Talk:The Cambridge Diet

Has anyone tried this diet?

I have a link to a blog written by a girl who is currently on this diet. It's completely uncommercial so I'll add it and you can see what you think. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just started this diet today, so fingers crossed! Many success stories can be found here - http://www.minimins.com/cambridge-diet-100-forum/ - a very helpful weightloss forum. Jaycey (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm 5.5 weeks into it with another couple of weeks to go. So far I've had absolutely no problems with it and would definitely recommend giving it a go - most of the sources used on this page to illustrate how dangerous the diet is are at least 25 years old and completely out of date, not least due to the composition of the diet having changed since those days.Grev02 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

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

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

Mel Coleman lost 4 stone and kept it off for 1 yr so far. When you say 'clearly damgerous for health' where do you base your assumptions? If you are fit and healthy you do not even have to ask permission from yr Dr. Its been going 25 yrs so if it was dangerous I dont think it could have done that? Yes, I am a convert - because it has changed my life for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.37.72 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've again removed blatant promotional material not sourced from reliable secondary sources. Where sources are given, they don't support the claims made. There's a lot of scope for improvement but it has to be sourced to reliable sources. I merely rewrote an article from what I found in a broad survey of the most reliable sources. Phil153 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If the diet was half as dangerous as you claim that it 'clearly' is, then the US and UK governments (not to mention most others) would almost certainly have banned companies from selling or marketing the products, or at the very least have issued public health warnings. They haven't.Grev02 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Diet Update

Just to let interested parties know that I've lost just over three stone on the Cambridge Diet, which is more than I've ever been able to lose before on any other diet (e.g. Weightwatchers etc.). It is a totally fantastic diet (anyone who says it isn't should try it before passing an opinion) which has also helped 'educate' me as regards eating habits, which no other diet has ever done. Now I've gone from a size 18/20 from a size 12/14, I certainly won't be jeopardising the contents of my wardrobe by overeating on the wrong foods again. I feel like a new and different person and feel that my weight loss is almost miraculous - to anyone who wants to try Cambridge, please don't be put off by the doom-mongers - give it a try. Jaycey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Unbiased?

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

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