Jump to content

Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Discussion

Please leave discussion as needed... I am open to comments. If it is for me personally, leave it on my talk page. Thanks. Iheartflutes 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Iheartflutes, it might be helpful to include some of the research of Dr. Leonard Weinstock of Specialists in Gastroenterology in St. Louis, Mo. He's recently published research on small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Here is a paper that should be able to be used: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/5509.aspx That was published by Washington University, Saint Louis, MO. Here is one from Medicinenet.com: http://www.medicinenet.com/small_intestinal_bacterial_overgrowth/st-louis-mo_city.htm kitkellison 20:29, 02 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it doesn't prove that the diet works, it does show that bacterial overgrowth is responsible for certain gut ailments. I've edited the article to present a more neutral position and voice. I've also removed "how-to" elements to bring it in line with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping. It looks really awesome with the things that you've done to the page. Sorry it sucks so much, but now, I have some really great ideas in order to make it better. Thanks for all of your hard work! Iheartflutes 08:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. The whole point of Wikipedia is that people can contribute as their strengths permit: I'm a terrible original-copy writer, but I'm good at polishing the work of others. You might be interested in reading Wikipedia:The perfect article for ideas to work with. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's me too... Iheartflutes 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as the section "Good idea or bad idea?" where the quote is mentioned, I can actually disprove that statement. When I went in for my first colonoscopy, it looked pretty bad (I saw that one). However the second one I had, after I had been on the diet, looked beautiful on the outside, but evidence was only found through biopsies. Iheartflutes 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary reference work, personal observation can't be used in articles. Only previously-published information can be used to write articles, as only those can be properly cited as the source of the information such that readers can independently verify it and make their own decision about what to believe. (See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, two core policies of the project.) — Saxifrage ✎ 06:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. Also, I take it that a lot of what I recently put in was mediocre at best. I also apologise for that as well. Iheartflutes 06:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Mostly it's a matter of voice and style. Because Wikipedia is a neutral information source, its articles must not endorse any perspective or sound like they endorse anything. Most of the additions you made were understandably from the perspective of wanting to help people do best-practices while taking the diet. That makes it sound like Wikipedia endorses the diet though, so I tried to rewrite it to just be informational without be instructive. But hey, that's why Wikipedia relies on teamwork between volunteers: we each have different things to offer the project! (I myself am terrible at writing articles, so I mostly just edit, tidy up, and beautify what others have written.) — Saxifrage ✎ 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the source applies where you put in the note about citations. I don't know how to show that.
You can replace the text that says {{citation needed}} with a link to a page that directly supports the passage. Paste the link in and put single square brackets around it. For example, [http://www.google.com] would look like [1].
If you want to get fancy you can read Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use the advanced syntax, or Wikipedia:Citation templates to nice-format the reference. But, the simple link is enough. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm on this diet right now but I keep cheating. It's difficult; I'm sure most people aren't able to stick with it. I'll put this in the article/ Scorpionman 02:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello...Is this how I join the discussion? I thought the article was really, really great! I did make several small changes to increase its accuracy, etc. I hope you like them. Again, great job! The SCD resolved my son's autism and diarrhea and my own neuropsychiatric issues. May 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.125.163 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking for Accuracy Again

Changes were made since I last worked on it. I've now edited further again for accuracy, eg. muffins, etc, are allowed - just not those made with 'illegal' ingredients. Also, removed external reference re: study of low-carb diet. SCD is not low-carb. Common confusion, so included low-carb in 'comparison' section. Finally, just some general clean-up of grammar and formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.167.33 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So glad this is here!! This diet has saved my life!! Doctors and drug companies are against it because then they would stop making money selling pills that do not work. The SCD diet cured my colitis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.159.161 (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the owner of crohnsboy.com and I recovered my health using SCD and my site offers people starting SCD with a lot of help and tips etc. It is no different than the other links which have been put up on this page so I am not sure why the links are getting deleted?? I am not trying to advertise anything but rather help people and the information is very relevant to SCD and this article in general. Can someone email me info@crohnsboy.com and advise me how I can put a link up legitimately with out it getting removed? that would be greatly appreciated. JAY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic82 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat in line with the comment immediately above. I am concerned about an arbitrary approach to links on this article. Specifically, all but two keep being deleted, even though all could be seen to violate or not violate wikipedia guidelines, and all for precisely the same reasons. To differentiate between various links all of which promote the interests or viewpoints of that site's author (as is the very nature of websites) is disconcerting. Also, deleting site links based on the informational technology, software or presentation format used is equally troublesome. Please treat all equally. If it's relevant, leave it up.(talk)

Re: WP blurb at the top of this article. Can someone tell me more about this? ie. What would count as reliable references? ie. As far as I know, only three people have written about the SCD, and all were proponents and developers of it. That is, I don't think there is anyone left to cite. What needs to happen to have the goal fulfilled and the banner removed? P.S. Thank you to those who are teaching me about how to use Wikipedia! 24.67.167.33 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural Hygiene Ref

Changed "Natural Hygiene" to "Vegan Diet Healing Plan", which is the specific name for the variation of NH set out by D Klein.24.67.167.33 (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Newest Editor Changes & Remarks

This article keeps getting tagged as problematic, but with only very vague references and without related questions being answered. Can an editor please:

  • give specific examples of what is problematic and what aspects of this article make it "not notable", "like an advertisement", etc. (I think when a diet helps literally thousands of people, and its book sells literally hundreds of thousands of copies worldwide, it is notable.)
  • explain on this talk page why they are removing any given section (for example, names of some illnesses addressed by it, but not the names of others)
  • explain why editors may remove links but when contributors remove the exact same links, the contributor is flagged as in violation

Also, a question asked earlier in this talk page was something along the lines of, "Since there is no one else to cite, can the banner re: citation please be removed?" Or, further, since no currently-cited source is recognized by Wiki editors, what sources would be satisfactory to same? ie. If the developer of the diet is an insufficient source, those benefiting from the diet are insufficient sources, and third-parties writing about the program are insufficient sources, what source would qualify?Deress (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My whole family is on the diet and it's helping us. It's notable enough that it's not mentioned by medical professionals as a viable course of treatment, but it seems to work for a great number of people. 14:07, 13 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.48.56.100 (talk)

As a biologist, I found problems with this article, and therefore probably with the diet, that might account for it not being mentioned as a course of treatment among medical professionals (other than a lack of studies backing it up, etc). For example, the line "Other forms of sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup are processed and therefore contain more complex sugars that must be broken down by the body" is just incorrect. Processing isn't related to complexity at all (well, actually, if anything, processing tends to decrease the complexity of ingredients, at least in this instance), and in fact HFCS is a mix of monosaccharides, and is simpler than table sugar (sucrose). Stuff like that really made me question this diet and article as a whole, and the biochemistry knowledge of either the article writers or the writers of the book. -98.154.249.46 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, the emphasis is on "simple carbohydrates" when the actual diet advocates better and less processed food, gut flora balance, eating nuts and vegetables, etc. I.e. a whole range of changes that include better, more natural foods, and not much to do with "eating monosaccharides" (which, for example, drinking corn syrup would satisfy!). -98.154.249.46 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have removed material that had no proof and added lots of references for the validity of this diet. There should not be any more objections to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glida7 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the references you added are not supported by reliable sources. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, nor does it allow promotional material. We can't include links or descriptions simply because "someone" found them useful. The better course is to demonstrate coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources. TNXMan 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm tagging this article as POV, as its neutrality is highly suspect. There's only vague hand-waving towards evidence of its effectiveness, and there's absolutely no exploration of evidence against it. Also, nearly all the references are book references, making it difficult to verify their accuracy. The various other sections of this talk page also highlight issues that remain unaddressed. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I used Amazon to check some of the book references, and one in particular mentioned the "Breaking the Vicious Cycle" book but didn't talk about SCD so it was removed. I think I've improved the tone of the remainder of the article as well. Ciotog (talk)

Topic Now Is Mainstream

This topic has gone mainstream in the form of a BoingBoing.net article. The Wiki entry seems pretty sedate, I will edit it shortly to introduce some enhanced neutrality phrases. BoingBoing link is: [[ http://boingboing.net/2011/10/10/seth-roberts-grandmother-knows-best-about-crohns-disease.html ]] I am removing the 'general notability' qualifier due to the above BoingBoing link and the citation of frequency of occurrence of Crohn's / Colitis being so high (1/1000) and there being a stigma attached to discussing it. JustAnyone (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a blog. I'm not sure it establishes notability, and I am not clear on how it addresses the POV complaints. I didn't revert, but can you elaborate? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Huh, one article (and blog post) now makes it mainstream? Seems rather unscientific. Reverting... --Kjoonlee 04:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Long time editor here, also driven here by the BoingBoing article. I strongly disagree about the notability warning. There are the 1922 and 1928 journal articles cited in the article, the which I believe establish notability in and of themselves. We should be avoiding wp:recentism, and these are most definitely scientific articles, albeit from another era. If that's not scientific enough for you, there's also the ongoing SCD IBS trial, which was started earlier this year, and will establish notability beyond any doubt one it is completed. Though the Boing-Boing post doesn't establish notability by itself, it is yet another strong reason for inclusion given that BoingBoing has a readership that rivals most newspapers as one of the top 1000 websites in the United States. I've clarified a little about the ongoing study and removed the notability banner, but left the POV link because of the unsourced statement starting with "It is promoted as a way of reducing...". If someone provides citations for each of the claims in that list, I'd be in favor of removing the neutrality banner, too, as the rest of the article looks reasonable to my eyes. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I also did a lit search, and added in two additional refs: a case study on 191 patients by Haas in 1955 in the Am. J. of Gastroenterology, a peer-reviewed journal, and a 2004 case report on the diet with 2 patients. That's interest in the diet over an 80 year span. This is clearly not your typical fad diet, and I'm even more certain of notability. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Also added 2002 article in The Wall Street Journal, and an exploratory article with in-depth comments on the diet by several MDs written by the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America. Surely there can be no disagreement on notability at this point, right? Pro crast in a tor (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

Is there a list of what promoters are claiming about SCD? Autism seems really the odd one out, since Wakefield's result has been so thoroughly discredited. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

It appears to me that the diet clearly and unambiguously works for some people based on the numerous case studies, both historical and recent (including the inappropriate testimonial I just removed from this talk page), but the reason it works appears to be based on 1920s science, with no mention at all of any of the various classes of antinutrients, for example. The "Theory" section is unclear about whether this theory was developed in 1922 by Haas or if it was developed in 1994 by Gottschall - does anyone know? I added a criticism section based on a Crohn's and Colitis Association Foundation of America article, but didn't get into any criticism of the theory, just the diet. Under fair use, three quotes from the article was about all I think I can take, and it seemed more important to use these quotes to talk about efficacy and safety, rather than the why. I think another source should be found to quote about the theory. Pro crast in a tor (talk)

Is this a joke?

The text claims the regimen eliminates refined sugar, grains and starch but allows restricted use of disaccharides. However, refined sugar like sucrose is actually a disccharide and a far less complex carbohydrate than any grain or any form of starch. Either this article is badly worded or SCD is one big fat hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.249.133 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There are polysaccharides which are also tolerated. They offer part of a mailing list discussion to answer that question. http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/knowledge_base/detail/sucrose/ Jmccorm (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmccorm in this edit inserted text saying the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation of America "mildly recommended" this diet for people with inflammatory bowel disease. It is sourced to this. I can't see a recommendation there - is this the right source?

Quote from the article, "Bottom line: it may be worth a try (there are plenty of other diets being touted in the marketplace), but do not abandon your conventional treatment, and keep in touch with your doctor." I worded "it may be worth a try" as a mild recommendation. You reverted it with a justification of it being from 2011. Jmccorm (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality in Effectiveness Section

The cited articles only have negative quotes. I would like to balance it with some positive quotes from the same body of articles. Comments?

Example (WebMD): 1: "The SCD has been around for years because for some people with GI diseases, it minimizes symptoms." 2: "Despite the fact that there is little scientific evidence for the SCD, it is hard to ignore the anecdotal praises for the plan." 3: "It appears to work for some people and not others"

Also: the WebMD article makes a claim which is contradicted in the book. "...it may also be risky for your health. When you eliminate whole food groups like dairy and grains, you significantly reduce the nutritional quality of the diet, which may result in nutritional deficiencies." The book says, "Dairy is allowed on the SCD in the form of butter, certain cheeses and homemade yogurt." I think that if we keep WebMD's false claim in this area (dairy), it should go side-by-side with the contradicting source material from the book.

Finally, I think that in the interest of accuracy, some concentration should be that they believe it treats symptoms, but not the underlying disease. That is an important distinction to make in the effectiveness section. I'm more than willing to be balanced. Can you meet me in the middle? Jmccorm (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We must aim for neutrality, not "balance". Since this is a medical topic the sources should comply with WP:MEDRS and it is vital any health claim is sourced with care. Since this is also a dubious/fringe treatment we should also be careful not to give undue weight to fringe claims. I'll ping the fringe noticeboard as this might draw more views, if necessary. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a WikiLaywer. I see that the article originally started out as being heavily slanted. IMHO, it was reeled back in, but has gone too far the other direction. (And I can see why. Anything that makes a claim regarding autism seems suspect these days.) But it looks like a hit piece now. I think the article should ultimately reflect where we are with this (which the cited articles say), "There are anecdotal praises by some (but not all) people, there is no science for/against this diet at this time." And I think we can say there is "no science for/against" in a neutral way. Thoughts? Jmccorm (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the salient points are this is a diet that's been around for over 50 years and it is promoted with a bunch of fantastical claims, yet there is no evidence it works and some evidence it might be actively harmful. What do you think we're saying that's not neutral? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Your reply is far from NPOV. Your paragraph has given us a large number of negative opinions about the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. I understand, you're approaching this from a skeptic's point of view. Now, what would you say about SCD that is actually neutral? Positive? EDIT: We are focusing on the _effectiveness_ section here. There is a "harmful" claim that I have shown is based on false information. The lack of significant research, either way, should presented as a neutral event and should be twisted to sell one side's POV or another. Despite the lead-in sentence, I'm not sure how relevant the effectiveness of Dr. Vaas' celiac treatments in the 1950s are to this subject and "around for over 50 years". Do you think it is relevant to the topic of effectiveness? Jmccorm (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your latest edit has made Wikipedia misrepresent the cited source. The source says

This book, written for lay audiences, became popular and was followed by websites, such as 'Breaking the Vicious Cycle' [204] and the Elaine Gottschall biography [205] . Claims on the book's cover expanded to include treatment for "Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, celiac disease, cystic fibrosis and chronic diarrhea" and even autism [204] .

So why have you changed this so that we say the book is claiming merely to treat "symptoms"? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've been busy editing! I see that you removed the reference to the book itself. I cite, as my reference, the book itself. I'm looking at the cover of this and a previous version. It says, "Diet for Chrohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, [etc. etc]." This actually raises a point I was going to bring up with you. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what this diet is supposed to do. It isn't supposed to cure any of these diseases. In fact, you've included such a quote under the effectiveness section as "there is no evidence to suggest that any particular food or diet causes, prevents or cures inflammatory bowel disease". That is correct. However, that is not in dispute and the SCD never claimed to address the underlying disease. What it does claim is to address the symptoms.
This does does not say it cures anything. It doesn't. Instead, it reduces or eliminates symptoms for as long as a person is compliant with the diet. Again, the reference is the book itself. Can you please revert that and add the reference back in? Jmccorm (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We should be using reliable secondary sources, no primary ones (augmented by Wikipedia editorial interpretation). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Earlier you were promoting Dr. Haas as the primary source. We're also needing to look at how we're handling conflicting sources. Your WebMD source describes a medical risk which conflicts with the book when they base it on dairy being excluded, which it is not. Jmccorm (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We only need to look at the sites to verify for ourselves (not that we need to) that the secondary sources are correct in calling-out the outrageous claims made for this diet. From the site itself : "dietary intervention with the Specific Carbohydrate Diet addresses and often overcomes conditions thought to be at the root of autism spectrum disorders as well as some cases of epilepsy and attention deficit Disorder (ADD)." The immediate concern however is that you are misrepresenting a source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If the immediate concern is that I am misrepresenting a source, I think we should revert the source back to what it was before your latest edit. There would then be no misrepresentation. Jmccorm (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I would reiterate my previous call to pay special attention to what I said in the beginning. "Finally, I think that in the interest of accuracy, some concentration should be that they believe it treats symptoms, but not the underlying disease." It seems that clarification is of interest to both you and I. If there are some sources which are misrepresenting this as a cure, then I agree that then we should help clear up that confusion with the reader. (Without demonizing the diet itself.) Jmccorm (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The diet's promo site says the diet "overcomes conditions thought to be at the root of autism". That's not merely "symptoms". Anyway, what you think or what I think is immaterial: we have a high-quality secondary source saying the diet promotes itself as "treating" these conditions, and so that is what WP shall say too. You have made WP say something different to this, the source it cites - which is not good. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, now you're bringing in the website. What to you consider to be the diet itself? The work of Dr. Haas? The book written by Elaine Gottschall? The website for the book? Your "high quality secondary source" makes a claim about the cover of the book (be it a primary source or not) which is untrue. We can resolve this at any time by reverting the entire paragraph to before your edit which made it misleading, or we can change the source. Or, heck, we could include a picture of the book's front page and reference that.
We really shouldn't mislead the reader into thinking that the book it something that it isn't, just for the fun of debunking it. It is a diet book which minimizes symptoms. As stated above, another high quality source (WebMD) says, "The SCD has been around for years because for some people with GI diseases, it minimizes symptoms." This high quality source does NOT say that it treats the illness. Your source has an error which is inconsistent with another high quality secondary source and the primary source. I'm sorry -- I just don't want people mislead into thinking this diet does more than what it does. Jmccorm (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WP relays what the high-quality secondary source say about the diet's claims, not editors' amateur opinions (and, FWIW, looking at the book the source is reading it right in my view anyway). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Our high quality sources conflict. Again, the WebMD reference clearly states that the diet treats SYMPTOMS. You have just stated that our interpretations of the book also appear to conflict, which I also believe the doctor(s) at WebMD have the correct interpretation. Without additional outside input, this probably needs to be arbitrated. Jmccorm (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The topic at hand is the claims made for the diet (specifically, on the book cover). We have a reliable secondary source telling us what these are, and a quick check of the actual cover confirms that yes - it indeed claims the diet "permits the body to regain normal functioning" (sounds like "treatment" to me!). You have altered our text so it it out of alignment with the source, out of alignment with reality, and the effect is to water-down our account of the diet's quack claims. Why? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This claim about the book cover strikes me as odd. It doesn't match my book cover. It doesn't match the one on Amazon or any previous version I could find. My cover looks like this: http://imgur.com/wiI7vrT -- I'm curious what edition might have those claims, because it isn't in the the fourteenth printing (2012) which I assume is the latest. Nothing here has been watered down. What I don't want to see is a straw man where it is built up to ridiculous claims and then debunked. My concern started when I first visited the page and found that it wasn't promoting the diet (great!) but it had gone to completely the other side and was refuting the diet. Bad. I saw that a previous attempt to reword a neutral event, such as no research proving/disproving, was slanted into a negative and given prominent placement. And I saw the claim of "dairy exclusion" being a health risk... which should be refuted by just about any other source on the diet. (EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: The diet does NOT exclude dairy.)
If this article takes a neutral tone, I'm fine. I want to see neutral events (no research) portrayed as neutral and not as an attack on the diet. If the article says that this diet does not provide a cure and only treats symptoms, that's fine too... that's true. I'd be concerned if it was twisted into an attack on something that others made but wasn't the core diet. (We've also had our disagreement on what the scope of the primary material actually is.)
What you're really asking is, "What's my angle?", which is not advantageous to answer during a POV debate. (Further, I am claiming NOTHING below as primary source material.) However, yes, I'm coming at NPOV from the opposite angle. I had an acute neurological condition, I tried the Paleo diet. It didn't help. But then I noticed unrelated and long-standing problems (that had been under medical care) were getting better. I looked at my problems, looked for a diet that was like Paleo but a little more tuned to what problems I was seeing, talked to my doctor, and gave it a shot. Damned if this book doesn't predict the exact things that make me feel awful. If I comply, I feel great, and if I don't comply, there is no magic healing; I go back to where I was before. It actually does treat symptoms, as WebMD says. Do I buy the underlying explanation of what is going on? I have no idea. Do I think it'll repair any underlying disease? No. But I don't want to tell my friends/family about the diet and have them go to Wikipedia and be confronted by a hit job on it. They come back to me and tell me how my life is at risk and my diet is a quack. Great. Jmccorm (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We reliably report what the secondary sources say. I've checked the book cover too (and find no problem with the secondary source's report), but this is beside the point. Our original research cannot be used to override high-quality secondary sources, and it is very bad to attribute things to sources that they do not in fact say, as you did. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Best as I can tell, you are flat out wrong about the book cover. I will try to assume that this simply an innocent mistake on your behalf or mine. Since we're in the talk section, go ahead and do what I have done: provide the image which substantiates your claims. I have provided the most recent image, and the only differing previous version I can find. Despite that you've found a single source which talks about the cover, I would hate to think that we feel comfortable putting something on Wikipedia which we have reason to believe is wrong. Which edition of the book do you have?
Finally, as mentioned earlier, the pendulum has swung too far. At one point, this may have been a promotional article, but now it is a pure skeptic piece. Both are equally bad. For all the examples given, do you have any problem bringing this back to NPOV? I don't mind an article that gives negative points about the Specific Carbohydrate Diet if they're accurate (and I have some real criticisms which I can source that I'd like to add). I recognize that the skeptic view has a needed role at Wikipedia. I would argue that the previous versions are closer to NPOV and a higher quality article than what we have now. What appears is going on here, though, is that the skeptic point of view (which is necessary and useful) is being taken too far... we've actually moved _away_ from being a good article. We need to bring NPOV back and we need to bring the article quality back.
EDIT: Regarding, "it is very bad to attribute things to sources that they do not in fact say, as you did", as mentioned, I didn't notice that you had completely removed the primary source from the article, which has been there almost since the article beginning in 2006. I did NOT have ill-intent. And given the questions I've raised regarding NPOV (including using the knife to move us away from NPOV since the October 2013 version) , I have to question the removal of this source. Are you working to build a better article, or to sell a view? Jmccorm (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I quoted from the cover above ("permits the body to regain normal functioning") which sounds like treatment to me. The very sub-title of the book is "Intestinal Health Through Diet" and the strapline on the front cover is "FOR Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Diverticulitis, Celiac Disease ...". For good measure the web site adds "It has also been effective in the treatment of autism". There is nothing that says this is limited to symptoms amelioration only. Anyhow, our scholarly secondary source agrees: and BTW, reading that source again it is apparent the claims of treatment are described as being either on the book cover, or at the website, or in both place: I've clarified this. We should not use a primary source (especially a self-published one) because Wikipedia prefers secondary sources - especially for things which venture into biomedical areas. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I cannot find an image of the book cover with that quote, "permits the body to regain normal functioning". I'm looking at the book cover right now. It doesn't have that quote. I've provided the image (and checked for earlier covers and didn't find the quote). I'm still holding the door open that I could be wrong. Can you provide a link to an image and close this part of the discussion?
"Treatment of autism" (as much as that makes me cringe) is not the same as "cure for autism". They are still talking about symptoms. You say that our scholarly secondary source agrees, but again, WebMD clearly says, "The SCD has been around for years because for some people with GI diseases, it minimizes symptoms." Go back and look. You've used this source as your basis from removing the phase, "It is claimed to be a way of reducing the symptoms of..." and replacing it with "...in which it is claimed to treat...". That misstates the source.
Further, I would be more inclined to trust a scholarly source on the interpretation of what the diet professes to do or not to do than an editor's opinion. The article's original wording, "It is claimed to be a way of reducing the symptoms of..." was in-line with my interpretation, which is also WebMD's interpretation, which is also a previous editor's interpretation. The edit should be reverted to match the source and say that it treats symptoms.
Despite Wikipedia _preferring_ secondary sources, in the context of discussing a trademarked diet that was published via a book, I have a very hard time believing that the removal of what you're calling the primary source, the book which describes the diet, which has been with article since 2006, is a move towards a quality article. We should restore the reference. I'm very concerned that a knife is being used here to move the article away from NPOV and to a lower quality article. This article reads like a stub and a skeptic piece. I am very concerned here. Jmccorm (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for providing an image to the _back cover_. I see the quote. However, this does not say that it cures the disease. The original wording, "reducing the symptoms", which is in line with WebMD's interpretation, is more accurate than "treat", is correct. It reduces the symptoms. "Treat" is not specific and can be misunderstood. "reduces the symptoms" is accurate to the source and is not potentially misleading like "treat". Perhaps we can agree that the article should address this point directly? Onto other issues, we don't agree on the subject of if this book has a place on this page. You continually have the book itself at the center of your arguments. It seems that the book is an important element to this page, if not a source. Agree/disagree? You appear unwilling to change position, and you are no longer willing to discuss this in the article's talk page, is this correct? Jmccorm (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The book cover (yes, covers are for both sides of books) does not mention "symptoms", and we have a high-quality secondary source explaining the claims it makes. Your wish to attenuate the quack claims made for the diet is not neutral.
  • Gotschall's self-published book is not a reliable source for anything much that is worth mentioning. There may be a case for having a WP:EL for it.
  • I am always happy to consider specific proposals rooted in sources and WP's guidelines & policy, but unless there are new sources I am not persuaded we should water-down our well-sourced account of the claims made for the diet.

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Previous editors, myself, and high quality secondary source (WebMD) claims it "reduces the symptoms" (exact quote). We disagree that your edit of "treats" is a more accurate characterization of source. In the larger picture, my belief is just the opposite, that reasonable claims are being attenuated to create a quack straw-man in order to debunk them. I do not believe we will reach consensus.
I am not wikilawyer enough to be able to articulate the WP precedence for the book to remain as a source. (I question the motive, absolutely disagree with the view, but I'd need to pull in a third party to make the argument.) I find Template:Infobox_book interesting, but that would tend to turn the page into an article about the book and not the diet?
It appears that I'm not alone in my suspicion of what is happening here. This experience (with, perhaps, familiar participants) has been previously shared by others: WP:Articles_for_deletion/GAPS_Diet. Wikipedia is full of voices. One of them is the skeptic's voice, which has been embodied in the Fringe Theories group. That group has tagged this article as being of interest to them. I'm almost wondering, notable or not, along the lines of what User:Petrarchan47 thought: if deleting this article is a better solution to what we have here, an article completely out of balance and reduced to a near-stub. "significantly vandalized by skeptics" as User:Twhitmore.nz claimed.
The skewing of both article NPOV and article content (mostly via cuts), under color of the rules, makes this an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and a disservice to the reader. As someone who has been greatly helped by this diet, I admit, I am really saddened to see this become an ideological hit piece. On the plus side, so far, at least we've been more specific about the nature of the health risk (nutritional quality) so I can stop having to tell people that I'm on a dangerous diet. I will still have to fight the negative POV that says that it "has not been proved" and "evidence of the diet's effectiveness is lacking" when the sources are clear to go out of their way to say it hasn't been _proved or disproved_ at this point. Jmccorm (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It's supported by anecdote; it's not supported by science. We say these things. It would probably not be deleted at AfD because it's got some notable coverage (with a bit more to come: see below). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

New review

It's not appeared in print yet, but it seems as if PMID 24107394 will be a useful source here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does look good Alex. Doesn't show it's MEDLINE yet but the journal is MEDLINE-indexed so I'd expect that to show up in due time. Zad68 13:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Also interested. But it says that the aim of the review is to identify the diets and then "critically appraise the nutritional value of these recommendations". Looks like it'll hit on the nutritional argument, but not effectiveness? Jmccorm (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE -- My doctor was kind enough to pull the paper for me. It is on-target and mixed. A pro and con side can easily find quotes to use. One quote that I personally find relevance in is "...the practicality of maintaining these interventions over long periods of time is doubtful."
Some PRO quotes: "There is scientific evidence that dietary factors may influence both the risk of developing IBD and intestinal mucosal inflammation." "...the anecdotal response reported by patients to these dietary restrictions may highlight a functional component of gastrointestinal symptoms among patients with IBD." "Avoidance of these foods is likely of little danger and could potentially improve gastrointestinal symptoms"
Some CON quotes: "...adherence to defined diets may result in an unnecessary financial burden or reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition." (Versus "little danger", so they're talking both sides.) Here's one that I personally resonate with, "...the practicality of maintaining these interventions over long periods of time is doubtful."
Basic answer seems to be that the jury is out on effectiveness, and patients should target diet with their responses. Anyhow, I'm not going to edit up the article just yet with what was in the publication. Jmccorm (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Does it say anything about the SCD in particular? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite a bit. "In this review, we detail 3 defined diets that are commonly advocated for patients with IBD in the lay literature: the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), the fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, and monosaccharides (FODMAP) diet [ed: i see you made a link to that]; and the Paleolithic diet (Paleo)." They talk about the theory behind SCD and they say that, "there are significant variations in diet recommendations within the community of SCD and related diets", but for the purposes of this study, they focus on the specific recommendations in _Breaking the Vicious Cycle_. There is a nice table which lists the kinds of things allowed/allowed in each diet. Some discussion comparing the similarities and rationale of SCD with FODMAP. [From personal observation, I am favorable towards the FODMAP hypothesis of intestinal permeability. You're probably more likely to identify the everyday term to identify it: Leaky Gut Syndrome. Considered pseudoscience at this time (please don't vandalize -- hahaha). I guess I'll start reading up on FODMAP later to see what I think of it.] Then some discussion comparing the similarities and rationale that SCD and Paleo share. It ties everything up in the "What to Tell Patients?" section. The article is relevant enough to be worth a read, but nothing earth-shattering or really changing of what we already know. Still, delicious quotes from a high quality source, yes? Jmccorm (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it could be useful when it is published (what's online now is an uncorrected proof). FODMAP appears to have scientific backing. Leaky Gut Syndrome in altmed is pseudoscience, and our article makes that clear. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I added the links to 4 studies mentioned by the CCFA on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet, with two of the studies being published to-date. I tried to utilize the Wikipedia citation tool as well as style guidelines, but please revise the text if needed, I don't think there is an argument for ignoring the three published studies on the diet however. http://www.ccfa.org/resources/specific-carbohydrate-diet.html, in addition, here are other study sources that I have yet to cite (either posters or don't appear to yet be published): http://symbiosisonlinepublishing.com/microbiology-infectiousdiseases/microbiology-infectiousdiseases22.pdf & http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2004/06001/P0637_the_Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet___A_Treatment.761.aspx#P15
Zfriedman88 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Auto archiving

I have set up auto archiving for this talk page. If there is objection revert my edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Clinical trials and primary studies

Should clinical trials with no secondary source be cited? If these trials are not notable enough to receive secondary coverage I don't think their listing at clinicaltrials.gov or the institution conducting the trials warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. The published research cited is all primary, are there secondary review or meta analyses? What weight or MEDRS quality do these primary studies carry? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I would argue that the WebMD article used as the source of the majority of the information in this wikipedia article does not source any studies, stating at the end "Kathleen Zelman, MPH, RD, is director of nutrition for WebMD. Her opinions and conclusions are her own." The few MDs quoted in the article are not involved in studying the diet. I would argue that the CCFA article is more credible and doesn't come to any of the negative conclusions mentioned in the WebMD article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfriedman88 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for self reverting the challenged material. I regret seeing a comment like, "I give up". I hope you enjoy editing WP and continue to do so. Once the published studies have been reviewed, analyzed or discussed in secondary sources this would certainly merit inclusion. Similarly with the ongoing studies once published and assessed by the academic community they are likely to contribute to the knowledge on the subject and information from secondary discussion of these studies can be included. Please have patience with the process here on WP (and in science and medicine) it is an encyclopedia so content is based on sources that meet guidelines, see WP:MEDRS. I urge you to stick with us and see how the evidence base evolves for this subject and contribute content as that occurs. WebMD is generally considered a reliable source (editorial oversight is strong, reputation is good etc.) That said a more complete and specific discussion of this specific reference could lead to reconsideration of it's due weight. Please feel free to continue to propose content based on the CCFA article. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is heavily biased against the diet and all sources have conflicts of interest

Both WebMD and CCFA are heavily (entirely?) backed by the pharmaceutical industry. Why are they considered reliable sources? Why are they the ONLY sources cited in relation to effectiveness? The article as written is heavily biased against the diet and claims "no evidence," when in fact numerous case reports and multiple retrospective studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Other things that compromise the neutrality of this article:

  • Tagging it "pseudoscience." A diet is neither science nor pseudoscience. What is the basis for tagging this entry "pseudoscience?" (Unless we're calling WebMD and CCFA psuedoscience, in which case I'd agree).
  • Elaine Gottschall was a biochemist and cell biologist. This fact seems more relevant to the entry than the fact that she was a mother of one of Dr. Haas patients.
  • "Scientific evidence of the diet's effectiveness is lacking" could be stated more neutrally as: "Randomized controlled trials of this diet have not been done." It would be accurate to add: "Retrospective studies and numerous case reports suggest that the diet is helpful for some people with IBD."
  • There is no basis for a claim of "reduced nutritional quality" for the SCD. All that's excluded are sugars and starch. Arguably none of the forbidden foods are required for human nutrition.

Kducka1 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDMOS. We speak clearly if there is efficacy or not. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

82.42.215.121 left a message at Alexbrn's Talk page asking about removal of the link in the EL section. 82', please note that a) there are many things WP is not, including a how-to guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO) and please note that along those lines, we do not give medical guidance here. Also please note that there are guidelines for sourcing health content in WP - please see WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A wrong turn

The article took a bad course back in May with this edit (badly sourced & Pov-laden). I have repaired I think, but would appreciate a sanity check from other editors ... Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Slight Edit to Page to Reflect Lack of Any Medical Evidence.

I first heard of the Specific Carbohydrate diet from IBD patients and after a Google search found the Wikipedia article to be the only hit that does not actively promote this unproven treatment. Since IBD has natural prolonged remissions, improvement is expected with any diet (post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) and I added this medical fact to the article. I also added basic references to the fact that this book is not consistent with the pathophysiology of IBD. In addition, I cited the relevant studies, listed in the article as "supplemental reading" even though they are are bad studies and would normally not be wikipedia-worthy becaus of 1) sample sizes of <30 patients with little attempt to avoid selection bias 2) Except for the 2014 Suskind study most patients were actually taking evidence-based therapy for IBD which is expected to cause improvement 3)Publication in minor journals. Given that there are no meta-analyses or reviews available and the topic is not reviewed in any other publications, I just wanted to put all the "evidence" out there. Interestingly, the latest study (Obih 2016) is somewhat of a case-control trial, and includes a modicum 4-person control group. In this case, no difference is seen between control and patients on SCD diet. 129.137.26.27 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're writing at a secondary level. As an encyclopedia we must be tertiary, based on WP:MEDRS for such content. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am not a regular Wikipedia editor! That kind of information was more appropriate for a review in gastroenterology (sorry I am more familiar with medical literature than Wikipedia). Really the article as it was succinctly summarized the evidence at an encyclopedia level. I was simply trying to do the public a service.129.137.26.71 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

New sources to be evaluated (existing article is overly negative and outdated)

I really like skeptics. You normally do us a service, but I believe that it has gone well past NPOV with this article. I made an attempt to reign it in on the first paragraph, but it was reverted twice, and the revert was finally explained as missing two words ("health risk") in regards to nutritional quality. The referenced statement about nutritional quality and health risk is scientifically unproven and is speculation. Frankly, there is a "health risk" in any diet.

There are a number of new sources which invalidate much of the existing article. Looking at the edit history of the article, I am not confident that any attempt to introduce them will be successful (or that they'll be introduced in a way that minimizes their significance). So I'll document them here. Include them at your own risk, eh?

Clinical and Fecal Microbial Changes With Diet Therapy in Active Inflammatory Bowel Disease: "SCD therapy in IBD is associated with clinical and laboratory improvements as well as concomitant changes in the fecal microbiome." That speaks boldly to effectiveness. The article incorrectly claims, "scientific evidence is lacking." The article also referenced an older source which says the diet confers no proven health benefit". "Support for the diet's effectiveness comes only from users' testimonials" can also be reworded as "Support for the diet's effectiveness has been documented in both users' testimonials as well as laboratory testing". Source: [1]

Patients Perceive Clinical Benefit with the Specific Carbohydrate Diet for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: "The SCD is utilized by many patients as a primary and adjunct therapy for IBD. Most patients perceive clinical benefit to use of the SCD." Describing even that as just "testimonal evidence" is insufficient. Source: [2]

Diet as a Trigger or Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: "There is compelling evidence from animal models that emulsifiers in processed foods increase risk for IBD." The article quotes an older source which says "there is no evidence to suggest that any particular food or diet causes, prevents or cures inflammatory bowel disease". Source: [3]

Nutrition in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: From Etiology to Treatment. A Systematic Review: "there are pediatric data, mainly from case-control studies, which suggest that some dietary habits (for example consumption of animal protein, fatty foods, high sugar intake) may predispose patients to IBD onset." It further supports the previous source. Source: [4]

Deregulation of intestinal anti-microbial defense by the dietary additive, maltodextrin: "Dietary and environmental factors are implicated in the initiation and perpetuation of IBD; however, a singular causative agent has not been identified." Again, supporting. Source: [5]

Response to strict and liberalized specific carbohydrate diet in pediatric Crohn's disease: "Disease control may be attainable with the SCD in pediatric (Crohn's Disease)." A little bit weaker, but still supporting. Source: [6]

Resolution of Severe Ulcerative Colitis with the Specific Carbohydrate Diet: "Successful use of the SCD in children with UC has been documented. We describe previously unreported, highly beneficial results with both symptomatic and clinical improvement and complete remission of UC in an adult female with the SCD." Again, supporting research, and effectiveness. Source: [7]

IN SUMMARY: The entire article's POV which paints the Specific Carbohydrate Diet as unsupported by scientific evidence and ineffective is completely inaccurate in light of new sources.

Thank you for your attention. Please revise the article based on new sources and also return to NPOV.

70.177.88.88 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28030510
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27638834
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27793606
  4. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27258308
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25738413
  6. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26877615
  7. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351419
Biomedical claims must be sourced to WP:MEDRS. We'd need some of those.Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm satisfied just to present accurate and truthful information from trusted sources. I realize that none of these may be primary considerations, so I'll let others Wikilawyer each other on how to include or exclude it. Best wishes, all. 70.177.88.88 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS effectively means trusted sources; we don't use primary research in junky journals. Alexbrn (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand enough of the Wikipedia game to know that I don't want to play it:

1. There is no evidence to support this diet.
2. Here is the evidence! [Provides seven published articles.]
3. Your evidence is inadmissible because it is published in reputable medical journals!
4. " ... "
5. There is no evidence to support this diet. :)

Hey, I'm happy to let someone else wikilawyer from here. Again, just wanted to introduce accurate and truthful information from trusted sources. As mentioned, I realize that none of these may be primary considerations to Wikipedia. Best wishes. Or, in the words of another amateur editor in the conversations above, "I give up." 70.177.88.88 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

SCD is a gluten-free diet

Jytdog, why did you remove that the SCD is a gluten-free diet from the lede? It's now known that this fact was the main reason for SCD's success in the 1920s to 1940s, before gluten was discovered. Do you really think this is a controversial point? Haas debated this in the late 1940s, believing that the starch component was still important, but we know better now.

If source A says SCD is a gluten-free diet, and source B says gluten-free diets reduce GI symptoms for NCGS patients, do you really need a source that directly says that SCD addressed NCGS? Gluten let alone NCGS wasn't even known back in the 1920s. I consider SCD a historic diet, not a modern one, so of course Fasano doesn't mention SCD directly. But any diet that is gluten-free is, well, a gluten-free diet, and so Fasano et al's review applies. They're clearly related.

I've now re-added an updated CCFA ref date twice, and you've reverted it yet again with this edit. Also,

  • You reverted my "prevent" with your "exacerbate". "Exacerbate damage" doesn't appear in Brown, but "prevent damage" does. There's no reason to use the weaker word.
  • "allow healing" is also in review as a direct quote, and which you removed
  • The statement that SCD "does not cure any diseases" is a straw man because no one (credible) claims that it does. In fact, Brown starts off her review with, "Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of unknown origin or cure." Why highlight it, while also removing anything about the fact that SCD does "address GI symptoms"?
  • You also reverted the addition of Crohn's disease from the list of diseases addressed by SCD, which is a direct quote from a review article that was put onto the talk page, which you ignored.
  • there is not one single Specific Carbohydate Diet, as Brown acknowledges. The first was banana, the second was Haas 1951, the third was Gottschall 1987. You removed my specification of Gottschall under details. Why?

I am having a hard time assuming good faith on your part. I see that you've been previously banned from editing anything related to GMOs for similar behavior. Please stop. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS and recentism

Alexbrn has reverted the summary of the Brown reference, which is a review article in secondary source, in a reputable medical journal, saying about the 2011 article that "It's too old. Also irrelevant."[2]. However, this is the most up-to-date review article available about the SCD diet, and has an entire section about SCD, so I don't see how it can be irrelevant even if it's old. It's not ideal, sure, but per WP:MEDRS, it doesn't mean that the results can't be mentioned so long as the appropriate disclaimers are included. It's a far cry from an in-vitro study or a mouse study.

Seems to me like SCD (which was first used in 1923) has its time in the spotlight, and now the research spotlight has moved on to more nuanced and individualized diets:

  • the SCD diet is a low FODMAP diet ("The SCD is low in carbohydrates, specifically disaccharides (lactose, sucrose, maltose and isomaltose) and digestible poly-saccharides (starches). Monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and galactose) are permitted."), which now has strong evidence in support of efficacy.
  • the SCD diet is a wheat-free diet. Wheat was only tied to celiac disease in 1952, decades after SCD was first described. But it goes further than that, and is also a gluten-free diet as pointed out by this 2014 review article which says "There is a growing body of evidence of non-celiac gluten intolerance, which may also be addressed with these dietary restrictions.".
  • the SCD diet is also a low-dairy diet, which would help those with lactose intolerance or milk protein allergies.

The four medium-sized studies in Brown's 2011 review article are from 1979, 1981, 1986, and 1991. There have been a number of small studies since then, it seems unlikely that there will ever be large scale study as it would be considered a waste of money to combine these three very different dietary restrictions into a single study, and with a few extra restrictions thrown in for good measure (confounders galore!). Science has moved on, and I think we should include the data that was generated while SCD was being actively investigated with large (>100 person) studies in the 1970s and 1980s under the "history" section. But I have a feeling it would be quickly reverted like all other edits made to the page unless consensus is found first.

So: I propose to include a more nuanced and verbose description in the text about possible reasons that the SCD could have been effective for adherents back in the 19th century. We should be avoiding recentism on this historical angle, even if there are still some people that are trying it in the modern era. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit asserted this as current knowledge: "Some people with Crohn's disease show improvement by observing an elimination diet very similar to SCD". That's a pretty extraordinary claim. An old review which is critical about the research quality is not sufficient. And is the review even about the Haas/Gottschall diet (the subject of this article) anyway? Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
A direct quote from the Brown review article under the heading "SCD clinical trials": "Four clinical trials with relatively weak methodology and a conference proceeding support using the SCD to reduce GI symptoms in CD patients". To only say that the review article is "critical about research quality" is cherry picking just the first half of this summary sentence. I even added this quote to the reference, an edit which you also reverted.
And if you're asking me, _after_ reverting my edit and calling the review "irrelevant", "is the review even about the Haas/Gottschall diet", then you clearly didn't read the source. It includes under the "SPECIFIC CARBOHYDRATE DIET" section a brief history of Haas/Gottschall. And Brown was and still is the primary reference used in the article. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith with your apparent kneejerk reverts.
Perhaps I paraphrased poorly by changing "reduce GI symptoms" as "show improvement", but the review is clear that clinical trials support using SCD-like diets for CD patients. Brown et al also go through each of the clinical trials and document the methodology, each slightly different, and none of them a strict SCD, which I summarized as "elimination diets like SCD". All four were included under the "SCD clinical trials" heading, just below a so yes, according to a review article, they are SCD diets. This could be stated more clearly, too.
No opinion on including SCD's relationship to other diets that have attracted medical interest and shown efficacy? Pro crast in a tor (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What the quoted sentence is saying, if you actually care about evidence, is "this shitty evidence says it works". If I went to you and said "Hey here is a napkin with scribbles on it that say I own this house. Want to buy it for $50K? Half the cost of the neighbor's house!" Will you give me $50K? I hope not. If I said - "Here is an umbrella that is probably full of holes, take it, it might rain!" wouldn't you look at me like i was an idiot? The review is not clear about SCD-like diets being useful for CD. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel like the goalposts keep moving on your evidentiary standards. First you say the review article is irrelevant. Then you say it's an old study. Then you say it's not clear. Instead of trying to interpret the words to your POV, how about we just include exactly what it says, that weak evidence shows that SCD can reduce GI symptoms for CD? I've added this to the lede. Also, there is half a century of strong evidence that eliminating gluten from the diet helps celiac patients, and the SCD eliminated gluten (as well as a number of other things) from the diet in 1924, decades before the etiology of celiac disease was discovered in the mid-1950s. This also seems worth mentioning.
Also, you recently added a statement purported supported by Hou, "such claims are not supported by medical evidence", but Hou in fact says the exact opposite: "There is scientific evidence that dietary factors may influence both the risk of developing IBD and intestinal mucosal inflammation." Another direct quote from Hou is "There is a growing body of evidence of nonceliac gluten intolerance, which may also be addressed with these dietary restrictions. Avoidance of these foods is likely of little danger and could potentially improve gastrointestinal symptoms." Finally, you also added a reference to Hou to support the statement that "Support for the diet's effectiveness comes only from users' testimonials", but that's only him talking about internet websites, and not at all what Hou is saying if you read the whole review article such as the Clinical Trials section, which directly contradicts your statement. I've removed the unsupported Hou references, and added almost direct quotes from Hou instead, which is the most recent (2014) review article to talk about SCD specifically. I've also made a number of other changes, such as a number of improved ref links and ref date updates/fixes. Please work with me rather than reverting wholesale yet again. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is moving goal posts. I just joined the discussion.
Both quotes you offer from Hou are about conditions, not treatments. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Your 'irrelevant' and 'old' comments were in your revert messages yesterday. Hou's quotes are not just about conditions. Saying that a condition can be "addressed with these dietary restrictions" is a treatment IMO, and he's referring to all three dietary treatments (SCD, paleo, and gluten-free) in this context, which appears in the "Putting It All Together: What to Tell Patients?" summary section. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
So not hitting yourself on the head with hammer is a treatment for a headache? that is crazy. you can prevent a headache if you don't do that, and you can prevent the problems of celiac if you avoid gluten. another way to say it is "manage" celiac. not "treat" it. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and we've got trouble this[3] edit-war attempt trying to imply effectiveness way beyond what the sources support. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, isn't the whole point of a restrictive diet like gluten-free diet for CD to remove the hammer(s) from one's diet that are causing problems? 'Treat' or 'manage' both seem fine -- from a patient's point of view, they are synonomous. Brown uses "addresses", which perhaps is intentionally vague, so I think we should just use her exact wording if this is contentious. The gluten-free diet article uses the word "treatment".
Alexbrn, a single revert is not an edit war. I was trying out different wording previously, cf [4].
The summary sentence from the Brown review is "Four clinical trials with relatively weak methodology and a conference proceeding support using the SCD to reduce GI symptoms in CD patients". The lede currently reads "The diet can prevent exacerbating gut damage in people with celiac disease by eliminating cereals containing gluten, but it does not cure any diseases." Why is it unacceptable to add that SCD can reduce GI symptoms in CD patients? It's clearly supported by the Brown review.
Also, from the Hou review, both of you seem fine with the paraphrasing "there is no proven health benefit while risking imposition of an undue financial burden and potentially causing malnutrition" in the article, which comes from the summary section of Hou, and reads "At a practical level, adherence to defined diets may result in an unnecessary financial burden or reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein-calorie malnutrition.". But literally three sentences later, the direct quote "There is a growing body of evidence of non-celiac gluten intolerance, which may also be addressed with these dietary restrictions.", was reverted by jytdog, with the commit message, "this is not what hou says; it is not valid to read a treatment onto a description of a disease". Alexbrn also reverted a similiar (but not identical) edit with commit message "undue and kind of untrue". However, Hou is, in fact, referring to all three related restriction diets (SCD, paleo, and gluten-free) in _both_ of these quotes. Why allow one quote, and disallow another quote from the next paragraph? It sure looks like POV cherry picking to me.
My paraphrasing "There is also a growing body of evidence of nonceliac gluten intolerance, and symptoms may be reduced with dietary restrictions such as SCD" may not be ideal, but something like it should appear in the text. SCD is a gluten-free diet, after all, and the lede of gluten-free diet contains the well supported, "Gluten causes health problems for those with gluten-related disorders, including celiac disease (CD), non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), gluten ataxia, dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) and wheat allergy.[7] In these patients, the gluten-free diet is demonstrated as an effective treatment,[8][9][10]". Note the word "treatment" is used. For more, see review article doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.12.049. "Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS." Again, I believe the historical significant of SCD is being downplayed as the first gluten-free diet. We now know SCD to be overly-restrictive to gain the advantages of GFD, but it was the best option available from 1924 until the mid-1940s, and still works today if one can adhere to it. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that the GF diet article is screwed up. I will fix that.
What does "The diet can prevent exacerbating gut damage in people with celiac disease" mean to you? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a very specific statement about celiac patients, and doesn't refer at all to IBD, IBS, Crohn's, or NCGS patients, which is a problem. Brown says the exact same thing on page 193 about Crohn's disease: "Removing certain foods that aggravate symptoms may prevent further GI damage and allow healing." I've updated the sentence accordingly. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, the word "treatment" is used extensively in the literature, so I don't think it means just what you think it means. This 2017 review "Celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity" in BMJ says "The only known treatment is adherence to a lifelong strict gluten-free diet.", and that's literally the first sentence under the heading "Treatment". Another article says "a strict gluten-free diet is the only treatment for celiac disease to date". This is just two of top 5 hits -- there are 1500+ hits for "gluten-free diet" and "treatment". Pro crast in a tor (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You went and added a paper that doesn't even discuss SCD. oy. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • i have gone ahead and added the quote from Hou: "However, we lack large prospective controlled trials to provide the dietary recommendations patients’ desire. Taken together, studies of exclusive enteral nutrition, exclusion diets, and semi-vegetarian diets suggest that minimizing exposure of the intestinal lumen to selected food items may prolong the remission state of patients with IBD. Even less evidence exists for the efficacy of the SCD, FODMAP, or Paleo diet. " So, they say "suggests" with regard three things (which means the evidence is not strong enough to say more than "suggests" and then is quite explict in saying "there is even less evidence" about SCD - so we cannot even say "suggests" there, right? Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
What I believe Hou is saying is that there's no data to recommend SCD over any other diet, not that SCD has been shown to have no efficacy. Each of the three examined diets have been known, via extensive case reports and several small scale studies, to provide symptomatic relief, often for resistant patients that have tried all the other alternatives. Put simply, it's impossible to know in advance which diet is "best", ie, which one is most likely to bring symptomatic relief (which, after you tell people there is no cure, is really all people want). In another quote, Hou says, "essentially all food groups- fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains- have been noted by patient self-report to exacerbate symptoms and do not provide generalizable information for other patients with IBD. Rather, patients may be instructed to be aware of their diet through food diaries and their symptoms and make modifications specific to the individual patient."
My take is that medical diet interventions have problems with specificity, same as most drug discovery. SCD, GFD, and paleo will all give the same symptomatic relief for people with celiac disease or NCGS, making them equivalent by one measure. But since people have a hard time adhering to the more restrictive SCD, and GFD is all that's necessary, GFD is probably preferred over SCD and paleo, as malnutrition is possible if a patient doesn't enjoy any of their available food options.
Food intolerances are quite common for celiac patients, as Brown points out. If someone has both celiac and lactose intolerance, only SCD will help them fully. If someone has celiac and a milk protein intolerance, only the paleo diet might bring symptomatic relief (assuming the milk protein is abundant in SCD-compliant hard cheeses, and it's a version of paleo that doesn't allow dairy). The medical diet first recommended should be the one that's most likely to bring symptomatic relief, and existing studies just don't have the resolving power to distinguish between the observed efficacy rates of the diets. There are also case reports of every single permutation of "person tries X, then Y, and only Z works" for the three diets. So, a "lack of evidence for the efficacy" is more about resolving power than about saying that the diet is pseudoscience with only a placebo effect.
Also, I've been meaning to add a note about Haas' hard-headedness on starch after the gluten-celiac disease link was discovered. Thanks for adding it. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You are reading against the surface meaning of Hou. Based on the evidence, one can only "suggest" X about the three diets; there is even less evidence about SCD and the others... what is elided is "so we really can't tell patients much of anything about them". When a reviewer writes "suggests" it is a very intentional thing. It means "we cannot say anything more definitive but the evidence is kinda sorta pointing this way." Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the page to help avoid further confusion; there were two old books cited as primary sources (for "X wrote a book", not to generate any actual content), as these seem to be causing confusion. I've also removed the other spammy Foundation refs, which are not MEDRS and we should not have been using. What is left has solid sourcing. The NYT ref and the University of Chicago refs are used for history, not for medical content. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 edit and revert

Please see discussion at User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet, which had been inappropiately pasted here in this diff, and which I removed and replaced with this note, in this same diff being signed now. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: The 3O request asks about the reversions (two total), which I see were made by two different editors (only one of whom posted to this discussion). That is a perfectly normal practice on Wikipedia, called Bold-Revert-Discuss (BRD). Editors are encouraged to be bold in editing; if someone opposes the edit, they are free to revert it to the earlier version. The two editors can then discuss the edit, along with any other editors who are watching the article, and try to find a consensus (agreement) on what is the best way to present the article. Reinstating the edit (reverting the revert) or BRR without consensus is generally frowned upon and may be considered disruptive editing.
Discussion requires good faith efforts from all parties, hearing each other out and considering the merits of different approaches. Editors often cite various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which represent the collective wisdom of the community. One should make an effort to understand these when they are brought up in a discussion; becoming aware of the issues helps move the discussion forward.
Wikipedia's policies for sources are a bit more restrictive when concerning biographies of living persons (BLP) and medicine, which can be difficult subjects for a new editor. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles identify some of the issues. Based on those guidelines, I generally support the reversion (I have not examined every detail.
@Beall4: I notice that you only have 9 edits on your account; a major rewrite to a medical article may present a very steep learning curve for you. I would advise that you instead propose smaller edits, or try editing less-difficult topics to learn the process. Alternatively, you can experiment with editing in your sandbox. You can ask for further assistance at The Teahouse, a user group which specializes in helping new users. There's a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works, and I hope this does not discourage you from editing. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to give a third party opinion. I am confused about the process, as I understand wikipedia is designed to have discussion on the content to achieve the most accurate representation of the data. We have not had any discussion on the content to resolve the matter, and it is described above that the revision is not reviewed in detail. The reason to support the reversion it seems is based on the experience of editing rather than the content. Yet, in my initial discussion with jytdog as posted above, I am told that experience or credentials do not matter in this space. Although I am not "experienced" with wikipedia, I have a great deal of experience with the subject matter of this article, as a speaker on the topic. I would like to have a discussion about the content please. The revision is a more in depth and accurate representation of the science. If there are specific references that would be advised to change if the ones listed are felt to be too primary, I can provide alternate secondary sources. In order for wikipedia to be the described venue for constant improvement, the discussion of the science is most pertinenet. I agree discussion is paramount to resolving an issue, so it is disappointing that the revision was reverted back so quickly that it would not have been possible to even have read it, and furthermore discussion upon the detail was not welcome nor continued.01:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beall4 (talk • contribs)
What Reidgreg is talking about, is understanding the policies and guidelines here in Wikipedia. That does matter. You are completely ignoring WP:MEDRS. If you do have "alternate secondary sources" as you say, please post the citations here so we can discuss them. Ideally you will have read MEDRS before posting, and only post ones that you believe satisfy the criteria there (which are not at all hard to understand for someone in the field of medicine). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beall4: Please don't copy and paste conversations from other pages here, as it makes a mess and doesn't properly provide context for the discussion. Instead, propose specific changes to the article, with reliable sources, and gain consensus here. You are unlikely to ever get consensus for replacing the entire content wholesale, but proposals for incremental changes are welcome. Bradv 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages content discussion and all article discussion belongs here. Beall4 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)beall4 26 November 2018

See also: User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And again, you have copied conversations from one page to another. You must stop this. Bradv 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I declined the request for another third opinion in this discussion because I do not think it has progressed since the last one. @Beall4:, I would strongly encourage you to listen to what Jytdog has written. They're an experienced editor, and they're also very experienced in dealing with the complex rules for writing about medical topics. I think it would be helpful for you to make your changes one at a time. What do you think is the single most important problem in this article, and how do you think it should be fixed? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue, as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another, as my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog. Wikipedia is certainly not interested in providing accurate up to date references so we will simply let it stay outdated and incorrect. I understand now why teachers discourage students from even going to this source. Beall4 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beall4:, to your points:
  • I can see that it is not possible to have an academic discussion in this venue...
Talk pages are about discussing how to improve the article. Academic discussions that don't forward this goal are off-topic.
  • ...as one editor can simply delete or re-arrange the comments of another
That is correct; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You must be prepared to have your edits vetted by other users to ensure they adhere to policy.
  • my response has been deleted 3 x by jytdog
That's because you have been editing against policy.
  • Wikipedia is certainly not interested in providing accurate up to date references
It is a core principle of Wikipedia (WP:V) that content be verifiable via reliable, independent, secondary sources. For medical content, the WP:MEDRS is even stricter.
  • ...so we will simply let it stay outdated and incorrect.
Or reading between the lines, "It's not the way I want to do it".
There are certain policies and guidelines that have evolved over time to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia; in the area of articles on medical topics, even more so. There are various approaches to dispute resolution, and if you want to take it to the DR noticeboard, nothing is stopping you, but it would help if you try to understand the basic principles first before going there. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is appropriate to edit an article, not a conversation. The question posted here as to what the article needs the most and my response, remain missing. If this group is sincere to have meaningful discussions to improve articles, this reply will be sustained, unaltered. As described in earlier talk sessions on this page, the article has point of view concerns and requires balance as well as content updates to include microbiome and clinical trials information. I realize it is preferred/required by WP:MEDRS to use secondary references such as review articles and not direct references to clinical trials. All of this information is reviewed extensively in review articles, two of which are listed under further reading in the revision, and should be included in the article.Beall4 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)beall4

@Beal4: It is equally inappropriate to copy someone else's comments from a different page to this one, thus falsifying their signature and misleading readers about the contribution. Don't do it again. If you want to to comment on improving this article, then this is the place to do so, nowhere else.
There is no value whatsoever in adding information from clinical trials. This is an encyclopedia, not a cutting-edge news source. I'm glad you've finally realised that it is required for all biomedical claims to be supported by the highest quality sources. I see one article Existing dietary guidelines for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in the Further reading section. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to suggest here what improvements to the current text could be made by using that source? --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am suggesting changes be proposed with references; one at a time; here: each with a new section header that reflects either the change proposed or the reason for such proposed change. MrBill3 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I would agree, MrBill3, that is a good way to go.
@RexxS: Your statement, "If you want to to comment on improving this article, then this is the place to do so, nowhere else" is probably confusing to a newcomer given that Beall4 was trying to move a conversation about improving this article to this page. It appears from this exchange that at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page. From what I can tell, Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected. (It's hard to blame them for wanting to have/move the conversation here where they have a better chance of receiving assistance.) petrarchan47คุก 23:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: First of all, please consider WP:INDENTGAP, thanks.
Secondly, I don't agree that explaining to a newcomer that this talk page is the place to discuss improvements to this article is any way confusing. It will remove the misapprehension that Beal4 had that they could take up an argument on a user's talk page and then copy the other editor's comments here as if the other editor had made them here. It may also help Beal4 avoid stubbornly repeating the same mistake three times, which lead to their edit-warring block.
If you think that "at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page", then please do other editors the courtesy of stating which ones. As far as I can see Beal4 was attempting to use five references. Jytdog's opinion was that "The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004, and the fifth was a spam link to the website of the author of that book." Do you accept that to be true?
You only have to look at the responses from multiple other editors on this page to see that your assumption "Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected" is completely false.
Now if you have anything useful to add in way of improving this article, why not go ahead and raise it? Otherwise, I think you'll find your entire previous comment to be completely off-topic for this talk page. Do you you think you could get your next post back on-topic, please? --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Drop the snark. It serves no purpose when building an encyclopedia. Beall4 was attempting to move a conversation discussing, among other things, this article's content and sources. If we're to talk about the article here and nowhere else, it makes sense to move the relevant bits here. Beall4 now knows to leave the rest behind. I came across the linked exchange only today and haven't yet taken a deep dive. I would support @Beall4: taking MrBill3's suggestion so that editors can see this all laid out. Addressing concerns/sources/content in individual sections is a good approach. petrarchan47คุก 02:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Petrarchan47. The biting of Beall4 going on here is unacceptable and needs to stop now. And the sanctimonious lecturing of regulars regarding talk page formatting is doing nothing to diffuse this situation. ♟♙ (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: Quit the ad hominems. If you've nothing useful to add in improving this article, go and find somewhere else to whine. @EnPassant: Beall4 is an SPA whose contributions to the article were not an improvement and whose contributions to the talk page were disruptive. You really don't want to be defending those sort of actions or calling experienced editors "sanctimonious" - we do have an NPA policy. Do you support the copying of another editor's comments and signature onto a page where they did not make them? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
RexxS: 1) This is exactly what I'm talking about. I see ZERO evidence that Beall4 is an SPA, and the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality being displayed here is wrong. You're continuing to WP:BITE Beall4. Stop that. 2) I'll call a Spade a Spade when their behavior strikes me as such. And 3) your straw man argument is ridiculous and unworthy of response.
Jytdog has left Wikipedia under a cloud and is soon to be ArbCom blocked for intimidating and harassing Beall4, so his opinions carry no weight. His witch hunts are at an end, all the better for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Please stop carrying on his legacy or I'll start asking for someone to step in. ♟♙ (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
EnPassant: Then stop talking about another editor and start trying to improve the article. At present, you're not showing any signs of doing that. It's not difficult to find Beal4's edit history: Special:Contributions/Beall4. Every single one of those 28 edits is about Specific Carbohydrate Diet or an editor they are in conflict with about SCD (with the possible exception of the reversion deleted edit, but that's not a good sign either). You do understand what an Single-Purpose Account is, don't you? There's all the evidence you need. It's time you stopped picking fights over issues where you're completely in the wrong, and it's a bit rich when you then accuse other editors of a battleground mentality. There's only one of us here to improve the article and it certainly isn't you. You feel free to ask someone to step in and I'll match my record of upholding the quality of medically related articles against your any day. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Deeper dive:

  • Here is the explanation used for reverting Beall4's work:
"The first three references you cited were from 1951, 1955 and 1963. The 4th ref is to a book by a nonspecialist first printed in 2004"
  • Here Beall4 questions the reversion:
"The first reference is actually the same that is currently used on the existing page [Number 2 here: Haas, Sidney Valentine; Haas, Merrill Patterson (1951)], and the second two are from medical journals written by the founder of the diet."
"The fourth is the same reference currently used on the existing page" [Number 8 here: Gottschall, Elaine Gloria, 1921]
  • Haas and Gottschall were restored to the page twice after rejecting them when used by Beall4: [5] and [6]

It is a fact that Beall4 was unable to get further clarification about why they were suddenly being rejected. Beall4's questions about this were never answered: Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Instead Beall4 was lectured about the sanctity of WP:MEDRS. petrarchan47คุก 01:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So you agree that the four of the references Beal4 used to add content were over 50 years old. Those references may be suitable the History section, but only to straightforwardly report - as the original content removed by Beal4 did:

In 1924, the first Specific Carbohydrate Diet for the treatment of children with celiac disease was the banana diet. Haas described a trial with 10 children, and all 8 children treated with bananas went into remission, and the two control children died. The banana SCD was the cornerstone of celiac therapy for decades until bread shortages in the Netherlands caused by World War II caused children with celiac disease to improve, which led to the isolation of wheat proteins, not starches, as the cause of celiac disease. Before the banana SCD, one of four children with celiac died. After more research, he described the Specific Carbohydrate Diet as a treatment for celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease in his 1951 medical textbook The Management of Celiac Disease. Haas never accepted the finding that wheat gluten was the damaging part of wheat; he insisted it was starch and called the discovery about a gluten a "disservice".

Compare that with what Beal4 substituted allegedly from the same sources:

The Specific Carbohydrate Diet was developed by Sydney Haas, MD who along with John Howland, MD served as assistants at Vanderbilt Clinic to L. Emmett Holt, Sr, MD, a physician at the turn of the twentieth century taking a lead role in the US studying celiac disease. Holt, together with Christian Herter, MD, a physician and pathologist from Columbia University, reported that the condition is associated with abnormal forms of bacteria and “may confidently be ascribed to the action of putrefactive products”. Howland reports “that of all the elements of food, carbohydrates is the one which must be excluded rigorously”. Howland’s treatment was very successful, but the need for some tolerable carbohydrate remained. Haas discovered a paper on “The value of Banana in the Treatment of Celiac Disease” and began incorporating carefully specific carbohydrates into the diet to determine the tolerability. The SCD, also known at the time in the 1940s’ as the “banana diet”, was met with great success in treating patients with gastrointestinal conditions diagnosed at the time as celiac disease based on symptoms, as no laboratory tests specific to celiac disease existed.

Can you see that statements like "Howland’s treatment was very successful" are flagrant breaches of MEDRS? A single trial on 10 children cannot be extrapolated to draw broad conclusions. The whole re-write blurred or omitted both detail and key facts, while subtly fostering the impression that there is only one 'Specific Carbohydrate Diet' - the one they are promoting. It seems that despite being referred to MEDRS multiple times, Beal4 has still not taken the time to read and understand it. Now are you interested in looking for improvements to the article, or just in criticising the editors who are trying to uphold the principles of MEDRS? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
RexxS’s interpretation is accurate and I feel Petrarchan47 is going down the wrong path. Not sure if this page can be substantially improved, as I am only vaguely familiar with the subject matter, but following MEDRS should help if improvements are to be made. Beall4’s initial edits were of poor standard and were correctly reverted, but this poor editing could likely be due to her being a newbie. Hopefully Beall4 can learn about MEDRS and make productive contributions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the Beall4 edit was not good, and the mention of benefit to autism and cystic fibrosis (without source) concerning. Relatedly, the invocation of the GAPS diet also sounds a loud alarm bell, as with this we are into deep quackery.[7] Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
My "path" was an attempt to begin unraveling the issues Beall4 encountered here as a newbie. I've made two edits: one to question whether Beall4 accurately described two of the sources s/he used as being already present. The second was to answer Rexx If you think that "at least two of the references rejected when used by Beall4 are already in use on the page", then please do other editors the courtesy of stating which ones. I have shown that Beall4 had good reason to question the total revert of their work, given that they would have assumed the present (at the time) page was an example of MEDRS used properly, and that sources there had already been vetted. I maintain that Beall4 received no helpful, direct answer to valid questions, and indeed their claim was accurate.
I reject the notion that Beall4's "single purpose" can be defined after only 3 weeks at Wikipedia. Additionally, if they are an expert in the field, it makes sense that their edits would cluster around that topic, at least initially, and it seems we should welcome any useful edits from them. As they claim, the entirety of their work was deleted without time for a thorough review. Given the fact that 2 sources now rejected were in fact re-added in the reverts lends credence to this claim - there was no proper review of their edit.
I highy doubt that all of their work merits rejection, and I am curious to see what sources they can offer once guided on the use of WP:RS policy and the WP:MEDRS guideline. Beall4 commented that if shown (one at a time) which sources were problematic, they could easily find replacements. If Beall4 returns to discuss potential improvements, I again support the path MrBill3 proposed: each source, related claim/text, and related discussion in separate talk page sections.
If SCD was first defined in the early '50's, then rejecting any source from that period doesn't immediately make sense to me, and I doubt it would to a newcomer. These are issues best dealt with one at a time. But without Beall4's return to this page to initiate this process, I have no intention of continuing given the present climate. petrarchan47คุก 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: First, please review WP:INDENTGAP, as you were previously politely requested, and stop being a prat to screen-reader users.
Secondly, why are you questioning Beal4's description of the sources used? As has already been explained, using vintage reliable sources is fine for reporting plain facts. Why aren't you questioning the use they made of them to obfuscate facts and introduce unjustifiable medical claims? That's where MEDRS comes into it. Sources, per se, are not RS nor MEDRS: it all depends on the context in which they are being used.
If you think that Beal4 "had good reason to question the total revert of their work", then you really do need to re-read MEDRS, as does Beal4. The use of the old sources doesn't impinge on MEDRS until you start using them to support biomedical claims, as the article previously didn't, but Beal4 subsequently did, more than once.
I reaffirm my contention that Beal4 is a single-purpose account with an interest solely in SCD. Until I see evidence of them editing in other areas, I will stand by that observation, which is based in verifiable fact, unlike the unsubstantiated froth that you're peddling.
Beal4's repeated edit was reverted twice, by two separate, experienced editors: "essay like, chatty content, that includes WP:OR commentary"; and "WP:PROFRINGE / unreliable". If you're casting aspersions on whether Jytdog and Alexbrn did a thorough review, then you'd better have some good evidence. It certainly didn't take me more than 5 minutes to check Beal4's edits and spot the issues – as I've illustrated above. Are you going to claim now that Beal4's substantial re-write actually improved the article?
I'd be delighted if Beal4 were to offer some new, relevant, high-quality sources, and I'd be among the first to thank them, but you'd think that as a doctor of pharmacy with experience in analyzing and presenting medical data, and as an organizer of the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" exhibit, they would already know what the best sources were. Isn't that how we define expertise on Wikipedia?
Finally, let me make clear my complete agreement with MrBill3's proposal: first find the high-quality references; then propose text additions or changes based on them, one at a time, here. Then let's discus them. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I really wish people would desist when it comes to commenting on the perceived deficiencies of Beal4. This woman was barely here for very long before she got blocked, and then wound up subjected to the kind of drama that probably has her thinking Wikipedia is an absolute loony bin. Before she could get up a head of steam here she's being batted around in an "arbitration" case that she probably found to be demented. And it hasn't stopped---she's still fair game. On top of everything, I get the impression that she has the medical issue that is treated by this diet, and apparently it is no fun at all. Why not let up. All accounts are SPAs at first because editors are interested in specific stuff. She had a terrible start. Let's not put too fine a point on it. Please knock if off. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Coretheapple: On the other hand, you could simply not jump on the bandwagon of knocking other editors who are simply trying to uphold the quality of medical articles. What has your contribution here done to improve the article? Nothing.
      What is it you want? Do you want to give new editors the right to edit as they see fit? to ignore consensus, WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, to edit war, and so on? If a new editor breaches our accepted policies and guidelines, you want us to keep quiet and not explain to them? You want us to accept a new editor's edits that make an article worse, because they are new? or that we sympathise with their presumed disabilities?
      Personally, I know people with IBS and CD, and I do sympathise quite strongly with them, but I wouldn't expect them to want special treatment if they edited Wikipedia, just because of that. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      • All I'm suggesting is that this editor Beal4 has been bitten worse than any new editor in history, worse than Robert Shaw in the teeth of that shark in Jaws, that we set down the whip and show some sympathy, that's all. This is not a radical concept. This article is now under intense scrutiny from people who don't know Crohn's Disease from syphilis, so I really don't think there is any danger that it will be swamped with POV editing. Coretheapple (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I have been watching this page after seeing how poorly Beall4 was treated. I agree with Petrarchan47 and Coretheapple that this user was unfairly bitten, and that allegations of WP:SPA to a new editor with less than 20 edits is quite unreasonable and harsh--even if the edits can be proven to show a strong bias. (Note: I am not giving an opinion that they are biased or strongly biased--I have not dug deep enough in to the WP:RS to know.)
We need to welcome new editors--especially with the kind of expertise this editor clearly has--rather than have them blocked for simply trying to discuss sources here on the article page, where that discussion belongs. A meaningful discussion about their edits and sources should take place. Beall4 added about 16 or 17 sources to the page, some of which look to be worth adding. (I will mention below.) Beall4 was not even edit-warring on the article page, and yet blocked for trying to discuss the sources??? Beall4 deserves an apology from the community for this treatment I will give mine. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: So you think Beall4 was unfairly bitten? Then you shouldn't have any difficulty in giving the diffs of where this biting took place, should you? Was it when their substantial re-write that worsened the article was reverted? Or was it when they edit-warred the same content back in and that was reverted as well? Or perhaps it was when Reidgreg responded to a 3O request and explained BRD? Or when Jytdog tried to draw their attention to our policies and guidelines, especially, MEDRS? Maybe you are referring to when Bradv told Beall4 not to copy and paste conversations from other pages here? - which they did six times. So much for that crap about "not edit-warring". If you tried to force your own way that many times after being told that it breaches our conventions, would you really be surprised if you were blocked?
If you want to talk about the sources they used, fine. Beall4 added some 17 primary sources to the article and removed 3 secondary sources. That is not an improvement. We do not write (and especially not re-write) articles, removing the highest quality review articles and replacing them with a mish-mash of case studies, trials, and speculations. Nor do we use those sources to remove plain summaries like "Haas described a trial with 10 children, and all 8 children treated with bananas went into remission, and the two control children died" with fanciful speculation like "The SCD, also known at the time in the 1940s’ as the “banana diet”, was met with great success in treating patients with gastrointestinal conditions... ".
Now, if you'd like to present your case for WP:BITE along with proper diffs, instead of making unsupported accusations against other editors, I'd be happy to listen, and help resolve the issues. Or if you want to try to defend Beall4's edit-warring, use of primary sources, original research, and editorialising, then make a good case for it – and I'm sure the offenders who took issue with that behaviour will be only too willing to make the apologies you demand. --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I am getting ready to hat this whole section. Please as per the guidelines in a new section begin a discussion about improving Specific carbohydrate diet. Any other discussion on Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet is not appropriate, there are numerous other venues on WP for discussions on other topics. If someone feels there is a proposal for a change to this article in the above. I suggest proposing it again in a new section. MrBill3 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference quality and proposed deletions

I notice that there are more footnotes to Hou, Lee and Lewis than any other reference. I propose to remove any material from the article sourced solely to this article, because imho it cannot be considered a reliable source. Quote from the article: We review patient-targeted dietary information for IBD from structured Internet searches and popular defined diets. This does not meet the requirements of peer-review, and should be rejected. Mathglot (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach for finding "patient targeted recommendations". The review counterpoints these against published literature, which seems fine. I'm not sure how peer review comes into it? It's not as if we have much RS in this area so this looks like a useful source surely. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it depends how the source is being used. If it’s being used to support an assertion like, “Here’s what shows up on the internet about topic X when people searched for it during period Y”, then it could be okay. But I don’t see how you can make any credible claim about the topic itself based on “structured internet searches”, otherwise we are all potential reliable sources ourselves. If by “patient-targeted recommendations” they mean “unvetted stuff you can find on the internet about the topic” then I don’t disagree. Mathglot (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said though, they get these recommendations and ALSO look at the published evidence for comparison. In sum, the article is a critique of the gap between what people say about these diets, and what the evidence is. The whole text is freely available so have a look - I'm not seeing anything whacky in it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: At the top of the article on PMC] are the words "Peer reviewed and accepted for publication". I think I'll take the word of PMC about peer-review over some amateur investigator on Wikipedia. Anyone reading the article can see that it examines "Patient-Targeted Recommendations" (the title) from internet searches – in just the same way that patients may be expected to – and then critiques the advice against scientific evidence drawn from 67 cited sources. There is absolutely no reason not to use the conclusions of the review. The content sourced to this review is:
  • "It is a gluten-free diet since no grains are permitted"
  • "In 1924, Sidney V. Haas (1870–1964) described the first SCD for the treatment of children with celiac disease; this was the banana diet."
  • "Even less evidence exists for the efficacy of the SCD, FODMAP, or Paleo diet"
  • "It also said that the diet risks imposition of an undue financial burden and potentially causes malnutrition"
All of that content relies on the analysis of the relevant medical literature performed in the review and not on the methodology involved in posing the question that the review examined. If there's disagreement, you'll find that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a useful venue to get further advice. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Alexbrn and RexxS, thanks for your explanations; what you say makes sense. Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit regarding children with autism

It is my understanding that @Beall4: is describing this edit when referring to the "most recent change on the article this morning taking it to completely unfounded allegations" [8]. I invite Beall4 to explain why the edit is a problem. I believe it should be acceptable to revert the edit per WP:BRD if there is any reasonable objection to the new material. I have not reviewed the literature and have no opinion either way at this time. I am simply copying here the concerns that Beall4 expressed to me about the edit and am inviting that discussion to take place here. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think that it is perfectly reasonable for Beall4 (or any other editor in good standing) to revert an edit that they disagree with – as long as they are then willing to coherently explain that disagreement in line with our policies and guidelines. That is how BRD is meant to work. The discussion part is most likely to revolve around sourcing, so these are the sources added by Alexbrn and removed by Beall4:
Perhaps it would be a reasonable starting point to examine whether these sources are: (1) acceptable to MEDRS; (2) the best we can find on the topic; (3) sufficiently vital to meet WP:DUE; and (4) adequately summarised in the edit by Alexbrn. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. In my view especially since we are making mention of Gottschall's claim that this diet helps children with autism, we should be reflecting what independent RS says about this. Note that in play here are both biomedical assertions (about effectiveness), and non-biomedical ones (what the claim is; how it seems like pseudoscience). Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerning deletion of content

In this edit, Beall4 removed the following text:

  • It also said that the diet risks imposition of an undue financial burden and potentially causes malnutrition.

with an edit summary:

  • remove line that is false and not supported by reference cited

This was sourced to:

The source states:

  • "Even less evidence exists for the efficacy of the SCD, FODMAP, or Paleo diets... adherence to defined diets may result in an unnecessary financial burden or reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition."

This blatantly inappropriate edit is not the action of an expert editor concerned with the accuracy of the article, but the action of someone deceptively attempting to remove negative information about SCD. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The reference above in no manner describes the diet to "cause malnutrition" as above only describes "may result in overall caloric intake..."

A more current reference 1 including some of these same authors in the above reference concludes “…on the SCD, nutrient intake is comparable to that of similarly aged healthy children in the United States. ““..our data show nutritional adequacy and safety of the diet in general.”“..future studies need to assess whether gradual liberalization of the SCD can make it easier for patients to consume a nutritionally adequate diet while maintaining similar outcomes in the treatment of their IBD.” 1. Braly, et al. Nutritional Adequacy of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease. JPGN 2017;65: 533–538) 

This clearly refutes even the possibility or reduced caloric intake. Beall4 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That newer source you mention - PMID 28825603 - is a primary source so not reliable for asserting biomedical facts. The source that RexxS quotes does indeed invoke malnutrition (the source also mentions Vitamin D deficiency), and the material about the diet being costly is in the source too - so your edit summary would appear to be inaccurate. The edit was also marked as a minor edit - please see WP:MINOR for the limited circumstances when this should be done. Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The 2017 reference is not any more primary than the 2014 reference Beall4 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
PMID 28825603 reports a clinical trial (so is PRIMARY); PMID 24107394 is a review article (so is SECONDARY). I believe multiple editors have pointed you to WP:MEDRS which explains the difference. You may also find WP:WHYMEDRS helpful for background if unclear about why these things matter here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
To leave the article with the line that it "potentially cause malnutrition" is a very egregious error and only the result of a Widipedia editor taking overt liberties to misrepresent the authors statement and intent of "may potentially reduce caloric intake", of which has not been found to be of any concern in follow-up.Beall4 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beall4: The line "the diet ... potentially causes malnutrition" in the article is derived from the source text "adherence to defined diets may result in ... reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition." How can you call that "an egregious error"? If a patient is already at risk of malnutrition because of a lack of calories, then it seems reasonable for the source to conclude that a diet that further reduces calorie intake has the potential to cause malnutrition. What else does the word "at risk" mean? Are you trying to claim that the opposite is true? Do you honestly believe that further reducing the calorie intake of someone who is already at risk of malnutrition because of insufficient calories is somehow going to reduce their chances of suffering from malnutrition? That is an extraordinarily counter-intuitive position to take, and you're going to need extraordinarily good sourcing to justify it per WP:REDFLAG. So far, I've seen no evidence of your ability to marshal good quality sources to refute the conclusion of the reliable secondary sources, such as Hou 2014, presently in use in the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"Hwang and colleagues discussed the nutritional deficiencies that can possibly occur with the SCD including ....vitamin D deficiency.....although this is purely speculative." Diet as a Therapeutic Option for Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Kakodkar, Mutlu.Gastroenterol Clin N Am 46 (2017) 745–767 This speculation of any nutrient deficiency or leap you have taken above with malnutrition has been removed from consideration with the reference given farther above, thus any consideration of such is not even discussed in current review articles. Furthermore, there are at least twenty ongoing studies, looking at dietary interventions with SCD, none of which would be permitted if there was any risk of malnutrition.Beall4 (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If by by the reference "given above" you mean PMID 28825603, then to repeat: this is a report of a clinical trial (of nine patients). It is not a reliable source. When and if new reliable sources are published, we can make uses of them. I do not think RexxS is making a leap on malnutrition, but reflecting the ineluctable logic of the source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beall4: Diet as a Therapeutic Option for Adult Inflammatory Bowel Disease states:

Hwang et al. discussed the nutritional deficiencies that can possibly occur with the SCD including folate, thiamine, vitamin B6/D/C/A, calcium and potassium deficiencies, though this is purely speculative.

The article by Hwang et al is not the same as the article by Hou et al and discusses different things. Why do you think that a comment about potential vitamin and mineral deficiencies of SCD has any bearing on the statement "adherence to defined diets may result in ... reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition"? Don't you understand that vitamin and mineral deficiencies are different from protein–calorie malnutrition? --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The sentence you quoted starts with

Hwang et al. discussed the nutritional deficiencies that can possibly occur with the SCD including...

The statement indicates to me that Hwang et al. were considering all possible significant nutritional deficiencies that might occur by restricting diet this way. The ones enumerated were the ones that the authors of the primary study (and of the review article) considered to be potentially significant. The absence of mention of protein and calorie deficiencies indicate they did not see any potential concern worth mentioning. If this continued to be a concern, it would have been mentioned in this part of the article. Beall4's point is well taken.
@Beall4: You say that there are twenty clinical trials going on right now. Can you provide evidence for that from reliable sources (WP:RS)? We can't rely on your testimony to establish that as a fact. I don't see a need for them to meet the elevated requirements of WP:MEDRS, because the existence of the trials is not a health claim. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: The sentence that I quoted states that Hwang was speculating about potential folate, thiamine, vitamin B6/D/C/A, calcium and potassium deficiencies. It says absolutely nothing about other potential nutritional deficiencies. Expanding a list of vitamins and minerals to encompass carbohydrates and proteins is the sort of original research that Wikipedia expressly prohibits. It is ridiculous to suggest that Kakodkar's comment can be used by extrapolation to refute a plainly stated fact in a reliable source: " ... diets may result in ... reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition". Beall4's scarcely comprehensible protestations "This speculation of any nutrient deficiency or leap you have taken above with malnutrition has been removed from consideration with the reference given farther above, thus any consideration of such is not even discussed in current review articles." is purest fantasy, and displays a complete lack of understanding of how sources may be used. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this discussion from top to bottom. The key phrase for me is "causes malnutrition". Several sources indicate that diet restrictions, such as SCD, can create nutritional deficiencies in the person's diet (e.g. this WebWD article). This is why there are recommendations that anyone attempting the diet should see a nutritionist first. What I did not see in the literature (including the key quote from Hou et al.) are claims that the diet "causes malnutrition", which sounds like (i.e. has the connotation of) a severe condition with long-term possibly permanent health problems, such as starvation, scurvy, etc. The first sentence of our article malnutrition says:

Malnutrition is a condition that results from eating a diet in which one or more nutrients are either not enough or are too much such that the diet causes health problems.

I did not see that the literature saying the diet has caused health problems from nutritional deficiencies. It might be there. If so, let's see the WP:RS that says this. I suggest we stick more carefully with what the sources say rather than inferring things from them. It's fine with me to say that the diet can create nutritional deficiencies that must be addressed, but to say that it "causes malnutrition" does not seem appropriate based on the quotes above. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Meh. We don't say the diet "causes malnutrition". We say it "potentially causes malnutrition", which is the same as your "can create nutritional deficiencies that must be addressed", but worded better. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with David Tornheim. Reduction of calories or potential for nutrient deficiences is in line with the intent of the paper. Although honestly, this has been resolved with the "Nutritional Adequacy" article and thus it is not mentioned in current review articles, other than as above to state the concern was "purely speculative". Here is a link to the ongoing trials with the Specific Carbohydrate Diet. Given the rigourous detail of gaining IRB approval to conduct a trial, it simply would not be permitted if there were any real risk of malnutrition. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=Specific+Carbohydrate+diet&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search
Perhaps an email from the author of the paper would clarify the intent of this single line. Beall4 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please learn to indent your posts. I have done it for you this time, I wont do it again, you have been here long enough to know better. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Beall4:. "Reduction of calories or potential for nutrient deficiences is in line with the intent of the paper" What does that mean in English? Which paper? and who are you to decide what the intent of the paper was? We have a good source (Hou) which states:
  • "adherence to defined diets may result in ... reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition."
That is telling you that: (1) if you reduce the calorie intake of patients who are already at risk of protein–calorie malnutrition, you increase that risk; and (2) some diets including SCD have the potential to reduce that calorie intake. There is no other reading of that source that makes any sense. So, of course, it's reasonable to summarise that in the lead as SCD "potentially causes malnutrition". If you disagree with Hou, then quote some equally reliable source that says that SCD has no potential to reduce calorie intake, nor to increase the risk to those already at risk of protein-calorie malnutrition.
I am now getting sick of folks having to tell you that articles like Nutritional Adequacy of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease are clinical trials and hence primary sources. Read WP:MEDRS, will you? You'll see it says Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Is there any way I can make that clearer to you? --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
(1) if you reduce the calorie intake of patients who are already at risk of protein–calorie malnutrition, you increase that risk; and (2) some diets including SCD have the potential to reduce that calorie intake. There is no other reading of that source that makes any sense. So, of course, it's reasonable to summarise that in the lead as SCD "potentially causes malnutrition". That is WP:SYN. The paper does not say that the diet "potentially causes malnutrition." None of the papers secondary or primary say that. It's not a proper summary of what the papers say. They talk about possible nutrient deficiency and the need to consult with a physician or dietician to address such concerns. Our article should report what is in the WP:RS.
Unless someone can find a source that says that the diet "possibly causes malnutrition", I intend to change the language to mention the potential nutrient deficiencies and the need for consultation with a dietician that I have seen in the literature. Any objections? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Rubbish. WP:SYN is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What other source did I combine with Hou's statement "adherence to defined diets may result in an unnecessary financial burden or reduction in overall caloric intake in patients who are already at risk for protein–calorie malnutrition" to synthesise a conclusion?
That statement is accurately summarised by the text "It also said that the diet risks imposition of an undue financial burden and potentially causes malnutrition." If you disagree, then feel free to suggest other wording that you feel better summarises what the source says. If you disagree with what Hou states, then find a source that says SCD cannot cause malnutrition in patients already at risk for it. --RexxS (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:SYN also says:
Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source..."A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
A = "If you reduce the calorie intake of patients who are already at risk of protein–calorie malnutrition, you increase that risk."
B = "Some diets including SCD have the potential to reduce that calorie intake."
C = "SCD potentially causes malnutrition."
--David Tornheim (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
If someone has a certain condition, SCD may result in malnutrition. That is the definition of "potentially causes malnutrition". Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the source is clear and we have a good WP:TERSE summary. Summarizing ain't synthesis. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Another deletion

Beall4 has just made another[9] large-scale deletion, replacing much of the article with unsourced, weakly-sourced and promotional-tinted content. This is getting disruptive. I have reverted. (Add: and they have edit-warred[10] the change back again.) Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC); amended 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this is disruptive, and have returned to good. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar

David Tornheim - you have altered the article to say

The diet was later re-popularized by biochemist Elaine Gottschall, the mother of one of Haas's patients, in her 1996 book Breaking the Vicious Circle, whose daughter was reported to have been cured of ulcerative colitis by SCD

Yet books don't have daughters do they. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Corrected by this edit. Thanks for noticing that. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The page is now broken, with markup errors.[11] Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed by this edit by Isaidnoway at 8:43. Thanks, Isaidnoway. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC) [revised 09:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)]
Thanks, Isaidnoway --David Tornheim (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Verification issue

David Tornheim: You have added some text about Gottschall's book, saying that "instead" of providing supporting data, she "described the theory of how restricting diet might reduce gut inflation associated with these conditions". Where in the cited source is this contained? Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

In reference hou second paragraph of the section "Specific Carbohydrate Diet":
The underlying theory of the SCD is that disaccharide and polysaccharide carbohydrates are poorly absorbed in the human intestinal tract, resulting in bacterial and yeast overgrowth and subsequent overproduction of mucus. These effects are hypothesized to result in small bowel injury thus perpetuating the cycle of carbohydrate malabsorption and intestinal injury.46 Strict adherence to the diet is recommended, because any exposure to restricted carbohydrates is hypothesized to worsen bacterial overgrowth and exacerbate mucosal damage. There are significant variations in diet recommendations within the community of SCD and related diets. Although not as restrictive as the SCD, the gluten-free diet has also been advocated by some patients to treat IBD. For the purposes of this review, we focus on the specific recommendations as described in Breaking the Vicious Cycle.46
46. Gottschall, E. Breaking the vicious cycle: intestinal health through diet. Kirkton, Baltimore; 2012
--David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, where is this "instead of" idea? The quote you've just given is not about Gottschall's approach to the book (in fact the source does not discuss the book at all). Remember WP:V is a core policy and WP:SYN is prohibited. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
in fact the source does not discuss the book at all. That's not true. The source specifically says, "The SCD was popularized for the treatment of IBD by biochemist Elaine Gottschall through her lay book Breaking the Vicious Cycle after her daughter was reportedly cured of UC using the SCD.46". It cites the book as the source as footnote 46 as I showed above. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, you are correct that the source does mention the book (I was looking at the wrong source). However, what text supports yours? Particular the idea that instead of doing one thing, she did another? Rather to the contrary, the Fitzgibbon source says that "instead" of providing supporting data, she relied on testimonials and newspapers. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Reply to this is found here: Talk:Specific_carbohydrate_diet#Book_Review_Issue --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim Thank you for removing the "instead of ..." text. That fixes one issue. But I'm still left puzzling. You have put:

Gottshall [sic] described the theory of how restricting diet might reduce gut inflation associated with various medical conditions.

Where is this supported in the source? What is "gut inflation"? It seems your blizzard of editing has left us with a snow drift of issues. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It comes from the long paragraph quoted above. "gut inflammation" is what this diet and the other diets like it are all about. They are designed to reduce inflammation with people who have Inflammatory Bowel Disorder (IBD). Bowel=gut. I was just using "gut", a lay person's term for intestine or bowel. Mucus described above is caused by inflammation. There may be a better way to summarize the long paragraph (or similar writing in the other review(s)) without using jargon that will confuse lay people. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd you are cavilling about the tiniest minutiae of meaning in the section above, while this here seems like a comparatively whopping WP:V issue. I shall leave it to other editors to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Book Review Issue

I do not have access to the book review (Fitzgibbon EJ (1998). "Breaking the Vicious Cycle. Intestinal Health Through Diet". Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine (Book review). 8 (1): 86.). If you have information on how I might view it, that would be much appreciated. To be honest, I am not convinced the book review is good WP:RS for the claim, especially if we are requiring WP:MEDRS in so much of this article, and the book review is 20 years old. [Although Gottshall's book is older, I do not know if it was updated.] Can you explain why you feel the book review is good RS for the sentence about "cures"--especially when it is not mentioned at all the in the review articles that talk about her work somewhat extensively? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A scholarly book review is a good RS for what is (and what is not) actually in a book; the words that the author used. And of course reviews are necessarily contemporaneous. What claims about biomedicine are we sourcing to it? I'm a bit surprising you're working with this paragraph without having the sources used - a library will get you access to it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In your edit, you added the text, Gottschall asserted that the diet could "cure" a number of medical conditions, yet provided no medical evidence to support these assertions. That sure sounds like a medical claim to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn't. It is a description of what Gotschall asserts, and the material she does (not) provide, in her book. That is not biomedicince. A scholarly book review is an excellent source for this. Alexbrn (talk)

"Cured" in two years?

We currently say:

Gottshall's daughter was reported to been cured of ulcerative colitis in two years by SCD.

This is essentially an implication-heavy anecdote (even with that "reportedly"). I think it is undue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's in two of the sources. Why is it undue? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Because it's effectively a case report, and case reports usually fail WP:MEDRS. Elevating the report of a single case to prominence is undue (we exclude whole clinical trials with large numbers of subjects). Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's unverifiable. Self-reported, unreliable and if it isn't WP:UNDUE then we should say something like "Gottshall claims her daughter etc. ". -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The trouble is, as Fitzgibbon points out, anybody in the field seeing this claim will know that the patient getting better is not necessarily a result of the SCD; but our lay readership won't necessarily suss that. This is why I call it "implication-heavy". Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Trademarked?

I was looking for more sources on this and came across the claim that this diet is trademarked and apparently use of the term requires a license.[12] This strikes me as ... odd. Anybody know of any decent sourcing/discussion of this? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, anyone can slap a "TM" symbol on anything without consequence. The ® symbol, on the other hand, isn't legal to use unless the trademark is actually registered. The term has been around since 1950 as far as I can tell[13][14] and possibly even earlier. Google Scholar search for the quoted term "specific carbohydrate diet" hit on a paper from 1931 although the term doesn't appear in the abstract. Bottom line, the operators of that website certainly don't "own" the term. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: I suppose they could legitimately claim a trademark on the capitalized version "Specific Carbohydrate Diet" in a similar sense that "SPAM" is a trademark of Hormel Foods but "spam" isn't. The scholarly articles don't use it as a proper noun. But their attempt to trademark the acronym SCD is ridiculous, as that acronym was in use well before they came along. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Bottom line, the operators of that website certainly don't "own" the term. On basis do you make that legal determination? Are you an attorney? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
On what basis? Logic and research. The term has been in use long before anyone attempted to trademark it, rendering the trademark invalid (the only validity it would have is if anyone used the term in the context of the company's book or other products). Attorneys don't have exclusive access to critical thinking. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you have recent case law and/or statutes to back up your claims? I doubt it. Attorneys don't rely primarily on logic or common sense--as professionals, they use Legal research from appropriate sources and can easily back it up with citations to show it is the current law. That way they avoid misrepresenting the law, as you have appeared to have done above. I see no evidence you have done proper Legal research before making your claims above. And FYI, I do have a B.A. as a paralegal, but I am not an attorney. But please, prove me wrong. If you have current legal sources that support your claims, let's seem them. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Original Trademark of "SPECIFIC CARBOHYDRATE DIET" (abandoned): by Elaine Gottschall filed August 19, 2004, abandoned April 23, 2007
  • "SCD" (Active): Registered April 1, 2014
Owner: Kirkton Press Limited LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CANADA 396 Grills Road, R.R. #2 Baltimore Ontario CANADA K0K1C0
  • "SPECIFIC CARBOHYDRATE DIET" (Active): Registered October 20, 2015
Owner: Kirkton Press Limited LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CANADA 396 Grills Road, R.R. #2 Baltimore Ontario CANADA K0K1C0
See also Justia showing Kirkton Press's two trademarks.
This appears consistent with the link by Alexbrn and this link, which says:
Kirkton Press Limited, the owner of the SCD trademark and publisher and copyright owner of the book, Breaking the Vicious Cycle, licenses the use of the SCD trademark and copyright in the book to third parties. Licensees are required to use the trademark and copyright material in a manner which is consistent with the SCD diet and program described in the Breaking the Vicious Cycle book.
However, there are some instances of use of the trademark and book by third parties who are not licensed or authorized by Kirkton Press and who inaccurately represent the information found in the book. If you have any questions or concerns about whether the information you encounter relating to SCD is, in fact, accurate, please feel free to contact us.
Kirkton Press is connected to Elaine Gottschall and her family. See [15].
I'm not sure how this affects us. Are there other similar articles on trademarked diets, medical treatments, etc. that specify such requirements? We obviously handle other trademarked items, like Pepsi, without any big problems I am aware of. The secondary literature does not seem particularly concerned about it, although some of the literature predates the registration. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I am sure how this affects us: not in the slightest. The servers are in the USA. Under US fair use law, using a trademark to identify the relevant goods, service, or owner is not an infringement of the owner's rights. If we were selling a competing diet and calling it "SCD", we might have something to worry about. We're writing an encyclopedia, not selling diets. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Lost content and references

Someone should merge the changes from a major rewrite a few months ago. It was not 'wikified' with intra-wiki links, but it likely had lots of useful information and references. Perhaps another expert on the subject could review that rewrite. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why the article is slanted against SCD

Why is the only section which deals with scientific evidence called "unconfirmed claims"? There is plenty of evidence that the SCD and similar diets help people with IBD, although most of this evidence has accumulated in the last few years, apparently since this article was written. Here is one meta analysis from 2017 in which 8 out of 8 studies confirmed SCD was helpful in managing IBD. http://96.126.98.199/index.php/joghr/article/view/1957. I think it will be time to rewrite this article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.140.146 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The article follows good quality WP:MEDRS sources. The Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research is not one such - it appears to be a kind of fake/vanity journal, not appearing in PUBMED/MEDLINE and having an impact factor of 0.15. Way better sourcing would be needed for medical content. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Specific_carbohydrate_diet/Archive_1&oldid=1137197789"