Talk:Joel Fuhrman

The article "Joel Fuhrman" appears to be a self-promotional vanity piece.

Agreed. This article definitely requires a major cleanup. --Evan Brenner 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see what the page was like in April 2006, but now in August 2006 it wasn't too bad. I did go through it and clean up a lot of the "opinionated" parts that were still left, in order to keep NPOV. The article is a good summary of the book contents (I have indeed read it), as well as a good summary of the concepts Fuhrman promotes. Fuhrman is indeed a known figure in health/diet circles. I did also remove a few editorial words to preserve NPOV (e.g., "disgusting but allegedly healthy recipes"... haha). (No, I haven't tried the recipes.)Migp 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)MigP

Karuna8: this article clearly lacks NPOV. People come to wikipedia in part because they want a different perspective from the one marketed to them. Dr. Fuhrman writes that he has 'hundreds of articles' including a number in scholarly journals, but he does not list them on his website. Those unfamiliar with the publishing process may incorrectly assume by his publishing with St. Martin's Press/Griffin that his work has been vetted by knowledgeable peers. I am going to replace the qualification, though in a different place. LeoTrottier 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to how this article lacks NPOV? I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that there are no criticisms of Dr. Fuhrman's work. WatchAndObserve 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The lack of criticism is not so much a problem as the lack of context. None of what is written has been qualified, and thus the page reads like a fluff piece. The Dr. is one of many diet peddlers, some of whom are legitimate, many of whom aren't. The better way of judging whether what he says is well-researched is by seeing to what extent his work has the respect of his peers -- while St. Martin's Press might prefer otherwise, it's not enough to have 'M.D.' or 'Ph.D.' after your name. At this point I'm happy with the 'not peer-reviewed' qualification on the main page, and the removal of 'foreword by' in the bibliography entries.LeoTrottier 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That phrase on the end does not sound neutral to me. The term 'Peer reviewed' is usually attributed to studies published in 'peer reviewed' journals. Dr Fuhrman's books are summaries of his recommendations based on such studies and this research is all referenced in detail in his books. I think one of the things that stands out most in his work is his meticulous reference of peer reviewed research, which is conspicuously absent in most popular 'diet peddlar' work today. Examples of peers who reviewed the actual books are the ones who wrote forwards to the books (Mehmet Oz and Neal Barnard) and clearly respect and support his work, so I'm a bit confused as to why they were removed.

I think the article as it stands is a little flimsy and does not accurately represent Dr Fuhrman's ideas i.e. what's there is mostly good but it could be expanded. I am very new to Wikipedia editing, would you mind pointing me towards articles of a similar nature that have the sort of qualifications you would like to see? I'll try base my additions along similar lines and we can work from there.

One thing that immediately jumped out at me was that someone revised the part concerning appetite inaccurately. Dr Fuhrman's appetite regulation is not simply based on feeling full from fiber, its the concept of eating nutrient dense foods and avoiding stimulating processed foods that is more important to appetite regulation. Also he frequently mentions The Pleasure Trap and the ideas presented in that book are closely related to his so should probably have a mention somewhere on the page (maybe a 'See Also'). Loren77 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is excellent that his books are well-referenced, but that in and of itself does not make them respectable -- books from scholarly publishers are considered peer-reviewed, though all too seldom they're not appropriate to a popular audience (wish it were otherwise!). It would be one thing if the bibliography cited peer-reviewed articles written by Dr. Fuhrman that confirmed the soundness of his approach (which in truth seems quite intelligent and reasonable, but who am I to say?). It would not bother me if you'd like to re-qualify the last statement by appending something like '... though Fuhrman's books have the support of respected physicians X and Y', but the 'foreword by' bits of the bibliography seem to serve only promotional purposes. LeoTrottier 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Many scholarly writers merely read and interpret the body of published scientific work (in peer reviewed journals) and interpret the results. One does not have to have personally published their own academic studies in order to do that. The way science moves forward is by the mass publishing of such research and reading (reviewing) of this research and interpretation by other scientists worldwide (so the pendulum slowly sings in one direction). Any conclusions a single scientist comes to based that body of research is clearly not written in stone, but backing up such conclusions by existing studies at least makes the interpretation respectable (though always still open to debate!). Peer reviewed refers usually to 'published in peer reviewed journals', and his book clearly cannot be (but there are several reviews of the books by his peers that are printed at the beginning of the books though I'm don't think its relevant to mention those).

So one only publishes one's own research if A. there is something one is trying to establish that has either not been researched previously or has not been repeated sufficiently B. One has funding grants for this research (usually in academic environments, not in practicing medicine). Studies that are respectable enough to be published in peer reviewed journals are stringent and the time dedicated to this is often exclusive. That is not Dr Fuhrman's occupation and I don't think that detracts from his work which summarises what he has learned and presents it for a popular audience.

But I totally agree the article needs citations. Without them it does sound a bit fanciful. I'll try see what I can find without actually republishing his work.

Still not sure if I agree about the forwards. Maybe if you have time some time you could browse through the forwards yourself? They are quite detailed introductions of the concepts in the book. Someone who is searching for Mehmet Oz's ideas on nutrition for example, will come across his own books but should also come across Eat To Live as Mehmet Oz made a significant contribution/support for it. Anyway that's just my opinion :) I think your append statement is fine as it would also serve the purpose of linking them.

On further thought, here are my criticisms of the article: the initial phrase that Fuhrman 'introduces' the notion of nutrient density makes it seem like he was the first person to come up with the idea ... this is almost certainly not the case. In a similar vein, it's not clear to what extent the ideas presented are his own or those of mainstream nutrition. This ambiguity renders the last mentioned notion of 'toxic hunger' particularly unclear -- it is counter-intuitive, making one wonder if the idea is his own conjecture or reporting on the conclusions of others. If, as you contend, Fuhrman is in the business of consolidating, synthesizing, and summarizing for a popular audience the literature on everyday nutrition, then it would be good if the article presented his ideas as such. As it stands, the article portrays his ideas as some kind of novel, counter-intuitive, divinely inspired wisdom, rather than sound, sober, readable, and well-researched advice on diet and nutrition. While the divine-authority presentation may be appropriate for the text of the books themselves (I'm not claiming that this is how their written, I'm just saying that, e.g. perhaps guru-style authority is the best way to convince people to change their dietary habits) it isn't appropriate for an article on the person who wrote them. LeoTrottier 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

China study?

Uh ... what is that? I've never heard of it. It doesn't seem to add anything, so I'm going to edit it out (though I'll retain the substance of the previous edit). LeoTrottier 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is referring to the China project, a well known nutritional study. WatchAndObserve 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, re-amend ... preferably with a link, though. LeoTrottier 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote Opening Paragraph and other changes

I just rewrote the opening paragraph to establish notability. I would like input on if I did it correctly. Any suggestions on how to better organize the sections would be nice too. I have some peer reviewed studies I want to reference as well and don't know if I should make another section. Also, am I allowed to add all his published works to the bibliography? Is the notable mentions section ok? I put it on there to establish more notability and will be adding to it overtime. There is at least 20 books he has been mentioned in. Dr. OZ has a section like that. Please help me do this right!--Healthyelijah (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I want to add redirects to this page for Dr Fuhrman, Dr Joel Fuhrman and Doctor Joel Fuhrman. Am I allowed to do this? Also can I do mispellings as well, like Furman? It is very common for people to spell his name like Furman. Thanks for the input. In the meantime i will keep reading guidelines and help sections but it really does take a ton of spare time to know all the rules. If I search for Dr. OZ he comes up but no Dr. Fuhrman. There used to be search results for Dr. Fuhrman but it seems someone has removed them. Help me!--Healthyelijah (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fasting

"For example in autoimmune diseases such as lupus, asthma or inflammatory bowel disease Fuhrman sometimes advocates fasting 2 – 4 days a month on water only. He may utilize juice fasting in appropriate settings but not in cases where maximum autoimmune suppression and complete bowel rest are more appropriate."

This sounds wrong. In Fasting - and eating - for health his says juice fasting retards the healing process and that regular short fasts shouldn't be undertaken as fasting frequently doesn't give your body enough time to regain nutrients.

-- Tim