Talk:Whole30/Archive 1

"Fad diet"

I see "fad diet" in an article's title, but not in the body of the article itself. I don't believe that article titles are typically used in this way. If we're including something in the first sentence of an article, per WP:LEAD, we should surely have a better source than an article title alone. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a contentious label, so the sourcing really needs to be impeccable. I can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you like, or get a WP:3O, but I think as it stands this is a serious violation of our neutrality policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added another ref. It is not contentious ~~except for someone trying to sell it To~~ to any objective observer; it fits the definition of fad diet (you really should read that) to a T. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC) (strike via redaction with apologies Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if anything violates NPOV as well as WP:PROMO it is this, btw. 100% positive stuff. 0% negative, even from the sources that were there. not good. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second source you've added also does not refer to the Whole30 as a fad diet. The article subtitle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements," but that's as close as we get. It's also a listicle, there must be better sources out there. Also, yes, "fad diet" can clearly be seen as a contentious term by someone who is not trying to "sell" a diet. I will start a discussion at a noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've opened a discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Can article titles be used as sources?. I have also removed the word "fad" from the title of this article, because the word "fad" is not in the title of the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i'll chime in there - the question is wrong. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the sourcing again, I think a better description of this diet is Elimination diet. It is described as such in the US News & World Report and Dallas Morning News, which look like our two best newspaper sources. According to the Dallas Morning News source, "Weight loss is not a focus of Whole30." It doesn't seem to promise any extraordinary benefits per Fad diet such as a longer diet, either. It looks like you're supposed to cut out certain food groups for 30 days, then start reintroducing them and see which foods, if any, make you feel worse. That seems consistent with elimination diet. I cannot find any sources that say you're supposed to never eat the eliminated foods after 30 days. Per Self, "The program is all about eliminating and reintroducing these potential problem-causers so you can better understand how what you eat is affecting you. Think: Paleo meets an elimination diet—just for 30 days." I think a more accurate first sentence of the article based on the available sourcing would be: "The Whole30 is a 30-day elimination diet during which participants eliminate sugar, alcohol, grains, legumes, soy, and dairy from their diets." Safehaven86 (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is a fad diet; stating that is accurate and neutral. you can also describe it as an elimination diet as well, elsewhere. do not remove the fad diet statement. it NPOV now, per the WP:PSCI policy. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on fad diet says a fad diet "is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life." I am not seeing that in the citations here. I am seeing that this diet tells you to not eat certain foods for 30 days, then reintroduce them later in a way consistent with an elimination diet. And please do not give me orders, such as "do not remove the fad diet statement." Did I remove it? Did I say I was going to remove it? I've obviously started a discussion here about it, and I don't need to be patronized. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the elimination is to lose weight quickly and/or dietary detoxification which is a pseudoscientific notion per sourced content in the WLed article. and its not healthy. so fad diet. and if you read elimination diet that is an actual medical nutrition therapy thing; this is not. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like OR or SYN to me, and i would urge the editor to be more friendly and to consider the other editor's notes abot dynamics of this dialog. This is giving me the willies. Doesn't feel like a good dialog to me. I just wish to urge people to be calm and good to each other, and speak to the content and not with imperatives. I do recall there's one indy source that does categorize this diet a "fad diet" and there are not many sources on this diet other than self-published ones. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that "The point of the elimination is to lose weight quickly and/or dietary detoxification"? I am not seeing that in a source--many of our sources clearly state the goal of this diet is not to lose weight. Here's an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "More People Pick Elimination Diets to Discover Food Sensitivities: The Fad and Science Behind Not Eating Entire Food Groups for Weeks at a Time." This article appears to be WP:RS for both "fad diet" and "elimination diet". Basically, it looks like we have a "fad elimination diet." I am concerned with the existing wikilink to fad diet because that article suggests the point of a fad diet is to lose weight and/or live longer, and neither of those are claims made by this diet. So I guess we really have a "fad elimination diet designed to identify food intolerances rather than to spur weight loss" or a "fad elimination diet that makes no promises of weight loss," etc. I don't think our current article introduction is sufficiently comprehensive/nuanced at present (and the "fad diet" article doesn't seem to be, either). Safehaven86 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not medical nor healthy; yes there is a fad for people eliminating gluten or other things from their diet as the WSJ describes. There is a fad for gluten free diets, for example, as described here. Whole30 is a money making enterprise that is very much in fashion now - a "cult". It is a quintessential fad diet. As the Business Insider and other sources note, people who use it are focused on weight loss and "detoxing". Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what implications your commentary has for the content of this article. Do you disagree that the Whole30 is both a fad diet and an elimination diet? These terms do not seem to be mutually exclusive. The recent reversion of an excellent WSJ source seems unhelpful. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fad diet, not sure about "elimination" from just one source - and certainly not without something in the body. Reverting some shitty lede-bombing sources too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get you up to speed here, the WSJ source that you reverted is currently our most reliable source for "fad diet." It also describes the Whole30 as an "elimination diet." So in your effort to label this diet as a fad diet you've ironically removed the very best source we have describing it as such. Ha. It makes sense for us to describe it as both, as the terms aren't mutually exclusive. And there are other RS for "elimination diet" as well, please see my comments above. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Als, re. "shitty lede-bombing sources...." 1) this article doesn't have a lead as there are no article headers/subsections 2) it was one source, from Self, which is of exactly the same variety as Health, which is currently used as a source in the article. If you had a problem with this source, fine, remove it. But you didn't need to revert the whole edit or the addition of the WSJ source. You also don't need to swear to get a point across. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're edit warring. This diet is not an elimination diet in the sense defined in our Wikipedia article, so we don't say it is. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we use sources to determine things like that, otherwise it's WP:OR to write content using your own logic in this way. SageRad (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Wikipedia policy of verification. The WP:RS Wall Street Journal says the Whole30 is an elimination diet. What Wikipedia policy says that we can't call things what reliable sources call them unless other Wikipedia articles define things in the same way? We don't have to wikilink elimination diet if you don't like. But we're wikilinking fad diet, an article which doesn't match the RS descriptions of this as a fad diet (i.e. no promises of weight loss or longer life, but the fad of cutting out gluten, etc). A bylined article in WSJ is much more reliable than an unbylined listicle in Health magazine--we can't ignore RS just because you don't like them. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down SafeHaven - the link to elimination diet is not valid at this time... please be a bit patient. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not valid? It's just as valid as fad diet. We have a reliable source--WSJ--describing it as both. It's not neutral to pick one description over another. It's a both/and situation. US News & World Report and Dallas Morning News both also describe this as an elimination diet. I'm not sure what you want me to wait for--a fourth RS? Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a fad diet so the required RS is weak. It is far from obvious it is an "elimination diet" so I'd want to see a strong medical source to provide such a categorisation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination diets (as our article on the subject clearly indicates) are medical diets where specific foods are eliminated or excluded due to the adverse affects on the subjects. A ceoliac sufferer follows a gluten elimination/exclusion diet for example. Whole30 is a fad diet where foods are excluded/eliminated due to its proponents non-scientific woo-based theories that the foods themselves need to be removed. Hence the sourcing disparity required. 'Fad diet' is a non-scientific label. 'Elimination diet' is a medical based requirement. That some/most fad diets eliminate foods blurs the lines - probably intentionally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down everyone and be more civil to each other. And think about what each other are saying, please. And please refrain from WP:OR in deciding content of this article. What's "obvious" to any specific editor doesn't so much matter here. People have different perspectives and can disagree on categorizations like that, in totally good faith. We have to allow that others will not always share our opinions, and use sources. SageRad (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Whole30 website, "The Whole30 is, at its heart, an elimination diet."

As a physician whom regularly employs therapeutic elimination diets (including Whole30) with my patients -- with drastic clinical responses -- I think it is extremely important that this be mentioned. I agree that if the Whole30 Program is enacted indefinitely, it should be categorized as a fad diet. If it is used as intended, where aggravating foods are eliminated, then gradually re-introduced to determine a clinical response, the Whole30 Program can be considered a type of elimination diet.

Rslateriii (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a mouthpiece for any company. Do not add spam to Wikipedia again. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, this article, as it stands in your rendition, is not neutral and misrepresents the Whole30 Program. It describes Whole30 as a fad diet, which implies that there are no potential health benefits of such a diet. I agree that WP should not be a mouthpiece for a company, but neither should it defame a company. I have no financial ties to Whole30; my experience with the program is derived from clinical practice in which I have seen numerous patients experience demonstrable (even marked) improvements in their health -- without paying a penny to the company, I might add. My edit made no mention of these clinical experiences, however, as such a claim would require clinical trials; my edit simply stated that Whole30 can be considered an elimination diet if enacted in its intended fashion (as represented by the company website itself, and other published sources -- see above). I peer-review multiple medical journals, and I can say with utter certainty that this article is unbalanced and heavily swayed towards opinion. Editors of this article should not purport themselves as medical experts if they do not have a medical degree or board-certification in the field.

Rslateriii (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about you. No one here cares who you say you are; we have no way to check and no interest in checking. Please aim for the mission of Wikipedia, and please learn and follow the policies and guidelines through which the editing community realizes the mission. You might find User:Jytdog/How to be helpful, to get oriented to what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

What is the consensus here on this article meeting notability guidelines? -Delta13C (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it; there are not high quality MEDRS sources but there is enough popular press, and enough commentary by health experts, that is would ~just~ pass an AfD, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse something being not notable to something being inane. --fs 06:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

There's much criticism about banning legumes, but no response from the diet's creators. 30 days without legumes isn't going to harm anyone's health (I wouldn't think) and perhaps as there's an allergy angle or some other justification.

The creator's stated rationale (if such can be found) is generally in short supply here.

Not my own cup of tea, but there are aspects of this that look more like an elimination protocol, as opposed to a long-term dietary system.

As for notability, when one finds a recipe from the Whole30 camp (there are many), one wants a quick, reliable source to endorse/debunk it, so weak notability works for me. — MaxEnt 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now my eye catches the comments above (sheesh). Whether it's a fad or not doesn't seem to be the main thing. It's out there, some people are using it, and it shouldn't be hard to describe in relatively neutral language (what leans to opinion can be solidly sourced).

Here's the thing about diet (and I've read quite a few of the better books): just about any diet which advocates elimination of sugar will take out the majority of processed foods. Between the two (less sugar, less processed, hence probably less salt) the vast majority of people are already better off (at least for the short term), regardless of whether a dietitian would give the diet five gold stars (or even one gold star). This effect shows up in study after study. The second effect of any weird diet is to increase attentiveness to food consumption. This almost always moves the dial in a good direction. But the problem is that anything given sufficient attention immediately attracts the uber-optimizers, who simply can't let anything rest at merely better. This is a pernicious form of availability bias that all too often seems to loose sight of the bigger picture. For example, have you done your backups lately? Probably not. 5% improvement of your present fixation, 95% loss on what you're not thinking about.

So all we really need to say (if true) is that most dietitians don't regard elimination of legumes (and whatever else) as a good long term dietary change, so that the diet doesn't masquerade as received wisdom. — MaxEnt 04:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note

I am interested in adding information about the different possible nutritional benefits and consequences associated with the food groups that are eliminated by the Whole30 program. Oliviawlam (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is content about health and will need to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. Please be sure you have learned about that guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]