites this other textbook are both reliable sources but I would rather cite the Wardlaw nutritional textbook. I will wait until I have the book in person to confirm beyond any doubt but it is very likely this information should be restored to the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool beans, Psychologist Guy. I was wondering myself whether to look at an actual copy. Kudos for your commitment to keeping Wikipedia properly WP:Verified. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I ended up getting the ninth edition of the book. The McDougall plan is listed as a fad diet with possible disadvantages, such as flatulence, limited food choice and poor mineral absorption from excessive fiber intake (page 339). The book is a very good reference it also lists many other fad diets. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop the childish edit war

You claimed that the source I cited "does not back up the claim made in the article." Well, here is a SCREENSHOT that shows the source says the exact same thing I posted to the article, with a slight rewording. In fact, I had to change it because I initially quoted the article DIRECTLY. What game are you trying to play here, exactly?

The screenshot

Edsanville (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have received your edit-warring notice at my Talk page. Would you like me to reciprocate? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm going to stop now, but I am correct. When I look at that ref, it does not say what my opponent in the War says it says. If, as they claim, those well respected organisations have said that we should become vegetarian, then provide evidence. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just curious, what do YOU think it says? Can you provide a screenshot (as I have done)? Edsanville (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It says that I have reached the end of the free excerpt provided. It should be simple for you to find those major and well respected sources saying we should all become veggy, if they actually did say it. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 16:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find that source inadequate, but that source has been in the article for a LONG time. I didn't add it. It was used to justify calling the McDougall Diet a "fad diet," presumably because of the title of the book. Although, the section on the McDougall Diet doesn't seem to make negative claims about the diet. The ENTIRE McDougall section is in the Google Books excerpt. There is no more, (as you can see by the continuation into another section of the book). It just explains what the diet is about, and lists those organizations as being in agreement. Here's an idea of how you can be constructive toward the article, instead of trying to destroy other peoples' work: why don't YOU find the literature from those organizations? Edsanville (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done a request for third opinion here. This debate isn't about whether we all should go vegetarian, it's about whether the source says what the edit claims. Edsanville (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no way that that will be allowed to stand, unless you can source it properly. Find where those organisations made those daft reccomendations and cite that. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just catching up with this. One of the problems with Google Books is that it shows different things to different users, depending on locale, how much previewing the user has done, and maybe other unknowable things. This is why it is very unwise to put too much faith in anything from GB other than what you can actually see. Some editors in fact argue we should never link Google Books in refs because it causes problems. I've checked the source and it does say the stuff about the organizations - in fact Edsanville's earlier edit which I reverted for plagiarism was an exact quotation. However, we already say from a more recent source (Hall) that some aspects of the McDougall product are aligned with mainstream dietary advice. The issue is that quite a lot else, isn't. We probably need to be clear about that for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

The first paragraph states "His diet—The McDougall Plan— has been described as a fad diet that carries some possible disadvantages, such as flatulence, limited food choice and poor mineral absorption from excessive fiber intake" and the citation (1) references a nutrition textbook. However, the statement about poor mineral absorption was proven false long ago.

Please edit this sentence to state that scientific evidence proves that high fiber intake does NOT result in poor mineral absorption and change the citation #1 reference to this PubMed-published study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6279727/

This misinformation is again repeated in the RECEPTION section, 2nd paragraph, with the same citation (1). Please change it accordingly as above.

The RECEPTION section is also filled with falsehoods.

The whole foods plant-based diet recommended by Dr. John McDougall has dozens and dozens of valid peer-reviewed studies backing it up as the ONLY diet proven for decades now to prevent and reverse heart disease and is recommended by the American College of Cardiology as well as Kaiser Permamente.

Whole food plant-based (WFPB) nutrition is not a diet; it's a lifelong change to the proper fuel for the human body and unlike almost all other diets which are calorie-restrictive, WFPB nutrition does not count or restrict calories, and helps people plagued by obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders and autoimmune disorders break their addictions to highly processed foods and restore good health without dangerous medications and medical procedures. 73.24.220.158 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. WP:MEDRS sources would be needed for biomedical claims. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Blatant bias here

This entry for a living author and physician does not meet the minimum editorial standards for an encyclopedia entry.

It is blatantly biased and in fact presents factually untrue material, including information about Dr. McDougall's Right Foods, which is no longer owned by Dr. John McDougall. Furthermore, there is abundant scientific evidence in peer-reviewed journals of the efficacy of Dr. McDougall's work and fact this view is shared by a number of other prominent researchers or clinicians, such as Neil Barnard, T. Colin Campbell, and Nathan Pritikin. This evidence in peer-reviewed journals goes back over 100 years.

I will keep an eye on this page and I will flag it so that the reader knows that blatant bias here against a trailblazer in medicine and nutrition is exhibited, e.g., "a fad diet'? Anybody that has actually read his work understands that he presents a very conservative, traditional diet. Who picked the word "fad" to emphasize here? That's some crappy editing.

Hopefully this will be fixed soon. But all the Atkins people will come out and interfere---I have no doubt...Jack B108 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

McDougall's diet has never been independently tested in controlled trials, there is no reliable data reported in independent peer-reviewed medical literature that his diet is effective. None of his results have ever been replicated outside his own team of researchers. There is no clinical evidence for anything he has said about his diet. This has been discussed many times before on this talk-page. We get throwaway accounts commenting here every year. I noticed you haven't commented on this website in 7 years. I don't really get what you mean that you will "flag" the article. The article is well-sourced, I don't see it changing anytime soon. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I will flag this article or edit because it is obviously biased; e.g., there is no new "McDougall diet"; he is merely promoting an old diet that humans have been eating for centuries. You don't apparently even want to offer a fair description of his work without immediately calling it a "fad". Walter Kempner, Nathan Pritikin, T. Colin Campbell, Caldwell Essylstyn: These researchers have dozens of high quality peer-reviewed articles that make up the basis of what John McDougall has been promoting for decades, including in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition. So actually stop spouting off standard crap and actually start reading, and in the meantime I'm going to prepare to PLACE A WARNING across this webpage or actually edit it.

BTW, I've never seen this page before, and this is the entirety of the discussion that is available to me, so I have no idea what you're talking about that "it's been discussed many times." Where is that discussion?? Throwaway account? I've only been editing and donating to Wikipedia for about 10 years-- is that really necessary to insinuate that I'm a throwaway account? Or you just don't like what I'm writing here so you bring up something spurious that's unrelated? Jack B108 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Article seems fine. Wikipedia calls out diet nonsense for what it is, to be neutral. NPOV is policy, you know. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

From John McDougall, MD: This has been a problem for years and somehow I cannot get it fixed because the section in question is "semi-protected." (I can’t figure out how to get in to edit it). I could explain away much of the bias, but if someone could add this, it would be helpful:

These 3 uncontested studies, at least, should appear in Wikipedia: Data for 10 Years on 1703 participants at the Residential Santa Rosa Program: (Nutrition Journal) http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-13-99

Independent Research from OHSU (Medial School in Portland) on One Year: (Diet/MS study MS and Related Disorders) http://www.msard-journal.com/article/S2211-0348(16)30100-6/pdf

Independent Research, One Year, Community-based Study, from New Zealand: (Nutrition & Diabetes) https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20173 I also have several other publications and research papers published: Search "McDougall J. and diet" at pubmed.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.5.82 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. McDougall, thank you for the post. You have every right to have a fair entry here. You need to sign in with a verified, nonanon account to edit the page. Wikipedia guidelines on editing are not being followed here. The RECEPTION section here is a joke, as it completely omits any positive reception of your work. Jack B108 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Those sources are not WP:MEDRS, which would be needed for any medical claims about the diet. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack B108 and the IP, this has been discussed many times before in the archive, click at the top to access them. There is no bias or censorship here. Basically if you want medical content to end up on the article you need good sources which are not primary. The IP above listed several papers (two were authored by McDougall) but all 3 sources were primary sources. You need an independent review or medical/nutritional textbook if such content is to be added. This is discussed at the link Alexbrn linked to which says "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are not any systematic review papers that evaluate McDougall's diet (his results have never been confirmed outside his own group of researchers or independently replicated by anyone).

As for the talk about ancient civilizations that is very inaccurate because no civilization throughout history has eaten an exclusive starch-based vegan diet, the term "starch-based" that McDougall uses to describe the diet of civilizations is an exaggeration because they all ate a mixture of animal and plants proteins. John McDougall often talks about the ancient Mayans and how they ate an exclusive plant-based diet based around maize. Maize was certainly a staple food of the Mayans but they also ate a lot of meat contrary to McDougall's suggestions (we have an article on this Ancient Maya cuisine). So yes they did a lot of agriculture but also a lot of hunting "Animals hunted for meat as well as for other purposes include deer, manatee, armadillo, tapir, peccary, monkey, guinea pig and other types of fowl, turtle and iguana, with the majority of meat coming from white-tailed deer, as is evident from animal remains found in middens. The ancient Maya diet was also supplemented by the exploitation, at least in coastal areas, of maritime resources, including fish, lobster, shrimp, conch, and other shellfish". The Mayans like many other ancient civilizations used to sacrifice a lot of animals. The starch-based diet promoted by McDougall without any animal products or cooking oils, nuts or seeds is not a "traditional" diet, nor has it been practiced for centuries. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

THanks, I see the archive TALK page links now/// Is there a VALID EDITORIAL REASON that the life and work of this prominent author and doctor can not be summarized here? You folks that 'edited' this page have completely missed the whole point of an encyclopedia entry. Can't he least get a fair summary of his work before the criticism comes? This is not the place to have a pissing match on your prevailing, pet nutritional theories. Imagine if you applied the same mindless approach to the Adolph Hitler entry...Jack B108 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the VALID EDITORIAL REASON was explained to you above by Alexbrn, and re-inforced by Psychologist Guy. Did you read their responses? -Roxy the dog. wooF 00:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty impressive we've gone from vegetarian diet to Hitler already though! Alexbrn (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Hitler page actually follows WP editorial guidelines. This page is ripe for a POV tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV Jack B108 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You have no consensus to put a POV tag because several users have disagreed with you. You have been asked to give reliable sources but you have not given any. It's obvious you have no case and this is sadly a waste of time, similar to what those throwaway accounts were doing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We do agree on one thing: it's a waste of time to try to edit Wikipedia entries that have been taken over by apparent dogmatics such as you folks. [Perhaps you should first fix the factual errors and outdated info on the page or the misspelled word in the Ref 8? Love that 30-year-old criticism of his work as well, Ref [3], as if nothing has changed since then].

Also, you talk about consensus here. Is that for the last 24 hours or since this page was put up? I pulled some of the archives for this Talk page, and it looks like I am by no means the only person that has complained about the bias in this article. It looks like Dr. McDougall himself has been concerned about it, but yeah, he's not allowed to have input here, of course, sure, even though you don't follow WP POV guidelines here. I think this page is ripe for external exposition of the flaws of Wikipedia. I'll present this on my own platform, and then post a link to it here so that you have the ability to see my step-by-step criticism of the writing and editing here. Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I laughed out loud when I first saw this page because you basically said Dr. McDougall's diet causes farting, in one of the cited sources [1], in the lead paragraph. Oh my. I think it's fair that you present criticism of his work here, but I've never heard any of his critics complain about flatulence---you learn something new every day! I would recommend removing that from the intro so that this page does not get laughed at by an impartial reader. Jack B108 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The McDougall diet does cause an increase of flatulence and also increase the risk of hemorrhoids, the former has indeed been cited by critics. McDougall even admits that adjustment to his diet will cause flatulence [11]. There is not any scientific evidence for McDougall's diet just anecdotes but when you read those accounts some people say they quit the diet because they ended up farting all day. Doesn't sound too good to me! Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fom John McDougall, MD: Two studies (3 listed above) were done independent of me: One was done at OHSU and the other in NZ. The OHSU study was of the highest quality -- a Randomized Controlled Studies (RCT_ -- independent of my input except for the education. The other 2 were studies which were published only after peer-review.

You should know more about the Kurt Butler incident from 30 years ago: This evolved from an attack I received when I lived in Hawaii in the 80s. Kurt Butler was a beach bum (really), when I lived there, who caught the attention of the LA Times book section editor. Kurt was, at best, an uncredentialed “nutritionist" — not a dietitian, doctor, or scientist. The LA book editor explained to me that he thought this was simply a conflict between two authors. At that time, Kurt had never written a book or published an authoritative article, the only thing he had authored was his critique of my work. The editor of the book section of the LA Times never looked the source of my book review, and without any investigation published the Butler critique.

I personally went to see the book editor in Los Angeles at his newspaper office, and made my case that this book review was false, from beginning to end. As a result, the editor gave me a chance to make a rebuttal, which is against newspaper policy. However, the editor, to avoid further embarrassment, insisted that I not expose the fact that he accepted a review about my book, The McDougall Plan, without investigating the source: a beach bum with no credentials. Newspapers, especially in the early 80s, love dirt and controversy in order to get themselves noticed. Too bad my rebuttal is not cited in Wikipedia. I don’t have copies - lost in a wildfire. Likely, it can be found in the LA Times archives.

The other criticisms of my work are from authors I do not recognize (ref 13,14). How many patients have they treated with a high-starch diet? What gives Hall, Harriet, Singh, Simon; Ernst, Edzard the right to make negative comments about my work? Are they expert scientists, dietitians, or doctors? My guess is they have the same authority as "beach-bum" Kurt Butler?

It has been a quarter century since Stare, Fredrick J.; Whelan, Elizabeth commented on my works, however, this was at a time when vegetarian was a dirty word in dietetics. Fortunately, science and the publics appreciation about proper human nutrition has changed since their ancient critique. Please Note: Elizabeth Whelan, founder of American Council on Science and Health, worked to defend poisonous chemicals commonly used in the food industry, in the 1980s. Her work was branded by Ralph Nader's Center for Science in the Public Interest as "a consumer fraud" and an industry front group. Fredrick Stare was her lifelong friend and co-worker. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/elizabeth-whelan-who-challenged-food-laws-dies-at-70.html

As far as dated references, this is because I have been publishing books for 40 years, the newer ones have newer references. Plus I turned to a monthly newsletter to update information and the science. Visit www.drmcdougall.com to see updated thoughts.

To be complete list all of my books:

The McDougall Plan; McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion; The McDougall Health Supporting Cookbook, Volume 1; The McDougall Health Supporting Cookbook, Volume 2; The McDougall Plan: 12 Days to Dynamic Health; The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss; The New McDougall Cookbook; The McDougall Program for Women; The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart; The McDougall Quick and Easy Cookbook; Dr. McDougall’s Digestive Tune-up; The Starch Solution; and The Healthiest Diet on the Planet.

Nutrition has similar passionate people as does politics. As long as Wikipedia allows only enemies, low-carb diet advocates, to publish reviews of my nearly half-century of work, expect incomplete, incorrect, and unfair write-ups such, as now appears on my Wikipedia page. 73.37.5.82 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)John McDougall, MD

Unfortunately McDougall has not read WP:MEDRS properly. We do not cite primary studies on Wikipedia, so we can't cite single controlled trials on Wikipedia, we need a good quality review article. McDougall's Wikipedia article is not being targeted here, this is the rule held on every article. McDougall is in the same boat as Steven Gundry in the sense that his dietary views are not taken seriously by mainstream nutritional science which is based on evidence-based medicine. Take a look around at all biographies for people who hold pseudoscientific dieting ideas including Anthony William, Steven Gundry, Dean Ornish, Gary Taubes, Mark Hyman, Henry G. Bieler, Joel Fuhrman etc. We cite reliable secondary sources and yes these often criticize their work because they promote extremist views at odds with nutritional science.

A systematic or umbrella review of controlled trials would be needed to make biomedical claims, not 3 cherry-picked trials of which McDougall has conflict of interest with. As stated no review of the McDougall diet has ever been published in a reliable medical journal. As for Kurt Butler he has a Master of Science degree in nutrition and a BA in physiology (he had already obtained these before he published his critical review in his book of McDougall's ideas). He was also President of the Quackery Action Council, so he is far from a "beach bum with no credentials". Harriet Hall has also criticized McDougall's diet and she is an M.D. I think it is stupid to be bringing up credentials but if McDougall has independent reliable sources that mention his work why does he not mention them? It's because none others exist. He has been side-lined by the medical community and is often dismissed for promoting quackery. He says he has been publishing books for 40 years but where are the peer-reviewed medical reviews for his books? None appear to exist because his views are not taken seriously in evidence-based medicine. Can he cite one medical journal that has reviewed any of his books?

As for the claims about low-carb diet advocates being used as sources to attack his work on Wikipedia, this is not true. Kurt Butler in his book has dismissed Robert Atkins as a quack, as other other critics such as Frederic J. Stare. Stare wrote many articles in medical journals warning people about the dangers of the high-fat Atkins diet, it is clearly incorrect to cite these critics as low-carb advocates just because they criticize McDougall extremist dietary ideas. In conclusion, neither McDougall or his followers have listed any independent reliable secondary sources, so I do not see this article changing anytime soon. The article is in accord to Wikipedia guidelines. We do not give equal weight to quackery or nutritional misinformation on Wikipedia, it is rightly criticized with decent sourcing. This has also been discussed before on this talk-page. You have not presented a single reliable source, so I find these conversations a waste of time. The article talk-page should be about improvements for the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I do hope the OP/IP has permission to share McDougall's correspondence in public, otherwise there could be issues here which require an admin. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I hate to keep bringing up Kurt Butler, but he seems to be your leading authority on my work used by Wikipedia. Butler did not hold a Masters of Science degree when he wrote the McDougall critique in the LA Times, nor had he written any books 30 years ago. Please look at his books (1999) and you will see his biases and lack of expertise. Start on page 107: https://quackwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/quackwatch/04ConsumerEducation/lying.pdf

Known as a "quack-buster" what else would you expect from this (previously) uncredentialed "beach-bum?"

Wikipedia should be embarrassed and called accountable by allowing this review to stand for so many years - regardless of the obvious bias and lack of substantiation.23:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)23:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.5.82 (talk)

I would like to hear about the "paper mill" that supplied Butler with his Master of Science degree. Again, he was uncredentialed and living on the beach in Hawaii when the LA Times accepted his piece. The editor was embarrassed when he discovered his mistake and gave me a chance for a rebuttal. Would it be too much to expect the same from the reviewers at Wikipedia? Investigate Butler yourself73.37.5.82 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC) and become aware of this man's incompetence and biases. To him the world outside of Butler is quackery.73.37.5.82 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I will email Kurt Butler but he obtained a Master of Science degree in nutrition from the University of Hawaiʻi, we have documented sources for that. The book in which he criticizes your work is A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine": A Close Look at Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Faith-healing, and Other Unconventional Treatments, published in 1992, his credentials are listed at the front of the book [12]. At the time when this book was published, Butler was qualified to be discussing nutrition. His book was published by Prometheus Books. So just to clarify what we are talking about here is Butler's 1992 book not his review in LA Times which nobody has access to. I am not sure why you keep bringing up credentials because you have cited Nathan Pritikin who was not a qualified physician, dietitian or scientist as one of your heroes. Pritikin was a self-taught nutritionist, unlike Butler. The University of Hawaiʻi is not a paper-mill, it is a respectable university. I will file a discussion at [13] the reliable source noticeboard so you can get other users opinion on Butler as a source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on getting out the critics, I would suggest to look for secondary sources that assess the McDougall program. I will open a discussion below for collecting and summarizing them. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help you can give me to balance this piece. Please write me at drmcdougall@drmcdougall.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.5.82 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I will compile a list with Wikipedia rules and a short summary for each of those and send it to you by email. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think John McDougall has done amazing things and that this wikipedia page MUST be changed to show the positive nature of his work and what it entails towards good health. There are too many anti-vegan wikipedia heros on this site who want to bring it down. I suggest that people refresh this page and make it more positive or else I shall be engaging in legal action to have certain edititors removed from wikipedia permantley! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.143.248 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. If we have reliable secondary sources giving a positive reception to McDougall's work then it would be on the article, but no such sources seem to exist and multiple editors are looking but nothing is turning up. A user on this talk-page found two recent reviews that mention the McDougall diet, in both the results were inconclusive. There doesn't appear to be a reliable clinical evidence that the McDougall diet is effective in treating any disease. This is not about bias or conspiracies it is about what the reliable sources say about the evidence. There is no scientific evidence his diet works, this is pretty much what all the sources say. We cannot write a positive reception if all the reliable sources are reporting inconclusive results or criticisms of McDougall's work. Hopefully you understand this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wardlaws Perspectives in Nutrition

McDougalls diet is listet in a row of a table together with the following diets:

• Rice Diet Report
• Macrobiotic Diet (some versions)
• Pritikin Diet
• Eat More, Weigh Less
• 35+ Diet
• 20/30 Fat and Fiber
• Fat to Muscle Diet
• T-Factor Diet
• Your Big Fat Boyfriend
• Two-Day Diet
• Turn Off the Fat Genes
• Maximum Metabolism Diet
• Pasta Diet McDougall
• Plan Ultrafit Diet
• Stop the Insanity
• G-Index Diet
• Outsmarting the Female Fat Cell
• Foods That Cause You to Lose Weight
• Lean Bodies
• Crafty Sexy Diet

All these diets are judged with the following statement given in the last column:

"Flatulence; possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber; limited food choices sometimes lead to deprivation; not necessarily to be avoided, but certain aspects of many of the plans possibly unacceptable"

It is clear that the authors obviously did not do any clinical trials on all these diets. They merely provide some expert judgement of what may or may not be the outcome. I have no objection to using the source, but we should be aware that the opinion provided here is not of very high quality. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a WP:MEDRS source - probably the strongest source in the article as has been repeatedly discussed here before. Your personal view of the authors' working methods is irrelevant. You have been edit-warring to remove long-standing consensus content, and warned accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We should then at least keep it close to the source and give the reader the needed context. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The lede is meant to summarize the body, you are doing the opposite and you are now beyond 4RR so at risk of being blocked. Please stop damaging the article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, "may" and "possibly", as in the current lede, are redundant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Not effective for what?

"There is no scientific evidence that McDougall's diet is effective." That's an overly broad statement and needs context. Which of his claims are debunked by MEDRS? -- Valjean (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fairly meaningless sentence. From the Hall source it appears many claims are made that the diet will reduce/treat certain diseases (e.g. halting Multiple Sclerosis progression). MEDRS sources are not necessary for debunking pseudoscience. We should probably go into more detail about the claims made - properly contextualized by sane context of course.Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with McDougall's claims, so am just mentioning some principles here. WP:Parity does come into play here, which allows lower-quality mainstream sources for fringe claims made by fringe sources, when no better mainstream sources are available. MEDRS sources are still required for sources supporting the fringe claims. Some vegetarian diets do tend to be effective for some things (lowers heart attack and diabetes risk, etc.), and obviously not effective for the types of extreme claims made by some faddists, such as "cures cancer!". Also, the time factor is important. Short-term extreme lifestyle changes can be effective for some things, but such changes may not be safe as a long-term lifestyle. ("Drastic situations demand drastic measures.") Short-term low-fat diets that are carefully monitored do get people away from the edge of immediate death, but tend to be unbalanced for the long term (boring too!). Just sayin'. So contextualization for claims, both for and against, is important. -- Valjean (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware the only true MEDRS for the diet is the nutrition textbook we already cite. The diet is not simply vegetarian but very low fat with some specific food prohibitions and lots of starch. We have some reasonable sources for debunking whacky claims, the Science-Based Medicine source is perfect in this situation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, SBM is good. I wouldn't use the Butler source. He isn't a real expert, just a skeptic (like myself). -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Kurt Butler source is the most detailed source that has ever been published critical of McDougall's claims. It is unique for that and a very valuable source. The claim that he is a beach bum or just a skeptic is not true. He has a Master of Science degree in nutrition and a BA in physiology so he is knowledgeable about nutrition and the human body. He still lectures on the dangers of quackery [14] at universities. The guy is clearly an expert who has spent his entire life researching nutrition. There is no valid reason to remove his book from the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Good for him. Things have changed since the last time I checked him. -- Valjean (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

He is also cited 14 times on the Gary Null article, and many users have agreed his book is one of the best published on nutritional quackery. I have read over 200 books on quackery and his definitely one of the best for the layman. If the source is to be removed then we need a good reason for doing that. I have not seen any good reasons presented so far. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added some more from Butler. He has some valid points, but he clearly hasn't gone into detail as well. Coming back to the original question: not effective for what? There are 5 sources for this sentence but non makes a statement as broad as "no evidence for anything". I find a What only in SBM. I will replace the sentence with a more specific statement from SBM. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the line would be better to have said not effective in treating any disease but I don't have a problem with your recent edits so I think the issue is resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

With the recent changes, the article is in much better shape. -- Valjean (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, Psychologist Guy, and CarlFromVienna: Jumping in here after seeing this page mentioned on WP:RSN—there are actual review articles that describe the McDougall diet and they don't exactly say the same things as the Science-based medicine piece. This article in particular review mentions that Iron, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, and omega-3 s are potential nutritional deficiencies from following such a strict diet, that improvements in predictors for cardiovascular and metabolic disease were detected within a week, that the diet was adhered to relatively well, and that The diet group showed no changes in brain MRI outcomes, number of relapses, or disability after 12 months; however improvements in low density lipoproteins cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, insulin, BMI, and fatigue severity scale scores were observed. Another review, available here, analyzes the results from an RCT and attributes most of the benefits in MS patients to generic weight loss rather than anything diet-specific. It also notes that The primary end point, the number of new T2 lesions on MRI, was not satisfied; however, notably the study was powered to detect only a very large effect—in other words, there was no statistical evidence of efficacy found, but the RCT was not very sensitive (there were 61 people in it). Yet another MS-related review article from 2019 exists (and google scholar tells me it might be relevant), but I can't access it behind the Elsevier paywall. On the other hand, the Butler source is from 1992, well before the underlying studies on McDougall's diets were published, so the fact that the source is now thirty years old really does cut against the notion that it's still reliable for the current scientific evidence on McDougall's diet. If we have real analysis of the existing evidence from multiple secondary WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, shouldn't we be using those rather than using sources that don't pass MEDRS? — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhawk10 for finding these. I have opened another discussion to collect the studies and suggested a way forward. Kind regards from Vienna, CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Trick or Treatment

The book mentions McDougall only once:

In alternative medicine, unsubstantiated health claims are being made for dozens of special diets. Many of these are ‘flavour of the month’ approaches. To name but a few: Ama-reducing diet (Ayurvedic diet to burn off accumulated ama, which are supposed toxins); anthroposophic diet (lactovegetarian food with sourmilk products); Budwig’s diet (fruit, juices, flaxseed oil and curd cheese); Gerson diet (fresh fruit juices, vegetables, supplements, liver extracts and coffee enemas to cure cancer); Kelly diet (anti-cancer diet including supplements and enzymes); Kousmine diet (anti-cancer diet with ‘vital energy’ foods, raw vegetables and wheat); macrobiotic diet (aimed at balancing yin and yang); McDougall diet (vegetarian diet, low fat, whole foods); Moerman diet (anticancer lactovegetarian diet with added iodine, sulphur, iron, citric acid and vitamins A, B, C, E); Pritikin diet (vegetarian diet combined with aerobic exercise); Swank diet (low amounts of saturated fat to combat multiple sclerosis). Each of these diets has its own unique concept and is promoted for specific circumstances. Some must be followed long-term, others only until the condition in question is cured. Alternative diets are promoted by a range of alternative practitioners and health writers, and via the internet.

I have no idea how to summarize this in accordance with WP rules. CarlFromVienna (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

McDougall has been criticized for making "unsubstantiated health claims", I think this line should be put on the article, it is supported by Hall and Butler, and the above book . Trick Or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine uses those specific words. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. -- Valjean (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Added. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk Archives 1 and 2?

Where did the link to them go? they were here on Friday. I hope they or the link weren't disappeared on purpose, since I have been mentioning them as pertinent to our current discussion. Don't worry, though. I have screenshots of them and they will soon show up on YouTube with my critique of this whole entry. I'm going to compare this entry to that of Dr. McDougall's stated foe, Dr. Robert Atkins. Anybody with an open mind will see the blatant bias exhibited against one of these prominent physicians Jack B108 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack, you must AGF. No one would do that on purpose. In fact, you are partially to blame. You left your signature at the top, where it doesn't belong. Then, when it was removed, the archive link was accidentally removed. Now it's fixed. All it took was a quick look through the history for this page. -- Valjean (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, uh but I am JackB108, so what are you talking about. [I don't speak in acronyms, so AGF is a mystery to me]. Too bad we can't write a decent bio here. [MY SIGNATURE--->>] Jack B108 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Jack, I'm so sorry. I got confused there. It was 73.37.5.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ergo Dr. McDougall, who did it. I have stricken the relevant part above. -- Valjean (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Valjean , thank you. I have never seen that happen before, LOL, which was why I was so suspicious. Thank goodness it was just an innocent mistake. Jack B108 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

When someone uses an acronym on Wikipedia, try the page "WP:that acronym". Example: WP:AGF. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Studies & Reviews

List

Studies

• McDougall 2014
• Yadav 2016
• Wright 2017

Reviews

• Langley 2020
• Sand 2018
• Evans 2019
• Simpson-Yap 2021

Textbooks

• Modern Nutrition in Health and Diseases, 11th ed., 2014, ISBN 978-1-60547-461-8, section on rheumatoid arthritis, p. 1256-1257: McDougall et al (214) reported on a 4-week, very low fat (10% of total calories) vegan diet intervention in free-living patients with RA. After 4 weeks, there was a significant loss in body weight, but erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and rheumatoid factor levels did not change. The joint tenderness score, the joint swelling score, and the severity of morning stiffness decreased significantly, but there was no significant change in duration of morning stiffness. Patients with the largest degree of improvement had the most active disease at the beginning of the study; subjects with long-standing disease showed little improvement. The authors concluded that a vegan diet could improve symptoms and speculated that changes in intestinal permeability to antigens and levels of food and bacterial antigens could be mechanisms.

Discussion

Mhawk10 has found two reviews that briefly mention the McDougall diet [15] [16]. Due to lack of other sourcing that has been found, should these be put onto the article? Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering they are WP:MEDRS-level, they should probably be mentioned. We currently give Hall and Butler a lot of weight, but the fact that peer-reviewed articles exist in the context of MS-related symptom mitigation are probably better in terms of evaluating current medical evidence on the efficacy of the diets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate note, a diet making one prone to a particular vitamin deficiency seems like a biomedical claim that should be sourced to a medical study rather than to a popular press book. We currently cite Butler (1992) for this information, which seems out-of-line with WP:MEDRS, even though a MEDRS-level source exists that says something similar (but not entirely the same). I also would like to note that we should probably avoid having this article become a WP:COATRACK on the McDougall diet—the diet probably has been covered enough to receive its own page. We can split the detailed info on the diet there and contain a brief paragraph summary on the biography page about the diet itself and reaction to it. Much of the “reception” section is about how his diet is received, rather than about McDougall as a person. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Aso, @Psychologist Guy: would we be able to merge this into the section above tiled “studies”? I feel like these are related discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The new review(s) should be included. I'd oppose splitting the article as per WP:NOPAGE it all makes better sense together. It's doubtful McDougall is even notable considered apart from his diet products. Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As Mhawk10 noted, I've also started a similar discussion above ("Studies"). I will simply copy it here and delete the discussion above. As for the primary studies, I would mention them in the biography section as "an event in life" without promoting the outcome or conclusion of the studies. After all they were done and they do belong into the biography like any other work or publication, e.g. books. It also balances the Science Based Medicine claim that no study has ever been done. I would also include the reviews and would appreciate if someone could come up with a suggestion on how to summarize them. CarlFromVienna (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we just omit the clear error in the Science Based Medicine piece and go with the higher quality sources that indicate that there has been at least one study performed on the diet? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to remove? Alexbrn (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Remove" might be the wrong word. "Delete and re-write parts the reception section" is probably better. To lay it out:

1. We currently cite the SBM piece to support the sentence The efficacy of the McDougall program to treat chronic diseases such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and heart disease has never been properly tested in a controlled study. The closest thing in that source to what we have in the article is the non-trivial combination of the subheadline ([i]ts severe restrictions make it nutritionally questionable and it has never been properly tested in a controlled study) and a sentence in the body that ([h]e was even claiming that a high-starch diet could be used to treat chronic diseases such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and heart disease).
2. This review article notes that A 2014 study reported improvements in predictors for cardiovascular and metabolic disease after a week of consuming the McDougall diet, citing an observational study primary source this 2014 study conducted by McDougall and published in Nutrition Journal. The review also notes a second study (again, conducted by McDougall), found improvements in low density lipoproteins cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, insulin, BMI, and fatigue severity scale scores. That second study is an RCT.
3. I think we're stretching the SBM source beyond its usability (we're combining two sentences, one of which is not reliable per WP:HEADLINE) to make a claim that he hasn't tested the diet on chronic diseases. We list five examples of diseases that the diet has not been tested on in the same order the SBM source does, but the body of the SBM source doesn't actually claim that the diet has never been tested in a controlled study—the author of SBM is arguing against the control group in the studies being proper. (It would be nice to have a controlled study comparing the McDougall diet to a less restrictive, nutritionally balanced, calorie-limited diet, the author writes). In other words, my reading of the SBM source is that the author of the SBM piece isn't necessarily saying that there are no studies, but that she thinks the experimental design in the studies is bad. "Proper," in the words of the author, means that there should have been a second diet intervention as control, rather than non-intervention as control. This seems to be a claim of opinion—it might be useful to pick a mere calorie-restriction diet so that we know what is attributable to the McDougall diet's food restrictions rather than the recommendations for exercise and calorie restrictions therein—but it's not obviously the correct thing to measure against (it's not trivial to dismiss that a bizarrely restrictive diet being drilled into someone could have unexpected effects of getting more people to stick to it than a non-restrictive one because it's very clear what "cheating" is).
4. The higher quality sources (a systematic review of studies on diets and MS) don't really have the same qualms and it feels WP:UNDUE to give SBM the weight of WP:WIKIVOICE when (a) one of the reviews explicitly notes studies that describe a benefit of the McDougall on both insulin (which is quite related to diabetes) and LDL cholesterol (a known heart disease factor) compared to the non-intervention control (b) the SBM source is loading a lot in the word proper and only uses that word in the subheadline, which really is not a reliable source for facts. To the best of what I can find, there hasn't been RCT regarding arthritis, cancer, and/or osteoporosis, but the current line that never been properly tested in a controlled study really is stretched when it comes to certain predictors of heart disease and diabetes (as well as MS, studies on which are missing from the article entirely at the moment).

I might take a stab at a re-write and see what folks think, but as it is the article seems to be unbalanced in terms of non-MEDRS criticisms of the diet while ignoring MEDRS-level sources that show some benefits (although obviously not curing cancer, which would be a big ).— Mhawk10 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. I have added something else above that I found in a standard textbook. It can also be used. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@CarlFromVienna: would you mind either linking the particular edition of the textbook on google books/amazon or letting me know the ISBN? — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I have added the information above. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at re-writing the section. I'm not quite comfortable using sources I can't read myself to make edits, so I have only incorporated the results of the two secondary studies I can actually read. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhawk10. Simpson-Yap did not provide anything of value for the article, I think. I have added a summary of "Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease", where they report one of McDougall's studies. Please check if you would include anything else from the source (the quote above is a full copy+paste of what's included in the book). CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the addition as done, because the source just seems to be relaying McDougall's primary research, and its WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, without any analysis or synthesis, so is not meaningfully WP:SECONDARY. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If the authors included his study then I think they at least analyzed the plausibility and came to the conclusion to include it. However, I too would have loved to see an evaluation that goes beyond the short exposé. I am dispassionate about the question of weather to include it or not. CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You may "think" that yourself. However, you must concede it might also just be a non-committal inclusion, or maybe the authors had doubts but decided to include it anyway. We cannot know. Without analysis and synthesis it isn't secondary commentary. I feel uneasy about including claims of treatment around major diseases without strong and appropriate sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I have found the following in the version history. It seems to me that producing this text needed quite some effort and that it was deleted rather quickly without going into detail. May I kindly ask the Barnstar of Diplomacy to take a look at it and propose a reuse or rewrite of whatever is of value. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Text

There have been limited peer-reviewed studies of the McDougall diet. John McDougall led the first known published study, an uncontrolled before-after study that followed residential participants for seven days. Two subsequent randomized controlled trials occurred with 16 week and 6- and 12-month follow-up periods. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis on vegan diets and cardiovascular disease prevention included both these studies. The largest decreases in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol both within the intervention group and compared to the control group occurred in these two studies. However, triglycerides also increased the most in the intervention groups using the McDougall diet. Compared to three other studies, systolic blood pressure decreased the least, relative to a control group, in one trial of the McDougall diet. The same study appeared to decrease diastolic blood pressure, compared to the control group. There were also decreases, relative to control groups, in fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, body weight and body mass index. These two studies were small, had an unclear risk of bias and the control group received minimal or no interventions, however, these two studies were among the least biased of the 13 included studies.

After the first sentence failed WP:V I gave up. WP:NOR is policy. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Early years, education and career

This sparse section omits important aspects of his career and life:

McDougall is a graduate of Michigan State University's College of Human Medicine.[2] He performed his internship at Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 1972 and his medical residency at the University of Hawaii.[2] McDougall contributed to the Vegetarian Times magazine and has appeared on television talk shows.[3]

You would think that Wikipedia would be interested in stating how he came to be a doctor on a sugar plantation in Hawaii and how that influenced his views on health and nutrition. There is also nothing here about the something like 16 years that he spent at a prestigious, accredited Adventist cardiac care hospital in northern California. I'm just wondering what the rationale for leaving such key biographical material out? Is there some reason we can't mention that McDougall is a board-certified internist that has had medical licenses in multiple states, including California, Oregon, and Florida? It would be a great if an editor here would be interested in fleshing this out and with fixing the blatant bias in the Reception section as well. Thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If there are sources (preferably independent, secondary ones) and the material is due then it should be included. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Is McDougall the diet guy who had a stroke while crossing the road, or am I mixing him up with another one? Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think he had. Jack, for his personal motivation and non-academic events in life one can easily use his own books or website. For these things there is no urgent need for secondary sources. But I don't have time to do it. CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I took a brief look at his website, where he claims 12,000 people healed with his 12-day program!! He claims that as a youngster (26) he had a stroke in his eye caused by Lupus? -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Aged 26. Here it says he had also a "massive stroke" aged 18. ISTR there was something interesting about this, but secondary sources were lacking ... (Add: and here is the stroke in his "early twenties". Not great sources though...) Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@CarlFromVienna: That stroke (the one "in the eye" aged 26) is from a customer as relayed in a testimonial for a DVD, it's not a McDougall stoke. Alexbrn (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the attempt to fill out this entry. He did have a massive stroke when he was 18 and a student at Michigan State University. Hopefully nobody suspects he is making that up; he's been talking about it publicly his whole career, as he was temporarily paralyzed on one side, and to this day still walks with a limp. After that he became very interested in going to medical school. Jack B108 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Veggie Times piece says he was hit by two cars as he crossed the road while having a stoke (this is the "early twenties" stroke when he was already a medical student, not his one at 18), and was briefly paralyzed after this. McDougall was contributor editor of the magazine at the time and the piece has no by-line so is effectively - what - a WP:SPS? Maybe be useful for some cautious WP:ABOUTSELF, like the websites. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, for pointing out my blunder. I found the „with 18“ stroke. That page could be a source for more ABOUTSELF. CarlFromVienna (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Butler claims: "opposes conventional cancer treatment" & "often at odds with the authors"

We have two bold claims in the text that I find hard to verify. Both are from Butler.

1. The first one is that McDougall "opposes conventional cancer treatment".
2. The second one that he is "often at odds with the authors".

As for the first claim, I've looked at some of McDougalls criticism of conventional cancer treatment. Here he describes that in 1980 in Hawaii he fought for a new law that that needed an informed consent from women before they undergo breast surgery in case of breast cancer. Informed consent meaning that the physicians explain to women the chance that the surgery actually prolongs their life. And in the Youtube talk 81xnvgOlHaY he looks into Steve Jobs' case of pancreatic cancer and if conventional treatment would really have saved Jobs. McDougall conludes that there is a chance that immediate surgery would not have saved Jobs because the cancer must have already spread by that time. McDougall's criticism in both cases seems to be that in many cases of cancer detection and surgery are often too late to really impact the outcome (mortality). This is a far cry from "opposes conventional cancer treatment", actually it is in line with evidence based medicine that demands that for any treatment there is clear evidence that the treatment is actually effective. In case of cancer screening and surgery there is still ongoing research in what cases surgery actually prolongs life.

Butlers second claim is also very bold. In fact Butler does not provide any material to support his claim that McDougall often is at odds with the authors of the studies he cites. Butler says McDougall has a protein paranoia and that McDougall supports this by citing a study about the possible negative impact of protein for people with kidney disease. Butler contacted the author, Barry Brenner. The passage reads as follows: "Since the article [Brenner's] said little about protein and normal kidneys, I asked Dr. Brenner whether he knew of any evidence that kidney disease can be caused by eating moderate amounts of fish, low-fat milk, beans and tofu. He said he did not." (Highlight by me). Let's go through this one by one: a) Butler did not provide any evidence that McDougall is often at odds with the authors, he seems to have checked only one study b) Butler asks Brenner about moderate consumption; we don't know what amounts of protein consumption McDougall actually believed to be to high and c) Butler asked if the foods he named can cause kidney disease when moderately consumed. Butler actually asked a question for what the answer was clear all along ("Does eating a litte fish or beans cause kidney disease"). Of course it does not because if so nearly 100% of the population would suffer from kidney disease and these foods would never have become part of a normal diet. If someone believes that this is actually what McDougall thinks (causal effect for moderate amounts), I would like to see a proof for that.

I have therefor changed these parts accordingly until we can further verify Butler's claims. CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed, esp regarding Butler's statement about McDougall's treatment advice for cancer. It made Dr. McDougall sound as if he is unscientific or a quack, which he is not. He is a board-certified internist. Jack B108 (talk)`

CarlFromVienna this is a slightly different issue than the heading. This has to do with the 'activist facts" ref regarding McDougall's membership in PCRM. You might want to fix the spelling error in that [hilarious nonprofit industry spy agency] reference, which still incorrectly reads "Actifist", which I pointed out earlier. Thank you for fixing the inaccurate article description of PCRM, which is much more than an animal rights organization. Jack B108 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jack B108 and CarlFromVienna: the dude's website recommends a change in diet and exercise as the best treatment for breast cancer. There's also some stuff he's written claiming a causal link between adopting his diet and a diminished risk of cancer and/or an increased probability of spontaneous regression in cancer of the breast. This seems to be a bit of a fringe medical theory. The Butler source may well have some problems, but breast cancer in particular seems to be one of the cases where McDougall opposes conventional cancer treatment. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Before I go into detail, let me say that I probably hold the same view as all of us here on McDougall's views on cancer. The question is how we can come up with something that does not violate WP rules. As for your comment above: in a way McD is right, because obesity, sugar consumption, red meat, and (maybe) diary can promote cancer. So the claim that his diet may be a good way to prevent cancer is in line with medical advice. The problem is more with claims about cancer reversal like Psychologist Guy points out below. CarlFromVienna (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

McDougall claims that his diet can reverse cancer [17], another video here where he actually makes the claim that his diet can cure cancer [18]. He uses those terms. On his website he has many articles on cancer, he says for example "The McDougall Diet is the best opportunity for colon cancer prevention and a fundamental part of its treatment". [19]. There is a big difference between prevention and reversal of cancer. But he claims both, he actually claims his diet can cure cancer. On his website he also has an article claiming his diet can stop most cancers [20]. He opposes chemotherapy and mammography [21]. So McDougall not only claims that his diet can cure, prevent, reverse and stop all cancers (!), he also opposes conventional medical treatment and advises people to adopt his diet as treatment. Around 23 minutes in the above video I cited, he says nearly all conventional treatment such as chemotherapy, radiation, surgery for cancer does not work and does 'more harm than good'. Then a few minutes later he blames people on his diet (example of a breast cancer patient) not getting good results with their cancer because they were cheating on his diet and consuming vegetables oils. Right, so the cancer will only go away if those vegetable oils are avoided as well... Crazy.

McDougall claims that if one follows his strict diet (no animal products, processed foods, vegetables oils) and does not cheat then their cancer will be cured or reversed. This is why the medical community have dismissed his research, his claims are not provided with any solid evidence. The only thing he can cite here are anecdotes, that's what most of his lectures consist of. He also cites the same example over and over, the case of a friend of his called Ruth Heidrich who he says cured their cancer by adopting the McDougall diet [22] and in this video around 47 minutes [23] he cites this person again. BTW in that video McDougall spends much time attacking conventional medical treatment like chemotherapy, radiation and screening. He also seems to spend time trying to link his diet to spontaneous regression of cancers. McDougall has also claimed on his website to have published the "first study on the dietary treatment of breast cancer" which he links to [24]. In regard to this last claim, is it true? Can we check that. If it was the first study then he may be notable for this. However, I suspect that the claim is false. In conclusion, this is very much fringe territory. Whilst it is true that plant-based diets have been recommended to prevent cancers, the medical community are clearly not claiming it can reverse all cancers. Butler's statements about cancer are clearly accurate about McDougall. Psychologist Guy (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an important aspect and we need to take care to be correct. I think "has opposed conventional cancer treatment" would be better wording to avoid the implication this is a total opposition. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: I am munching my way through the videos. In this one [25] of which I checked the first 20min he claims: the doubleing rate of the cancer can speed up by a bad diet that also impairs you immune system. It can be slowed down by a good diet. If you're lucky enough and the cancer grows slowly you will die a natural (=other) way before your cancer can kill you. That's the goal of eating a healthy diet. He points to dietary recommendations for cancer patients that he says are in line with his approach, e.g. what the American Cancer Society recommends. He notes that there are some rare cases of full cancer regression (where the immune system gets the upper hand and kills of the cancer). He says that people who are healthy will have a higher chance of cancer regression than those who are otherwise unhealthy. He says that to get healthy you have to eat healthy. He says that chemos may work in some cases but often times they do not work. For women with breast cancer the chemo kills the ovaries but a better way to archive that would be to take them out surgically. CarlFromVienna (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, and particularly not a venue for spouting ignorant crap about cancer. Please ensure any further contributions focus on making suggestions for article improvement. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool down, I have summarized what the source that PG provided above says. We are trying to figure out McDougalls position on cancer and if we can nail him down on some quackery. If you don't have the time to go through the sources, you can simply ignore this discussion. CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming up with stuff from primary sources is WP:OR. We have secondary sources on this so what's the issue with using them? Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Things still have to add up. If a reader comes here and sees the claim "McD opposes conventional cancer treatment" and then reads on McDougalls website that he does recommend several screenings and treatments how does that add up? Is McDougall anything different from other general practitioners who all hold their own views on the meaningfulness of certain treatments? I don't have an answer to this question, yet. CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The reader comes here to find a summary of knowledge on McDougall and his works as published in reliable sources. If that doesn't accord with their take on things, tough shit. A number of general practitioners are outright quacks, so I'm not sure what you're asking. The idea that a healthy diet will impede your cancer progression, is quackery, whoever says it. You won't find real doctors saying "never mind chemotherapy, just buy this fad diet product!". The whole idea of "anti-cancer diets" is fringe (except in tortured comparisons: a veggie diet is better than the vodka and meat diet, e.g.) . Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this fringe? Or this quackery? CarlFromVienna (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to be selling something for there to be quackery. While it seems obvious that reducing nourishment will slow everything in the body, there is - as your source says - no good evidence that diet has any effect, and certainly not a recommendation to ditch effective treatment in favour of a fad diet. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion, and the removal, is based on a failure to respect the existing independent sources.

The complaint at the top of this section appears to be "The article accurately represented Butler's source. However, when I personally read the source, I see that the source says exactly what the Wikipedia article says, but the source only gives one specific, concrete example. I personally expect the source to cite its sources and justify its statements better than that, so I reject what the source says as unproven to my personal satisfaction."

That's not how Wikipedia editors are supposed to work. If the source is reliable for the sentence in question, then you accept what the source says, even if you personally wish that the source had dedicated half a dozen pages to providing an exhaustive list of details to justify its claims. In MEDRS terms, we call this behavior "performing detailed peer review". You should stop doing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

a couple of you seem to be a lot more interested in discussing how to practice medicine than in actually improving the article. E.g., we're still waiting for someone to fix the spelling error in the reference: ACTIFIST? BTW, my review of the editorial work of all the doctors and nutritionists here is up on YouTube live. Thanks, -J. Byrom Jack B108 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your videos criticizing Wikipedia [26], [27] and some of the editors here including myself, which you have linked on your user-page and elsewhere. All I can say is, you have wasted your time making these videos because you did not list a single reliable source for McDougall's Wikipedia biography, so you are not suggesting any improvements. Your criticism of the article basically boiled down to McDougall's criticism of Kurt Butler. This is despite the fact there are many other reliable sources on the article including an article by Science-Based Medicine [28] which is recent, not published in the 1980s. I have lost interest in editing this article but from what I can see it is a good article, your criticisms hold no weight and are not backed by any policy on this website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

'Lawsuit over cholesterol in eggs'

Why does this stupid blip get a devoted subheading, and why such a dumb title? Try to imagine you're reading Encyclopedia Britannica or Dictionary of National Biography: would anyone expect to see such trivia amplified and emphasized? Remember, junior reporters, Wikipedia isn't a repository for every scrap of info. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty, do you have a suggestion for a better section heading?

The reason it's in a separate section is because it doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If it doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the contents, then maybe it shouldn't be in the article. Ever read a biography? What are you doing? --Animalparty! (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have integrated the section into his biography. I think the original idea was to paint this lawsuit (and all of McDougall's actions) as motivated by animal rights only and not by medical views. The subheading was probably used to make this POV more prominent in the article. CarlFromVienna (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"What do they say about McDougall's Fad Diet?"

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.

---

What is the ADA supposed to say? It's basically a vegan diet without modern processed food. Why would Harriet Hall have special insight into that.

SBM's own moderators say stuff like this regularly "Veganism is inherently unhealthful. It is a reasonable ethical choice, but nutritionally and scientifically speaking is not justified." counter to the American Dietetic Association's own position. I really question SBM's as an overall source to anything.

Evidence: [Screenshot-from-2022-08-04-15-43-37.png](https://postimg.cc/1VQkrHXy)

From this comment section: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-mcdougall-diet/

Although it's not the first time I seen that sentiment. RudyRatzinger (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. The McDougall diet is not a "vegan diet without modern processed food". It is a extremely low-fat restrictive fad diet. McDougall's claim that all fats in the diet are bad is clearly nonsense. On the McDougall diet you are also told to avoid mock meats, protein powders, nutritional yeast, all oils, restrict soy intake and most fortified foods - this is irresponsible and impractical advice. Tofu has a good amount of calcium and fortified nutritional yeast is a good source of b12 and zinc. Tempeh is an ok source of carnitine but you can't eat anything "processed" on the McDougall diet so carnitine is out, even though all fruits and vegetables from supermarkets are processed. Let's face it all foods are processed unless you are growing them yourself so it makes no sense to forbid or restrict them.

McDougall says that supplements are bad for health and that only b12 should be taken on his diet. He tells his readers to avoid taking calcium, iron, omega 3 (DHA/EPA) supplements. If you end up doing his diet long term you will end up looking like a skeleton, your body will be depleted of omega-3, calcium, zinc, creatine, carnitine, taurine and collagen. The excessive low-fat fiber intake will restrict key nutrients that your body needs to absorb. The only people that thrive temporally on his diet are extremely overweight people (his books are filled with images of such people) anecdotal evidence, not science. Those people (cases of obesity) do well on his diet for a few years then they abandon his diet because it is not sustainable long-term. His diet is also deficient in Coenzyme Q10. A good vegan source of coenzyme Q10 is olive or soybean oil but McDougall bans all oils. You need to ask yourself what nutrients are deficient or missing from his diet, the answer is many. Most people can't do the McDougall diet longer than 7 months. The drop out rate is very high, similar to the Ornish diet. That is why the ADA do not recommend it. His diet is not balanced at all.

Above on an IP address you cited the "Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets", it says well planned vegetarian or vegan diets may provide health benefits, note the words well planned. The McDougall diet is not well planned. Also the ADA'S position is not opposing vegans to take fortified foods and supplements something which McDougall opposes. The ADA actually encourages vegans to take fortified foods and supplements. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

So much for reliable sources and not personal opinion.

"No, that is not correct. The McDougall diet is not a "vegan diet without modern processed food". It is a extremely low-fat restrictive fad diet. McDougall's claim that all fats in the diet are bad is clearly nonsense. On the McDougall diet you are also told to avoid mock meats, protein powders, nutritional yeast, all oils,"

So exactly what I said? Most mock meats formulations are highly modern and almost all new to the west. It might reach back in ancient China some thousand years but mostly seitan as soy is allowed. Protein powders are entirely modern. Nutritional yeast is modern. And compared to modern man, even olive oil as a concentrated and processed form are modern (5-6000 years old) and relatively new to the vast majority. Corn and peanut oil as seperate entities are entirely modern.

"If you end up doing his diet long term you will end up looking like a skeleton, your body will be depleted of omega-3, calcium, zinc, creatine, carnitine, taurine and collagen."

Oh cool, been doing it 12 years. How long until I enter this fantasy land of mass deficiency? RudyRatzinger (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Further more:

Carnitine:

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Carnitine-HealthProfessional/

"Healthy children and adults do not need to consume carnitine from food or supplements, as the liver and kidneys produce sufficient amounts from the amino acids lysine and methionine to meet daily needs [1-3]. The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the National Academies (formerly National Academy of Sciences) reviewed studies on the functions of carnitine in 1989 and concluded it was not an essential nutrient [3]. The FNB has not established Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs)—including a recommended dietary allowance (RDA)—for carnitine [4]."

Collagen:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/collagen/

"At this time, non-industry funded research on collagen supplements is lacking. Natural collagen production is supported through a healthy and balanced diet by eating enough protein foods, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables and reducing lifestyle risk factors."

Creatine:

(From wikipedia's creatine article):

Creatine is not an essential nutrient.

Taurine:

https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-and-supplements/what-is-taurine

Adult bodies make their own taurine from a nonessential amino acid called cysteine. High-protein foods have enough cysteine for the human body, so most people don’t need supplements.

I don't feel like doing a comprehensive list of all this crap you throwing at the wall to see what will stick. Also the claim "McDougall's claim that all fats in the diet are bad is clearly nonsense" is spurious as that is not his position to begin with. Here is his position:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/articles/free-mcdougall-program/fat-cholesterol-primary-poisons/

"The body uses fat primarily for energy storage when no food or other immediate source of fuel is available, and cholesterol is needed for many critical cellular functions, so both are part of a normal, healthy body. Having said that, the body produces all the cholesterol it needs; and as for fat, plants already contain adequate amounts and only plants make the essential fatty acids your body needs to function. What’s more, plant foods never contain cholesterol."

The part about plants make EFAs are backed up here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8230916/

" Only plants can produce essential FA, and animals and humans must obtain these FA, through dietary means, for use in the synthesis of their longer chain n-3 and n-6 PUFA derivatives viz. EPA or DHA, or arachidonic acid (AA) [17]. RudyRatzinger (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want but the opposition to anything 'modern' in the diet is clearly nonsensical. Why would anything "modern" (up to 6000 years old) be bad in the diet? Does this view apply to everything else? Then don't wear clothes, don't use cars, don't use your computer, don't go to a strip bar, don't support a vegan diet! There are hundreds of medical papers demonstrating that olive oil is good for health but sure ban the food because it is "modern" or "processed". You realise that the majority of fruits have been selectively bred and are "processed" by someone before you eat them and sprayed? The first corn was barely edible and is about 1000 times bigger now, modern cabbages are extra leafy, bananas were once inedible and contained large seeds, plums used to be the same size as grapes, now they are huge. Practically all the foods you eat on the McDougall diet are "modern" and have been processed by someone somewhere, these are not "natural" foods they do not exist in the wild like that, they have all been domesticated and processed by man. Sure don't eat olive oil (even though it's been around since 3,500 BC) but quinoa is FINE which has been around a similar time?! The McDougall logic is flawed. Just because a food is more 'processed' than another, does not make it bad.

As for the McDougall diet, it is very unlikely you have been doing it 12 years but if you have you are one of the rare few, good for you. But it is not really rocket science but L-carnitine concentrations have been found to decline with age in humans as does taurine abundance, so it's not a good idea to entirely oppose supplementation on a vegan diet as a vegan diet contains extremely low levels of certain nutrients you can easily verify in medical journals. If vegans are not getting those nutrients in the diet then they can only get those nutrients from supplements, there is no other way apart from fortified foods. Why should we oppose fortified foods? That is crazy. Vegans need fortified foods and supplements, it doesn't matter if they are "modern". The ADA does not support your extreme claims. In regard to carnitine and taurine it is not essential for young or healthy adults eating a typical omnivore diet as they can easily get it from animal foods but long-term vegans are deficient in it if they do not supplement.

As McDougall claims all supplements are bad then people following his diet are deficient, just like they are deficient in calcium, zinc, iron, DHA/EPA on his diet if they are not supplementing or eating fortified foods. The webpage you cited says "Healthy children and adults do not need to consume carnitine from food or supplements, as the liver and kidneys produce sufficient amounts from the amino acids lysine and methionine to meet daily needs", this is indeed true. Note the words "healthy children and adults", the webpage is talking about omnivores, not vegans. 95% of carnitine resides in skeletal muscle, it's been proven in the medical literature that vegans have "reduced capacity to transport carnitine into muscle" [29]. If you follow McDougall's diet long-term yes 15-20 years of course you are not going to be well, there are no known cases of anyone following it that long, I suspect you probably eat eggs and salmon secretly. John McDougall has admitted to eating turkey in his personal life at his birthdays and for thank-giving which is hypocritical because his followers are not aloud so he doesn't even follow his own diet but at least he admits it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Then don't wear clothes, don't use cars, don't use your computer, don't go to a strip bar, don't support a vegan diet!"

Because our bodies still work on old programming and isn't as plastic as our brains. And for all the good those things you mention, each brings it's own challenges. A car is great for getting to distant places, but if somehow we did sit all day and no longer traveled to anywhere via some Jetson's tech (if anyone remembers the Segway hype of 2000), it would be really bad for us longterm. We don't get enough walking as is.

" Practically all the foods you eat on the McDougall diet are "modern" and have been processed by someone somewhere"

An easy definition is propounded by Jeff Novick, registered dietician, working for McDougall. It's unprocessed for purposes of the diet if you can eat it as it came from the garden, other than the fact you have cut it by hand, peeled it, and/or cooked it (without oil).

"There are hundreds of medical papers demonstrating that olive oil is good for health"

This is very questionable as the majority of papers I have read compared it to other concentrated and processed oils and fats. Yes, it's better than lard, butter, or coconut oil. Or something hexane extracted like many commercial vegetable oils. Is it healthy compared to real food? Pretty laughable assertion.

You can look up the numbers and oil is leading the obesity crisis.

https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions

1. 1980: 3178 avg calorie intake. 1,631 (51.3%) calories by carbohydrates. 1154 (36.3%) cal by fat.
2. 2013: 3,682 avg calorie intake. +504 calorie increase. 1,790 (48.6%) calories by carbohydrates. -2.7% of diet composition. +159 calorie increase. 1,454 (39.4%) calories by fat. +3.1% of diet composition. +300 calorie increase.

Almost 2 to 1 increase of fat over carbohydrates. Interesting. Protein intake increased by about 45 calories.

Now scroll down to the composition chart.

1. Oils. 1980: 649 calories. 2013: 890 calories. +241 calorie increase.
2. Sugar. 1980: 556 calories. 2013: 600 calories. +44 calorie increase.

Over a hundred studies, many coming out of Penn State, also showed excess calories reduce both healthspan and lifespan across dozens of species, including primates. Calorie intake is heavily influenced by calorie density shown by several other dozens of studies. A potato is 350 calories per pound, 1% fat. Oil is 4,000. Oil makes potatos into classic chips, a 2,560 calorie per pound food (7.3x as much), 56% fat. There is no reasoning where the potato chip became healthier product.

https://hhd.psu.edu/news/2010/calorie_reduction.html

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/10/07/does-calorie-restriction-extend-your-life-span/

You can also compare oil from the foods they came from, these are calorie matched comparisons.

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/169999-171029/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/169096-171413/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/169414-167702/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/171705-173573/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/172430-171410/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/170170-171412/200cals-200cals/1-1

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-comparison/169999-171029/200cals-200cals/1-1

As you will see, the oil loses most minerals, fiber, all water soluble vitamins, and doesn't even particularly consistently win on fat soluble vitamins either. Surprising since it takes 100 olives to make a single tablespoon of olive oil, however the expected vitamin concentration does not occur.

"If you follow McDougall's diet long-term yes 15-20 years of course you are not going to be well, there are no known cases of anyone following it that long, I suspect you probably eat eggs and salmon secretly."

Wow, that's a really lame argument. RudyRatzinger (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to do some editing on this page almost two years ago, and everything I wrote was reverted by people like Psychology Guy. He's very wise and told me that the McDougall Diet will lead to "deficiencies." I've been eating a starch-based, plant-based diet (basically a McDougall diet), since July 2013, and I'm still waiting for all of those deficiencies to manifest. I'm sure they will, because Psychology Guy knows what he's talking about. Edsanville (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Edsanville, here is a recent photo of John A. McDougall (taken in early 2022 when he was 74), [30] which has not been photo-shopped, it was taken directly from his YouTube channel [31] which you can easily confirm. That is the founder of the McDougall diet. Now, tell me do you think that man looks well? It doesn't matter if you are a vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian or an omnivore you just need to be honest that man does not look healthy. In fact as people have commented in many of his videos he looks disturbing, almost like a skeleton. It's entirely possible to be healthy on a plant-based diet, Martin Shaw is an example of that, here is a photograph of him age 73, a very similar age to McDougall [32] and his health is thriving. There's a difference between being plant-based and being a dietary fanatic (no dietary fat, no processed foods, no oils, no nutritional yeast, no supplements, eating nothing but starch etc). If the McDougall diet really worked we would expect to see its founder thriving but that is clearly not the case. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, and the sources do highlight deficiencies with his diet (it's clearly very low in many nutrients). If you want to follow a starch based diet, good for you but you need reliable sources for the McDougall diet claiming that it is effective but as you know that is not the case as you have not provided a single reliable reference. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@RudyRatzinger: thanks for the screenshot from the SBM forum. Interesting to see that the moderators are not science-based. I will not join the discussion above, because I fear it will be endless. What I am suggesting about the McDougall article is that instead of focusing to get the criticism out of the article the article would much more benefit from sources that explain the diet and its potential benefits and drawbacks from other points of view. This discussion page and the archive have consumed hours of meaningless back and forth talk and no one ever cares to come up with secondary sources that can be used to balance potential POVs like SBM's. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Dr McDougall

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.

---

The word fad should not be used in the context of the McDougall diet. Someone please remove that Thank you. 2600:1000:B057:B036:EFF7:1770:854D:4E1E (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We have been over this about 100 times before (check the archives). Wikipedia runs on reliable sources and that content is well sourced. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Biased User Keeps Editing Out Counter Arguments

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.

---

Why does Psychologiest Guy, entire arguments were refuted with good sources, call me a "throwaway account" and then move the section that threw out his entire counterargument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_A._McDougall&oldid=1123074004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyRatzinger (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The section that was linked to should be reopened. RudyRatzinger (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk-pages are for making improvements to the article, you are breaking talk-page guidelines by this repeated nonsense WP:TPNO. All editing history is public at Wikipedia. We can read through your posts, not in a single post have you suggested a reliable source. Your suggestion about refuting arguments with good sources has no basis in fact. You have not suggested any sources that mention McDougall and you appear to be using this talk-page to have a debate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My counterarguments to your claim of a myriad deficiencies was wellsourced by Harvard Health, NIH.gov, and webmd. RudyRatzinger (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources mention McDougall or the McDougall diet, so what you are arguing is original research which is against Wikipedia policy WP:OR. You joined Wikipedia to have a debate about nutrition. You miss the point of this website. If you have reliable sources to improve the article then suggest them but this is not the place to debate diets. You can discuss the McDougall diet but none of your sources specifically did that. I have not seen you suggest a single source that mentions the McDougall diet, so anything you suggest is off-topic here. I see no mention of the McDougall diet at Harvard Health or NIH.gov. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"None of those sources mention McDougall or the McDougall diet"

Neat arrangment there. Try to throw any shit that sticks to a vegan diet, but then when it's refuted, complain that the counter argument doesn't reference the McDougall diet specifically.

Is this the having your cake and eating it too, diet? RudyRatzinger (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR, you have been citing sources that do not mention McDougall so they will not end up on Wikipedia. You are using this talk-page inappropriately. If you have no reliable sources or suggestions to improve the article then you should not be commenting here. Waste of time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so I encourage anyone else to read that link and not see the double standards. Your speculation throughout vs my sourced counters.

Calling my account a "throwaway" and then decrying attacking other editors. RudyRatzinger (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Off topic still. So far you have not listed a single source that mentions McDougall. Its obvious you joined this website to troll this talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I worked on a previous article far prior the McDougall article.

I'm just pointing out that you are trying to hold me to far higher standards than you do yourself. RudyRatzinger (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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. I doubt that's true at all. The problem is that Wikipedia is totally married to the status quo and it also has editors that are unaccountable. The status quo in science and society is often dead wrong. as I've written before on this discussion page [under "JackB 108"], this is a shoddy article full of incomplete sections, bias, and even false and outdated info. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The status quo in science and society is often dead wrong The problem with this is that there is no viable alternative because when the status quo turns out to be wrong, we know that only after that has happened, when the status quo changes.

If you still have problems with false and outdated info, the solution is to point out now what is false now, with reliable sources, and not to send people on wild goose chases for hypothetically still-existant mistakes by searching for inconsistently-written user names in the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have definitely pointed out false or outdated information on this article, and the editors that control this article will not fix it. E.g., Dr. McDougall does not own Dr. McDougall Right Foods anymore. But nobody cares whether this article is accurate or not, I guess. And when other people have jumped in here and try to balance the article out against its heavy negative slant right now, they are always outnumbered and shut down. That's totally unprofessionall. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for Dr. McDougall does not own Dr. McDougall Right Foods anymore, there is no problem with including that.

nobody cares whether this article is accurate or not Please read WP:TRUTH.

balance the article out against its heavy negative slant Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say that McDougall owns Dr. McDougall Right Foods. It says he is the co-founder. Based on what I have found online Rita Vinnicombe is the current co-owner but this is not relevant to this biography. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

yes, sometime in the last few hours somebody has mercifully corrected this error that has been there for months. It now appears to be possibly up-to-date. Thank you. ~~

Jack.B.2007 you can do what you like in your sandbox but this is completely unrealistic [33], you are basically just white-washing the entire McDougall article to remove anything critical or negative about the McDougall diet. Your agenda is to have a 100% positive article about McDougall and his dietary ideas where all mainstream scientific reception of his ideas and or any criticisms or critical coverage are totally removed. You want a fanboy page where nothing remotely negative exists about McDougall, you misunderstand how this website works, what you are doing is a false balance. There is nothing neutral about your editing. You also admitted to being in contact with McDougall on your other Wikipedia account so there is conflict of interest here as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you're monitoring my personal sandbox, but I guess if Wikipedia allows surveillance ofnon-public facing information, it's there. Don't worry., I will never post that on this website. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said to you on the Hundredth monkey effect talk-page [34] back on 28 March 2022, it's likely I will report your account at the ANI board. You are not here to improve the project and you have broken several policies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, if Wikipedia doesn't want discussion about the state of a current article about a living person, then you do what you need to do.. I'm just jumping into a thread started by other people here. [you're also off topic] Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally love how Dr McDougall has already lived to be 75 years old. I would like to get the age and health stats on the coterie who claims he is a "fad diet", "not based on evidence", "blah blah blah". His age and health speak for itself. Wesley1967a (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but with a better diet he could be 100 by now! Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reaction section

“Reception section” contains only critical reception. It ignores all the positive reaction, the fact his program has cured (not just controlled) diabetes. It mentions criteria that his diet “could lead to nutrient deficiencies”. His program has been around for decades and followed by at least tens of thousands of people. If that were the case, there would be cases of such deficiencies. Reception of his program has many thousands positive reactions. I think a balanced post would include some of them since your post makes it seems there are only negative reactions; but I have learned Wikipedia is anything but balanced. 96.240.1.105 (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We have been here 100 times before. Drive by IP/s, new accounts and sock-puppets have been saying that for years but not a single reliable scientific reference has ever been presented. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. You are making health claims about the McDougall diet so the burden of proof is on you to back it up with reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added that one of his books was a bestseller. Maybe there is information about the other books he wrote as well. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Observational study

This observational study [35] was removed from the article. I removed it because it is a very weak source and a primary source (co-written by McDougall). It should be noted that this study was for 7 days, this is very weak evidence. This is really quite embarrassing and not strong evidence for anything reliable. Most cohorts are a minimum of 3 or 6 months and many 2 years. I don't see what 7 days is going to conclusively show in a single cohort. Put people on a diet for 7 days and some lower blood pressure and total cholesterol is reported. That finding is being taken as improving "predictors of cardiovascular and metabolic health after one week on the diet plan". One week, yes. You can give a bunch of people any diet for 7 days and get a finding like that. 7 days in an uncontrolled study. This is not evidence for anything reliable and certainly not long-term metabolic health. Was there a compromise on this talk-page to include the study? Sorry but this is one of the worst studies I have seen. I don't think we should cite this on Wikipedia. It reminds me of the carnivore diet self reported study people were trying to include on Wikipedia [36]. It's bad science. We can do better than this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The source is not suitable. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is an excellent study. Just from a way how we work together let me remind you that in February after a heated discussion Red-tailed hawk jumped in to find a compromise, rewrote the section and included the study. We all have been engaged back then on the talk page and could have weighted in. I generally don't like it when compromises deteriorate over time without discussion as would have been the case with your "silent" removal, Psychologist Guy. That said, I appreciate your explanations on how bad the study is, and I will not make the case to include it in the article. CarlFromVienna (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Bad edit. I must have missed it. WP:MEDRS is needed for such biomedical content. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems the same unreliable paper (a 7 day study) is yet again added to the article but now is in the reception section, ""Effects of 7 days on an ad libitum low-fat vegan diet: the McDougall Program cohort"". I don't get what the obsession is with putting this on the article. It is pure promotion. We don't do this on other Wikipedia articles, it is clearly against our medical guidelines. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"unreliable paper" (and others above) are Weasel Words and have no basis in reality except as irrational opinion, at least, and have no more validity or strength than others who disagree, at best. The study is OBVIOUSLY valid or it would not be accepted to be listed on the NIH and noted websites or in the prestigious Journal. You (all) also obviously have extremely biased opinions based on your attempted and failed excuses and illogical rationale, wherein you have embarrassed yourselves. (as noted that ALL of the other 'accepted' notations are NEGATIVE -- that says it all) WillBo (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A 7 day cohort study is not high-quality evidence. I suspect you have not looked up what evidence-based medicine is. Have a read of WP:MEDASSESS. A 7 day cohort study written by McDougall himself is clearly not a good source to be citing on Wikipedia, it fails our medical guidelines. The paper is nearly 10 years old, there has been no follow-up and no confirmation from independent researchers. If such content is to be added then a good review should be cited. We should not be citing primary sources for medical content and the conflict of interest is clearly very big here. We need reliable secondary sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Issue raised at WP:FTN Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, sorry, Psychologist Guy, I didn't notice that the paper that was recently added was the same that we've already discussed here. I would suggest to put it into the literature list. Clearly we cannot use it for the article, but I see no rule to censorship the existence of McDougall's publication. CarlFromVienna (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• John McDougall in 2013-09-24 11-25.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Cross Platform Bias

The bias on this page is not only blatant and inconsistent with 40 years of nutritional science, but it is consistent with the bias found on every other vegan advocate pages on Wikipedia.

Over the last 40 years, science, that is not funded by the farming and food manufacturing industry, points to the reality that humans are physiological herbivores, and that deviating from a herbivore diet compromises health and impacts longevity.

This systematic bias on Wikipedia is unworthy of the platform and could be impacting donations. Clearly, anyone who admires the scientists and doctors who are inappropriately lambasted on Wikipedia are thinking twice about making donations.

Is it possible that Wikipedia gets significant funding from the meat and dairy industry or drug companies? Les Phelos (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources not personal opinion. There are reliable sources criticizing McDougall's dieting ideas so that is reflected on the article. There is no conspiracy - Wikipedia articles are not being funded by the dairy or meat industry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Harriet Hall's articles are not one of them and I'm not sure what makes them anything but personal opinion? 173.49.250.196 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SBM. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's SBM, but it's also a bad joke once it touches anything from veganism by Harriet Hall. I was introduced to her via her review of the China Study that left a lot to be desired. For example, in the link, she's reviewing a book published on August 1, 1991 and she's decrying outdated sources from 1970s-1990? Uh, maybe review a newer book of McDougall's if that's the problem. Not sure why reviewed an old book to decry old sources. 173.49.250.196 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor opinions could for little to nothing as against reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a very tidy arrangement to hide behind here, especially when you take a single doctor's opinion, who never chose to go into nutrition, over the entire American Dietetic Association's position that "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ 173.49.250.196 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What do they say about McDougall's Fad Diet? - Roxy the English speaking dog 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is "fad" about eating eating fruits, vegetables, beans, lentils, legumes and whole grains?

Even the 1977 McGovern report recommended this direction.

"The recommended way of accomplishing this was to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and less high-fat meat, egg, and dairy products"

United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs#cite note-brody-11 RudyRatzinger (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Why was this question never answered? I am also uncomfortable with the negative quotes from a blogger's website on this BLP. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source. It cannot be dismissed as just a blogger website because it is written by experts who advocate for evidence-based medicine. It is used on many biographies on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Such as which biographies? Just checking. A neurologist and oncologist and their little society is not a good source in my book. Quackwatch was similar, and made a LOT of errors, such as condemning chronic fatigue syndrome as a hoax, which of course it isn't. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Do a search on Wikipedia for "sciencebasedmedicine.org". There are 80 matches, over 60 or so are biographies but they don't come up as matches for all of them for some reason. Just a few examples, it is used on the Aseem Malhotra, Joel Fuhrman and Steven Gundry articles. It is a reliable source for Wikipedia. In this area they often publish articles critical of fad diets. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

But the articles themselves are not science based. They simply say, that one doctor criticized McDougall in a book. That’s not a good source. That’s why Wikipedia gets a bad rep in scholarship. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:C937:C2E3:1B7:B56F (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is considered a reliable source so there is no point in repeatedly moaning about it. See WP:SBM, "Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS". Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A good source is not one that is generally considered reliable. A good source is a type of evidence that substantiates a claim. The studies cited also don’t do that. The claim that the McDougall diet may be deficient in various vitamins/minerals is not shown in the source given. Instead the source links to yet another source which is a study that does not discuss the McDougall diet but actually says vegans have the least deficiencies when compared to omnivores and vegetarians. It’s either a poorly written article or just filled with bias and possible malicious intent. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:C937:C2E3:1B7:B56F (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You are conducting WP:OR, what you are saying may or may not be true but it is not up to us to challenge what is in reliable sources. If you have an issue with Science-Based Medicine take it up with them. At Wikipedia we just cite what reliable secondary sources say. There is a strong consensus that Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source, so it can be cited on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I see. So you’re saying Science Based Medicine wrote the Wikipedia article? If not, then my point has nothing to do with them since I’m talking about the sources on the Wikipedia page for John A McDougall. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:C937:C2E3:1B7:B56F (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying you are indulging in original research by challenging what is in reliable sources. I see now you are not just specifically talking about Science-Based Medicine you are disputing other sources on the Wikipedia article such as this review [37]. Like I said there is nothing we can do about this. If you have issue with the sources themselves you have to take it up with the authors yourself outside of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia all we do is compile and cite reliable sources but we can't do our own research by disputing what is in reliable sources, we just cite them. The source says "Iron, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, and omega-3 s are potential nutritional deficiencies from following such a strict diet". This is referring to the low-fat McDougall diet, it is not talking about vegan diets in general. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how bias can be 'cross-platform'. Do you get a different version of the article if using Linux? Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that user might have been referring to the German Wiki article as well [38]. The German Wiki article has been updated a few years ago with a major white-wash, any sourced criticism or skepticism about the McDougall diet has been removed. Most of that article is sourced to McDougall's own books. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I actually want to say that I don't have an issue with most of the sources, my issue is how the Wikipedia article uses quotes from sources to make false claims. To take your example, the Wikipedia page claims that the study "noted" "potential deficiencies" from "such a strict diet". This gives the appearance that the study was referring to the McDougall Diet, but it wasn't. It simply gave an overwiew of Low Fat Diets. It explains that some low fat diets can be dificient. It then explains how the Swank Diet (which is low fat) showed dificiencies, but it does directy mention McDougall diet as deficient. Very dissapointing to read missleading quotes on Wikipedia. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:D0DF:2DA3:8E56:C51F (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is what the reference says (reference 17 on our Wikipedia article) "The McDougall diet is a vegan, very low-fat (only 10% of kilocalories from fat), high-carbohydrate diet. Since Western-style diets have been attributed to several chronic diseases, this diet takes the opposite approach. Cereals, legumes, fruits and vegetables are included while sodium intake is limited and no animal products or added oils are allowed. Iron, zinc, vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium, and omega-3 s are potential nutritional deficiencies from following such a strict diet". Our Wikipedia article does not misquote or misrepresent this reference. Can you explain what false claim is being made here? The source has been accurately cited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The false claim is that the quote refers to the McDougall diet. It doesn't. It is just part of the introductory paragraph that explains Low Fat Diets in general. It then goes into detail about the deficiencies mentioned, which it attributes to the Swank Diet (also a low fat diet). It does not directly say McDougall is deficient. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:D0DF:2DA3:8E56:C51F (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Err, "this diet ...". Are you not an English speaker? Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

sorry, meant to say " it does NOT directy mention McDougall diet as deficient. 2001:8A0:FA74:4100:D0DF:2DA3:8E56:C51F (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The text from the source we cite is accurate, I have quoted the paragraph in full above. The text is part of the same paragraph - it is referring to the McDougall diet. What Wikipedia is doing is accurate here per the sourcing, there is no misrepresentation. If you have an issue go and email the authors of the review paper, stop wasting time here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

To summarize, first you claimed that the sources were not reliable, then you said the Wikipedia article contained "false" statements, and now you are saying the statements are not "directly" in the source. The constant is you want the criticism of McDougall's diet removed, but the reason why you want this is a variable: it changes to a new reason when the last reason is refuted. This is called WP:POV pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to happen every year (it's been going on for about 4 now), there will be drive by IPs saying the same thing on this talk-page every 4 months or so but they are unable to point out any misrepresentation from sourcing so they end up moving all kinds of goal posts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You're still pushing the same story, which isn't very fair or balanced. Then you periodically go off on some IP address rant, conveniently ignoring critics who are accountable and not anonymous at all. I think this blatant, mindless, reductionistic bias here against evidence-based practitioners such as John A. McDougall is an example of the worst of the internet.Jack.B.2007 (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You missed but they are unable to point out any misrepresentation from sourcing. That is not an IP address rant, it is a fact. Are you able to point out such a misrepresentation, or are you only hot air too? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Jack has actually made two YouTube videos criticizing this Wikipedia article [39], [40] (he links to these videos on his Wikipedia userpage). In the second video he zooms in on my userpage and makes some personal attacks against me. I have listened to both of his videos and in neither did he cite a single reliable source to improve the article. He pointed out one spelling mistake (which was later corrected) as an apparent criticism of the article being unreliable. The only source he actually cites is this [41] 2021 report written by Michael Klaper, Susan M. Levin, Neal Barnard etc on dairy consumption. The report was not peer-reviewed, nor does it mention McDougall so it is off-topic (WP:OR).

Jack criticizes this Wikipedia article and will make an an hours worth of video about it but when asked for a reliable source he doesn't list any. Is it laziness, is it trolling or is it misrepresentation of how Wikipedia works? I think all three. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You obviously have no intention in keeping this article objective. The main source (textbook) I removed doesn't contain such extreme bias against and is actually quite tolerant toward McDougall diet. I have the copy and can find only one reference to McDougall in total. Teleoid (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not as if this hasn't been discussed to death already on this very Talk page (see the archives). Bottom line: Wikipedia is going to follow the quality source faithfully, by which this is a fad diet. Bon courage (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleoid has filed this at the biographies of living persons [42]. What this user is claiming is inaccurate. I paid for the nutritional textbook a few years ago. This is a high-quality source. It lists the McDougall Diet as a fad diet. It's odd someone would claim otherwise if they had actually read this source. It is very clear. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to a recurring theme that "it's not in the book", when it very much is (I have seen it too). I wonder if there's something out there on the big bad web responsible for this myth? Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The only criticism I have seen on the web of this Wikipedia article is from the "whole food plant-based diet" community on Reddit [43], that is just one thread but there are two others. It would probably explain some of the drive-by accounts that leave talk-page comments here every few months. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly did you remove this @Bon courage?

Caldwell Esselstyn, a renowned American physician and retired heart surgeon, praised McDougall for his insights and observing that high-fat and animal-derived Westernized foods made healthy people "fatter and sicker". Teleoid (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You and @Psychologist Guy are gaslighting me and several other people here who have given up.

Nobody said it's not in the book, that's dishonest. I'm restating again that the subject matter wasn't dealt with in the textbook other than vaguely mentioning it in a table among several other barely related diets. The source is "quality" but in this instance worth §hit. And your gate keeping is hiding behind some old literature insisting the diet is a fad. That's a disgrace. And backward. Teleoid (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK language like "renowned American physician" is not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia, as Wikipedia aspires to be. The view of a fringe diet book is undue here.

Previously, you blanked mention of 'fad diet' with the ES[44] that 'source does not call McDougall Diet a fad diet', which is incorrect. Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I made some errors, no need to rub it in.

Why does Butler get to have a say? Esselstyn is hardly "fringe" compared to him.

In 1992, nutritionist Kurt Butler described McDougall's ideas as "vegetarian extremism" and McDougall as "Americas most influential vegan zealot" who has taken the low-fat vegetarian diet to extremes.[5]

If you allow this type of language from a non-medical book and disregard Esselstyn's view, then the article is heavily lopsided against McDougall, especially since Esselstyn is more relevant. Butler doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry and 1992 is long time ago, speaking of fringe and gatekeeping. Teleoid (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)