Talk:Pritikin diet

comment

I feel a need for links to be added to the end of this article, and references. Most of the information could be considered credible however, because there is no information that has been referenced it unfortunately means nothing.

Articles that critically analyze this method should be added alongside articles for this diet (although the latter has to be moderated by the criticism). Statistics such as percentage of successful candidates and the average time frame for successful weight loss is a must, what should also be added with this is how many people after finishing this diet have gone back to their old (baseline) weight (yoyo).

anecdotal evidence: http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020121horne/020121ch2.html Rolet de Castella, 60, business executive and father of world champion marathon runner, Robert de Castella - Robert de Castella, a.k.a. Deek is extremely well known in Australia as a marathon runner. i had thought that his father's story - see the link - about completely reversing badly blocked arteries was also famous, but i couldn't find much with google. While it's only anecdotal evidence, Deek's fame should be enough to include it, but i'd sort of prefer something a bit more serious looking and not just have this anecdote.

The best articles i found so far on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov only have titles - that's not really much use except to prove that someone did research about the Pritikin diet without letting anyone (except those with subscriptions) know about the results. Here are some that do have abstracts:

• effects of diet similar to Pritikin (American Health Association) on physiological parameters like HDL levels
• meta-study of medical literature in more or less relation to Pritikin Diet
• doesn't refer to Pritikin by name, but rather to low-fat, high complex-carbohydrate, regular exercise effect on people older than 70 yrs

There should be some existing wikipedia articles about the effects of low-fat, high complex-carbohydrate diet and regular exercise on various physiological parameters. No need to double up between the two articles. Boud 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian?

This page states that the diet includes "lean meat, and seafood" but goes on to say "the Pritkin diet, a strict vegetarian diet". Which of these is correct? -- Wallsy (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Apparently from the book it's not vegetarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.191.66 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following...

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+AHA+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.8 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+American+Heart+Association+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.8 (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A++NCEP+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A++National+Cholesterol+Education+Program+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.8 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pritikin diet....recent reviews...???

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+Pritikin+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.8 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rough

This article has a number of issues, as outlined in the above. It lacks any critic info, which I am sure is out there. Really, although I reckon Pritikin and his diet IS notable, this page and that for Pritikin himself does not deserve to exist without sufficient link/refs to demonstrate its Notability.

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Bulletpoint #5 in Supporting Research which generates reference number (2) citing a UCLA study and implicating the Pritikin diet as the source of improvement is 1) dubiously suggests the Pritikin diet as the chief methodology in the study although it's not listed in the title and 2) suspiciously links to a nonexistent press-release.

Reversion without discussion.

As you can see, the version reverted to had two very different assessments, one a mention in an introductory level diet text, and one an actual study. The study was largely positive on serious health gains, while the text emphasized...farting. Fails NPOV just on the face of it. When you add in the real question of equivocation -not all sources use "fad diet" to Alexbrn's preferred meaning of "fad diet"- it really is up to him to justify this reversion, not just assert the old version was good. Anmccaff (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The source you deleted is a good one. Some of the other sourcing in this article is however dodgy. May get a chance to look in detail later. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2015

(UTC)

There is one other source, aside from biographical details. How do you get "some" out of "one?" That strongly suggests that you don't need to "look in detail later", you need to look for the first time, now, before you simply do knee-jerk reverts. Anmccaff (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Advert?

Is it just me, or does this seem to be written a bit like an advert? --Lamb104 (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lamb104 thanks. We are working to address this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017

I am requested that "fad diet" be removed from the Pritikin Diet page because it is not correct. How can a diet be considered a "fad" when the federal government has approved the Pritikin Diet and Exercise as Medicare-approved cardiac rehabilitation for hospitals nationwide?

I have also attempted to add more citations from peer-reviewed research, but every time I do so, they are deleted.

Please help with this situation. Thank you. Genie Killoran (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The fact it's a fad diet is well-sourced and so must stay. Any medical claims need to be backed by WP:MEDRS sources; primary research is insufficient. See you talk page too: there are some disclosures you must make per WP:PAID. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 26 July 2017

Wikipedia editors: Please change the first section ("The Pritikin Diet is a controversial fad diet...") to the following:

The Pritikin Diet forms part of the "Pritikin Program For Diet and Exercise," a lifestyle regimen for heart health originally created by Nathan Pritikin. The 1979 book describing the diet became a best-seller.1 In 2010, the Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services approved the Pritikin Program for Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation.2

Wikipedia editors: In the second section ("Reception") please add the following information after this sentence: "In 1982 Consumer Reports said that marketing efforts by the The Pritikin Longevity Centers had gained the diet some popularity, despite the lack of support for it among scientists."

However, since then scientists have published several studies documenting the Pritikin Program's ability to lower modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including high LDL cholesterol,3 high blood pressure,4 and high glucose levels.5

1. McFadden, Robert D. (23 February 1985). "Nathan Pritikin, whose diet many used against heart ills". The New York Times. 2. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/MedicareApprovedFacilitie/ICR.html 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2064490 4. https://www.http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/3 5. https://http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-4564.2006.05732.x/abstract

References

Genie Killoran (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The first medical ref there is a primary source and is not OK per WP:MEDRS. I cannot access the other two links so I cannot evaluate them. Please read WP:MEDHOW to learn how to format citations and re-propose but please make sure that refs about medical evidence comply with MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 26 July 2017

I now understand that Wikipedia requires review articles, not primary research. Below is the citation for a review article that affirms the efficacy of the Pritikin Program of diet and exercise in improving several risk factors for heart disease, including LDL cholesterol, high blood pressure, and glucose levels.

Best Practices & Research: Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2014; 28: 405

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X14000219

Genie Killoran (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That reference supports people eating a healthy diet, not necessarily the specifically Pritkin version. But yes it does mention Pritkin and appears worth considering - will need to look at it more. But again, please read MEDHOW to learn how to format citations. This is a basic thing here and ignoring it does not generate good will. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "Fig. 2compares the combined effect of lifestyle modification from >4500 men and women consuming a plant-based, high-fiber diet combined with daily exercise (Pritikin lifestyle intervention) [51]versus diet modification alone using an NCEP Step I or Step II diet. More intensive dietary changes and the addition of exercise elicited the most profound lipid reductions. In addition to reducing LDL-C, this intensive lifestyle intervention was reported to increase LDL-particle size with reduced susceptibility to oxidation [52]. The change in LDL-particle size correlated with the reduction in serum TG... Adapted from Roberts and Barnard, Journal of Applied Physiology 98:3–30, 2005."

This is the article it is pulled from[1].

It says "Analysis of lipid reductions with National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) diet interventions vs. Pritikin combined lifestyle intervention. LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein. (Data from Refs. 21, 420)."

Ref 21[2] does mention the diet. Article published by same person as the review. Research is not blinded or randomized. Was paid for by the Pritikin Research Foundation.

Ref 420[3] does not mention the diet in question

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically what the graph tentatively shows is diet plus exercise lowers both "good" and "bad" cholesterol possibly more than diet alone.

Whether or not this is "good" for the person in question is unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fad diet - Discussion needed

The Pritikin diet has been designated a fad diet. This is undisputed and is correctly noted in the article itself.

Perhaps currently there is "a change in the wind" but at least in the past, it has been so.

Nowhere in the heading as it stands now is there any mention of this diet as being a fad, after my correction has been reverted. (My edit was taken from the continuation of the article).

I think this article is due for a checkup by our community to be marked and listed as WP:FRINGE, Pseudoscience, Quackery, Fringe medicine and Pseudomedicine and designating it in the header as a fad diet. See here about leads to the medical and scientific establishment at least in the past, and their discussion about the Pritikin diet.

If not for anything else, its claim as a diet for "detox" - (the so called alternative medicine 'detoxification process'), which is listed in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience gives it the worthiness for these titles.

This article should be marked so due to the Pritikin diet's creator, the Pritikin diet's dissemination and the Pritikin diet's use by pseudo-medical writers and practitioners, especially those who have been proven quacks.

Let's discuss, please.

Maybe we can start

• Here: Fad Diets book.
• Or here The Pritkin Diet: Discredited by Medicine but now endorsed by your government (Printed in the Diet and Heart Disease magazine).

These are starting points that should help lead us to material showing the past and probably current established view of this diet.

Currently the search sites, and in particular Google, have been saturated with promotional articles leading to www.pritikin.com (a search for "pritikin diet fad" leads to a page full of "the healthiest diet in the world" on their website and similar links) and any criticism can only be found on the 2nd or 3rd page of results, and sometimes later.

Diets can be extremely dangerous, can lead to drastic changes (I got my diabetes after one such internet diet at age 35), and can lead to people killing others and themselves, such as in the case of the mother who caused her babies death, and promoted AIDS denial with false claims and, in any case, it is clear that misuse can be fatal. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In the body is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that my edit was deleted along with removal of protection.

It removed the source but kept the (now unsourced) designation as a fad diet, but keeping it burried way down in the article.

Is WP becoming a place for fringe science? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's one of the few non-dangerous fad-diets. It has some health benefits but also negatives. I am in the process of expanding the article [4], [5], [6] Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)