Why are you re-adding the same content from Food and Nutrition Sciences to 3 articles? This recent OA journal is not MEDLINE indexed and is not of sufficient quality to qualify as RS for the big claims being made. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- OA journals are usable, and being MEDLINE indexed is not required. It is a large comprehensive review of the literature.
- Read some of the research referenced in that review (of a large database of studies). They were well constructed, and fairly represented in the review. 85 journal published research studies referenced. Specifically, why do you think it not of sufficient quality as it relates to WIKI MEDRS?
- It's (pulses may help prevent) now toned down, by saying "basic research" suggests, and noting human clinical needed / in process.
- "Big claim" you say. We know several global populations had very low rates of cancer, which rose if they adopted an American diet. Thus (more than human clinical studies) the global health org recommendations to emphasize plant foods.
- Why the increase in cancer death (moving from traditional to western diets)? Out of reading review articles, I conclude most importantly, they gained weight. But, that's largely a function of eating more high calorie dense foods (ie, less of unprocessed plant origin). They dramatically increased their intake of methionine (much less found in traditional and vegan diets). They increased their intake of animal protein (significantly raising their blood levels of free IGF-1). And they dramatically decreased their consumption of phytates (from pulses).
- Note that I don't include specific fruits or vegetables as cancer preventative, though I find this article very interesting []. Luckily, I already enjoyed lots of garlic, red onions, broccoli, spinach, kale, red cabbage, and cauliflower.
- You should be concerned that Wikipedia did not (even as "basic research") contain this information. Pulses and methionine restriction is a fair start, now as "basic research suggests".
- MEDRS says: "Other indications that a journal article may not reliable is its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE". These claims need much stronger sourcing than this non-mainstream journal - you should in any case not re-revert your preferred change but discuss (see maybe WP:BRD) to avoid edit warring. (Add: I've asked for an opinion at WT:MED). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- On a different topic, you left the article leaky gut missing most of the best current research. Maybe you just deleted poorly referenced material in your culling of that article. I don't have time to check. There is certainly no product you can take to reduce epithelial cell permeability!
- Take a look at [] and you will learn ~leaky gut is a common phenomenon. Next look to this research as a proxy for inflammation [] [] related to endotoxemia[]. There's lots of bacteria in the gut! When your epithelial cells become more permeable (from eating high fat foods), particles of bacteria enter the bloodstream and trigger immune responses. Only shown in mice, so far. In humans, linked to higher CRP levels. Resulting inflammation damage may be related to several diseases, including common arthritis. That's all from good research, none found currently in Wiki. Shame, because users should know this probably important reason to avoid eating saturated fats.32cllou (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I didn't know there was an article specifically for intest. perm. Looks good. Note it's common do DR's to use the term leaky gut.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pulse (legume). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Text not supported by text
You added "Treatment of drinking water for Giardia is not indicated in wilderness regions in North America" which is not supported by the refs in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)