Talk:5:2 diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too dependent on Horizon - Eat, Fast and Live Longer?

This diet has been popularized by the Horizon program "Eat, Fast and Live Longer" (Aired August 2012). Because of this it was picked up by several newspapers that ran stories about it. All/nearly all of this page's sources are basically just repeating what was said on Horizon program said (rather than being independent research). Because of this I'd like to suggest that other research/points of view be put across? Or maybe the "undue" tag? There are other sources such as this one http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx that would seem to highlight some fo the issues (and question the validity of the claimed benifits) of the diet which are currently unmentioned in this article. I'd be interested to see what other people think anyway. Thanks. --Shanee753 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! This article is in desperate need of good sources, and information that counterbalances the claims made in the show. Please be bold and add text about side-effects. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fasting can be very dangerous

The goal of any weight loss program is to reduce overall dietary fat to around 30% or less. Since the average fat intake is 35%, fasting for 2 days by eating a small amount of calories with little fat on the fasting days will reduce overall fat from 35% to 32%. This is enough to "trigger" weight loss for the average person.

A person who consumes 40% fat will find that intermittent fasting does little. Those consuming 45% or 50% fat will find intermittent fasting just slows down their weight gain.

So for the vast majority of overweight persons, who consume a diet of 45% fat, intermittent fasting will not do anything for them. For those who try intermittent fasting, the side effects of dizziness, forgetfulness, etc... may be worth it if they are desperate to lose weight (as many people are). But don't say you weren't warned...

The "advice", that on "eating days" overweight people should eat healthier on an intermittent fasting plan "if they aren't losing weight", is just an attempt to get them to reduce their overall "weekly" fat intake to closer to 32%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.5.240 (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing: The goal of all lowcarb weight loss programs is to reduce carbohydrates. In the case of LCHF it is to take in more fat at the same time as you reduce carbohydrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.248.89 (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"The goal of any weight loss program is to reduce overall dietary fat to around 30% or less." - not it isn't, it is to reduce caloric intake. Fat is just a part of that. Istara (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

IGF-1

Looking for a better source on the claim that fasting once or twice a week lowers IGF-1, and not finding support for that. Sources I'm seeing say daily calorie restriction decreases IGF-1, while periodic fasting increases it or has no effect. The first reference does, however, state that periodic fasting or dietary restriction do have an effect on neural degeneration in animal models, and suggests there may be implications for humans. I've changed the article to reflect that. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job! Lova Falk talk 09:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Consecutive or non-consecutive days

Most sources I read weren't clear on this subject. In fact, they were very vague. Here's a source that wasn't vague: [1] Rklawton (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

People who refuse to have this referred to as a fad diet

The 5:2 diet is a fad diet. This is verified by a reliable source in the article, and it perfectly qualifies as one, according to what is mentioned in fad diet
...yet a lot of people have been trying to remove any mention of it being a fad diet. This is a bit of a problem.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the 'source' again - they amended the article in May to reflect more recent developments. This own source also specifically states that the text is NOT based on a systematic review! Freeranging intellect (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense. There is no mention of any amendment to the article in May. Either way, there has been no noteworthy developments since then. A systematic review is no necessary to state that a diet is a fad diet. It would only be necessary to state that it isn't a fad diet.

As things stand at the moment the 5:2 diet is:

• Referred to by the NHS (among many others') as a fad diet.
• Lacking any scientific evidence.

...and hence it is clearly a fad diet.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me paste it: "Note – this article, originally written in January 2013, was updated in May 2013." (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx)

Later in the same article: "But since this article was originally written in January 2013 we have been alerted to research, led by Dr Michelle Harvie, which did look at the 5:2 model.

In one study carried out in 2010 the researchers did find that women placed on a 5:2 diet achieved similar levels of weight loss as women placed on a calorie-controlled diet.

They also experienced reductions in a number of biological indicators (biomarkers) that suggest a reduction in the risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes.

A further study in 2012 suggested that the 5:2 model may help lower the risk of certain obesity-related cancers, such as breast cancer.

The increasing popularity of the 5:2 diet should lead to further research of this kind." (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx)

This text actually mentions scientific evidence so your assertion that it lacks any is clearly false. Freeranging intellect (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant article is this one. To try an criticise it, by quoting a completely different one, makes no sense whatsoever.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The article you mention did make some minor adjustments in May, but so what? None of that changes the fact that there is no evidence for the 5:2 diet, and that the NHS sees it as a fad diet.

As to the 2010 study... To quote the study in question, they looked at "Randomised comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (~2266 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (~6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean [±SD] body mass index 30.6 [±5.1] kg/m2) premenopausal women over 6 months". Thus it doesn't (indeed cannot possibly) show any long term effectiveness or safety. It doesn't prove anything.

As to the 2012 study... Again, I'll quote from it: "There are no human data on IER and breast cancer risk" (IER meaning "Intermittent energy restriction", which the 5:2 diet is a type of). Hence it proves nothing.

There is no scientific evidence, in support of the 5:2 diet. Sure, you might find some small studies, that show some short term benefits, but you can find that for almost all fad diets.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous. You also haven't shown scientific evidence that the diet does nothing! You are assuming you are right and demanding strict evidence when the most proper approach is to assume neutrality until sufficient evidence exists. For example, your "fad diet" statement at the beginning of the article is like me putting "scientifically established diet" instead. As this is a controversial subject, it should just be listed as "diet". Do you not see this?? (Also - do you have a conflict of interest to declare - I'm serious). Freeranging intellect (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't shown evidence that the 5:2 diet does nothing?

Of course not!

Who would be crazy enough to try to claim that it does nothing!?

Of course it does something, but the issue is that there is no evidence to show that it is effective or healthy.

As to your claim that I have a burden of evidence, to say that it isn't effective... Sorry, but that's not how it works. I would suggest that you look up the concept of "burden of evidence", as you clearly do not understand it.

The most proper approach is not to assume neutrality until sufficient evidence exists. The proper approach is not to accept any claims, until until sufficient evidence exists. Especially when in science. To do otherwise, is to reject the Scientific Method, which means that what you are engaged in it pseudo-science.

As to mentioning "scientifically established diet"... There is one, you know. It's been known, and encouraged by pretty much all reputable national, and international, institutions of health and nutrition, for ages. There are some differences between the different nations recommendations, and there have been some minor changes with time, but essentially it's been the same for ages.

As to your question about conflicts of interest... First of all, I would like to point out one of the central rules of Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Also... why would it matter? Surely my arguments and evidence should be weighed on their own merit? To look at the person, rather than the arguments and evidence provided, is to engage in an Ad Hominem fallacy. That is neither productive, nor honest.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be my last comment today. First, I apologize for suggesting that you have a conflict of interest. Your edits were consistent with that, so I simply asked. Second, you are throwing a lot of concepts out there (Scientific Method, burden of evidence) which I am very familiar with, but you are applying them incorrectly. We are not discussing treatment for a patient here (which would require burden of evidence). This is a Wikipedia article. Many people do not believe it to be a fad, so I reached a compromise by mentioning as much at the beginning. I am sorry that you cannot view this issue with a balanced and neutral perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You claim that I am misusing the concepts I mention? In what way, and how can you demonstrate that it is a misuse? Anyone can say that I am misusing some term(s). That's fairly pointless, unless you can show, that it is so.

This is indeed Wikipedia ...and in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia, this should be mentioned as a fad diet. Reliable sources clearly state it as being such.

There is no conflict, among reliable sources, about it being a fad diet or not, that I am aware of. If you think there is, please cite reliable sources that claim that it isn't.

None of the sources you have mentioned, so far, have done so. The only source you have mention, that was positive towards the diet, was a BBC opinion piece. While the BBC is generally relatively reliable, an opinion piece is not accepted as a reliable source, on Wikipedia.

If you think I go against certain rules or principles of Wikipedia: Say which rules/principles I am going against, what specific part of it, and in what way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those whose apparently dogmatic view that the the 5:2 diet is a "fad diet" are incorrect if the latest review of the research indicates that the diet results in a modest rate of weight reduction and health benefits. In my view the overall picture provided by the research indicates that this is likely the case and gives little reason to believe otherwise. As a result, it would be a reckless person who would bet that future research will overturn the balance of the published results in this case. Note that by these two measures, a so-called "fad diet" already measures up against those whose only difference is that a similar amount of food is consumed every day. In what way is that not a fad diet? If it is because non-fad diets are those that people don't give up on, this is a definition which does not exclude intermediate fasting, any more than it excludes pretty much every other sort of dieting that people give up on.

Also worth noting is that the term "fad diet" is one that is far more likely to be be found in a tabloid newspaper than a proper scientific paper (like those referred to by the NHS article), and that even the rather tabloid-style article referred to by the crusading spirit who opened this section does not actually say the 5:2 diet is a fad diet (it's a rather trashy article, to be frank, despite being on the NHS website. To lump the "cabbage diet" and intermediate fasting together indicates a lack of scientific credentials.

Note that symptoms like dizziness can be partly the result of poorly regulated carbohydrate metabolism which can be sign of risk for type II diabetes. Some of the strongest research evidence is that this is where intermittent fasting has an advantage of constant calorie reduction: it is hardly surprising that such protocols lead to an improvement of glucose metabolism. As a result, it would be a good hypothesis that such symptoms would not persist [I don't actually know if any study has tested this].

It's also worth adding that doing a 5:2 diet does not exclude someone from good dietary advice like the "5 (or 7) a day", any more than restricting intake to a fixed number of calories per day does. 87.115.53.37 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dogmatic view? The 5:2 diet perfectly fits the definition of a "fad diet" ...and, more importantly (for Wikipedia), it is clearly referred to as a fad diet by Reliable Sources (such as the NHS).

"if the latest review of the research indicates that the diet results in a modest rate of weight reduction and health benefits"

Well it doesn't, so...

"As a result, it would be a reckless person who would bet that future research will overturn the balance of the published results in this case."

You do realise that you are therefore declaring yourself to be a reckless person, given that you are supporting a diet that goes against the balance of the published results, and for which there is no positive research?

Well, there is some research that indicated some short-term positive results, but that's hardly relevant or significant. Besides, the same could be said of practically all fad diets, including the more dangerous and unhealthy ones.

"In what way is that not a fad diet?"

Every way?

"If it is because non-fad diets are those that people don't give up on"

It isn't.

"Also worth noting is that the term "fad diet" is one that is far more likely to be be found in a tabloid newspaper than a proper scientific paper"

Scientific paper would generally not have much reason to use the term ...but scientists and scientific organizations, however, do. I find the notion that tabloids would be one of the more frequent users of the term, to be a rather fanciful, baseless and highly improbable notion.

"Some of the strongest research evidence is that this is where intermittent fasting has an advantage of constant calorie reduction"

There is strong research evidence for it, is there? Well then, please show that evidence!

"As a result, it would be a good hypothesis that such symptoms would not persist "

This is and encyclopaedia, not a place to collect random ideas and notions. Get some evidence that it's true, and then we can perhaps mention it. Your guesses have no place here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the abstracts linked from the end of http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx to find answers to all of your questions. You really should have done this before pontificating. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through those. If you read the previous comments above, you will see that they have been discussed. You can read my response above, but to give a short summary: They were all merely very short-term studies.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Fad"

To remind certain Editors, the definition of "fad" is "A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze" . Therefore, by definition, we do not know that a diet is a "fad" until after its popularity has decreased. E.g., Some people probably thought that automobiles were a 'fad' when they were first produced. They were wrong. In short, you cannot call something a fad until you know it has been short-lived. As shown by the many media articles and recent books on the 5:2 diet, this has certainly not happened yet. Freeranging intellect (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article, is there any talk of a "fad", but rather of a "fad diet". Looking at the definition of "fad", has no relevance on the meaning of "fad diet" ...and weren't you supposed to not make any more comments today?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"fad diet" - "a reducing diet that enjoys temporary popularity" (emphasis mine). You are not helping your case - We simply do not (yet) know if it is a 'fad diet'. You do not have a time machine, so you cannot make this claim. My point still stands ... (haha yes and I won't on that prior thread. But this issue compelled me (I'm a stickler for words being used correctly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 00:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Food fad is also used by media and the scientific community to refer to diets that do not follow common nutritional guidelines, regardless of their actual status as a fad; for example, the Atkins and Paleo diets are commonly referred to as food fads, even though they have enjoyed cycles of popularity for several decades. Thus, while called food fads, they are not always actual fads (which are defined by sharp but brief spikes in popularity)."--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

'defined by sharp but brief spikes in popularity' - Ok. Where was the 'brief' spike in popularity with this diet? i.e., when did it decrease in popularity? (And please include a source). If you can't, by your own definition, this is not a food fad. (also for the record - we were discussing 'fad diet', not 'food fad' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What you did there is quote mining (quoting part of something where "a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning")

I shall repeat the quote, but this time adding emphasis, to make it more clear:

"Food fad is also used by media and the scientific community to refer to diets that do not follow common nutritional guidelines, regardless of their actual status as a fad; for example, the Atkins and Paleo diets are commonly referred to as food fads, even though they have enjoyed cycles of popularity for several decades. Thus, while called food fads, they are not always actual fads (which are defined by sharp but brief spikes in popularity)."

In other words: A fad diet doesn't have to be a fad. They just usually are.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, in that case, this is where your case falls down. The 5:2 diet does not involve any faddy food choices. It merely demands highly restricted consumption of calories on an intermittent basis. Perhaps you can't understand that reducing your weekly calorie consumption by 3500 calories by having 500 calories less a day and reducing it by 3500 calories by having 1750 calories less on two days might result in similar loss of weight, but that neither are anything like, say, halving calorie intake every day (this would better qualify as a fad diet, unless the subject started off with a highly excessive calorie intake. 87.115.53.37 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Where have I ever stated that a fad diet has to contain "faddy food choices", to be a fad diet? That is, if you mean "choices of foods to eat or not eat", that is. A restriction of calories, could be called a "food choice".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As a scientist rather than a tabloid journalist, I would never use such a subjective term as "fad". Moreover, it is a pejorative based only on popularity rather than quality. There are much better ways of expressing any genuine objective fact. Specifically, one might say "this diet causes harm to health" or "this diet does not lead to sustained weight loss", if these were true. But neither would be justifiable based on the scientific facts. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The NHS Choices page lists this diet alongside other of what it calls "novelty" diets. This I think is synonymous for it being termed a "fad diet", so that usage is fine here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a source for 'fad diet' being synonymous with 'novelty diet'. Without a reliable source, this cannot and should not be assumed. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a safe assumption based on common English usage; arguing for a source would strike me as a bit tendentious. However, to be sure, if you check out this Dictionary of medicine you'll see it has these terms as synonyms. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not for you to say what is a 'safe assumption' once it has been challenged. In this case, that is an acceptable source, so this is confirmed (with evidence, as it should be). Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, why are you trying to connect "novelty diet" and "fad diet"? I agree with you, but it's hardly relevant. While the NHS Choices page does use the term "novelty diet" twice, it generally uses the term "fad diet" ...and includes the 5:2 diet as an example of a "fad diet".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Please provide a source for 'fad diet' being synonymous with 'novelty diet'."

Why? Nowhere has anyone talked about any "novelty diet", nor has anyone pointed to a source talking about a "novelty diet". We speak of "fad diet" and refer to sources that use the term "fad diet", to back it up. Not "novelty diet".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "fad diet" is very unencyclopaedic. It might be appropriate for an opinion piece in a tabloid newspaper, but lacks any scientific meaning. But perhaps you can correct this problem by telling us what the scientific meaning you have in mind is. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "fad diet" may not be a scientific term, but neither are a lot of other, very encyclopaedic, terms that are used on Wikipedia. A term doesn't have to be scientific, to be valid or encyclopaedic.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the thread - this was in response to Alexbrn above Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

*looks*

Indeed you are quite right. Sorry about that. Thank you for pointing out my error.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been some confusion in recent editing due to an erroneous link to the more tabloid style article on the NHS Choice website, rather than their more recent article on the 5:2 diet. The more scientific, more recent article includes 6 references to scientific research all of which support the effectiveness of protocols like the 5:2 diet, and indicate significant health benefits (probably superior to those of protocols which don't involve variation in calorie intake). Am I right in my inference that ZarlanTheGreen has not even read the abstracts of the six research papers? The six links are to be found at the bottom of http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/01January/Pages/Does-the-5-2-intermittent-fasting-diet-work.aspx 146.90.22.136 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion that the NHS Choice article is written in a tabloid style, doesn't render it any less reliable or authoritative. The scientific research you refer to, has been discussed, at length, and have been concluded to be fairly irrelevant, as they only show a few short-term benefits, which is also true of pretty much all fad diets and says nothing about its long-term efficacy, safety, sustainability or healthiness ...or even the long-term consequences of short-term use. Besides, the studies you talk about are already mentioned ...or rather were, last time I checked, but now Alexbrn seems to have done a lot of editing, that I'll have to check.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

On browsing the above discussion, I have identified that ZarlanTheGreen's response to being told about the more recent, more scientific, much more specific article on NHS Choice was to say "The relevant article is this one" (referring to the old article). So, how is it that the older, less specific article without any scientific references and with the used of the "fad diet" term based on no more than the stated incredulity of the less than completely informed author is "the relevant article" to Zarlan? 146.90.22.136 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That article was the relevant one, in that it was the one that was referred to!

Also, why is a scientific reference necessary for the use of the term "fad diet"?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What is important in an encyclopedia is that only objective facts are presented as objective facts. The use of the term in the older, non-specific NHS Choice article is an opinion (explicitly so, because it bases the terminology on the diet being "far-fetched" - an expression of lack of belief, not knowledge - rather than on any evidence it is ineffective or unhealthy). We can be sure of this, because it fails to meet even the dictionary definition you yourself included here. Are you aware of the difference between an objective fact and an opinion?

Note that opinions can be included in Wikipedia articles even when they are wrong, but they should not be presented as if they were objective facts. Hence an edit needs to be made. (Incidentally, do you really think there is the slightest chance that a diet that reduces weekly calorie intake by a few thousand calories could fail to result in a modest rate of weight loss? The only way a calorie restriction diet can fail is when someone lacks the will-power to stick to it) 146.90.22.136 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Why's this so important? "Fad" or "novelty" is fine and not contested by any RS that I can see. The advantage of "fad" is we can wikilink it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is crucially important, because the older article is more poorly informed than the more recent one. In addition, as an unsubstantiated pejorative (by the author of the older webpage, who does not demonstrate comprehensive knowledge) it can only be justifiably included in a Wikipedia article explicitly as an opinion (eg: So-and-so described the diet as a "fad" and expressed incredulity about it, but scientific research showed it to be effective). The pejorative introduction to the Wikipedia article is clearly the result of opinionated editors cherry picking and quote mining to support their own bias. It is essential for Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopaedia rather than a tabloid newspaper that the reference to the scientific facts gets returned to the introduction again, and that the term "fad diet" be replaced by "popular diet" or a similar neutral term. If you disagree, please explain any objective meaning of the word "fad" except for "popular" and whether this objective meaning is anything but an anonymous opinion. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"because the older article is more poorly informed than the more recent one"

In your opinion. You have no basis for that opinion, however. What is valid to include in Wikipedia, isn't decided by your opinion. It's based on what the Reliable Sources say.

"by the author of the older webpage, who does not demonstrate comprehensive knowledge"

That is neither substantiated (by anything other than your opinion), nor relevant. It is no more than a mere personal attack. I would like to point out that one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (the most central policies) is Civility.

"described the diet as a "fad" "

No one has described it as a "fad", but as a "fad diet". As I've mentioned in this talk page, many times before, a "fad diet" doesn't have to be a "fad". (see Fad diet#Fad diets)

"The pejorative introduction to the Wikipedia article is clearly the result of opinionated editors cherry picking and quote mining to support their own bias."

Cherry picking? Quote mining? How so? If you are going to make such accusations, you need to back it up. Show how quotes are taken out of context, and how there are more sources that state something else. Otherwise, you are simply being rude and insulting ...which isn't really allowed, on Wikipedia. (you won't be considered to have been unduly rude, just because you can't make your case, though. As long as you actually try to make your case)

"and that the term "fad diet" be replaced by "popular diet" or a similar neutral term."

"Fad diet" and "popular diet" are two completely different terms, with completely different meanings. Thus you cannot replace one with the other.

"If you disagree, please explain any objective meaning of the word "fad" except for "popular" and whether this objective meaning is anything but an anonymous opinion."

The meaning of "fad" is irrelevant, as that term is not used in the article, nor does anyone argue that it should. As I've said, "fad diet" is a completely different term. As to what fad diet means, you could check fad diet, or...

"fad di·et (fad dī'ĕt)

A nutritional regimen, generally of an extreme nature, intended to produce results more quickly than a ::traditional diet-exercise combination; often of a dubious nature.

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not just in my opinion. It is because the second article is more recent and refers to 6 pieces of research that support the use of intermediate fasting protocols, especially those similar to the 5:2 diet. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not. I've checked all of those pieces of research, and they don't support any of your claims.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it is based on the statements of the person who wrote it, who merely expressed unfounded incredulity, and referred to references to research relevant to the diet. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? None of that makes it not be irrelevant or needlessly rude and not in keeping with Wikipedia principles.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. The cherry picking and quote mining are of a particularly blatant nature, since you revealed your personal strong bias when you when on that basis you took the position that only the older article (containing a single offhand mention of the diet) was more relevant that a more recent article entirely about the diet on the same website. Any good Wikipedia editor (rather than someone with a bias) would recognise that the more recent, enormously more informative, more specific article was more relevant. The reason you do not is because it does not provide good support for your personal bias. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept that as an attempt at showing that I am cherry picking. The article you like to refer to, doesn't actually support anything you are claiming, however, and what it does say is fairly irrelevant and insignificant, and including it would thus constitute WP:Undue weight.

...but you haven't made anything close to an attempt to show that I've done any quote mining.

As to having a bias... well you try to make a case, but it's pure speculation based on very flimsy evidence, so...

Oh and also: Don't ever put your comments in the middle of someone else's.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making the case to remove this term. The 5:2 diet is not claimed by anyone to produce very rapid weight loss. Typical results appear to be about one pound of weight loss per week, decreasing over time as someone loses weight in the same way as any healthy dieting regime. This is of course very much what would be expected from the calorie reductions on the two diet days. Now read the quote above again and explain you are so keen to include a factually incorrect term in the article. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 5:2 diet is not claimed by anyone to produce very rapid weight loss."

That is pure nonsense. Just about anyone (who is positive towards the 5:2 diet ...including you, with that comment, quite frankly), makes that claim ...and that's also not the only, or a necessary, criteria for a fad diet.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You have a remarkable degree of arrogance to tell me (incorrectly) what I have claimed. I have consistently stated a rough figure of a pound a week weight loss, which is about the amount corresponding to the calorie reduction on the two "fast" days. Since there is no restriction on calories on other days, it doesn't take much intelligence to realise enormous weight loss isn't going to happen. Anyone who lost 2 pounds would obviously have to have a deficit on the other five days. Bottom line, the facts contradict your own choice of definition of "fad diet". Many people are aware that because of the body's response, weight loss from any reasonable diet flattens off after a while, as well, and this type is surely no exception. Frankly, it looks pig-headed to be so attached to the glibly used term "fad diet" to not really care about the definition. It's not an objective term, and is sloppy to use. Just out of interest, are you overweight, and keen to rationalise your own fear of the idea of briefly fasting? 146.90.22.136 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"You have a remarkable degree of arrogance to tell me (incorrectly) what I have claimed"

Do you mean to say that you didn't write that the 5:2 diet results in one pound of weight loss per week? I'm no expert on weight loss, but isn't that fairly quick?

"Bottom line, the facts contradict your own choice of definition of "fad diet"."

How so? Please go back and read what fad diet says.

The 5:2 diet has no scientific evidence, it is not open to revisions, observations that prompt explanations are used as evidence of the validity of the explanation

...and it certainly qualifies as a diet that "do not follow common nutritional guidelines".

In what possible way does it not qualify as a fad diet?

"Frankly, it looks pig-headed to be so attached to the glibly used term "fad diet" to not really care about the definition."

You are not really allowed to just fling insults at people (please see WP:Civility) ...and your talk of the glibness of the term "fad diet" is nothing more than your personal opinion.

An opinion that I utterly disagree with. It is not glib, it's just a term for popularized pseudo-scientific diets. It is no more glib a term, than similar terms like pseudo-science, unscientific or subjective.

"Just out of interest, are you overweight, and keen to rationalise your own fear of the idea of briefly fasting?"

...

And you accuse me of arrogance?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"The advantage of "fad" is we can wikilink it."

"Fad" and "fad diet" are two completely separate concepts. To link to fad, makes no sense, whatsoever ...and to imply that you can't wikilink to fad diet, when the article clearly does so, seems rather nonsensical. How is it difficult, or impossible, to wikilink to fad diet?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Both are inappropriate for objective reasons based on their definitions. To be honest, I don't see value in the inclusion of such unscientific and vague terms as "fad diet" in Wikipedia, but the point here is that a diet which involves healthy, modest reduction in calorie intake and a body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating excellent health benefits is in no sense a fad diet. It is unfortunate that the editors of NHS Choice have slipped short of the sort of standards that would be demanded of scientific publications in applying this term to something based on a personal opinion (it can hardly be anything else). But there is no need for Wikipedia to make the same mistake, and you are damaging its integrity by your crusade to do so. 146.90.22.136 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Both are inappropriate for objective reasons based on their definitions."

How so?

"To be honest, I don't see value in the inclusion of such unscientific and vague terms as "fad diet" in Wikipedia"

Most words in Wikipedia are not scientific. Aside from "scientific", there isn't a single word in this reply, that is scientific. (well if you count the whole comment, there is also "evidence" below, but aside from that, not a single word is scientific)

"the point here is that a diet which involves healthy, modest reduction in calorie intake and a body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating excellent health benefits is in no sense a fad diet."

I agree!

Thing is, there is no scientific evidence that the 5:2 diet does any of that (other than in the very short term, but that is generally true of pretty much any and all fad diets, so that's completely irrelevant).

Zero.

None whatsoever.

Anywhere.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you are well-meaning (even though it has led to ego-related issues), but the problem is that you are not very good at objectively weighing scientific information. You are fixated on quoting a glib opinion. The fact is that you won't find any evidence out there that it is not effective, sustainable and healthy. The reason is that in reality, it is all three. This is hardly surprising, since fundamentally all it is is a moderate reduction in calorie intake, concentrated on two days of the week. I can understand why people generally find this easier to maintain than monotonous calorie reduction each day. While I can understand that an uninformed person might hypothesise that people would find it difficult to restrict calories a lot on a single day, an objective person can easily determine that it is not: most people don't find it very difficult (google it).

Perhaps your knowledge of human physiology doesn't extend to the fact that human beings don't drop dead (or indeed suffer any harm) if they don't get three big meals every day. However, to think that temporary restriction of calories is something beyond the capabilities of the average human being would be a severe barrier to your understanding: this is more the irrational fear of "food addict".

Let's try to concentrate on what we agree on. Firstly, you say you are no expert on dieting. Nor am I (although it appears I understand more than you) but I do have two excellent degrees from the top scientific university in the country, 14 years of experience of scientific research mainly for UK and EU government clients and, with all due humility, very strong ability to weigh objective evidence). You, by contrast, seem way too fixated on a very weakly supported pejorative by the anonymous author of an article with no scientific references which fails to fully meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (it relies solely on its URL). This statement is a quoted opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact, and must be identified as such. This blinkered viewpoint is what causes you to say "Do you mean to say that you didn't write that the 5:2 diet results in one pound of weight loss per week? I'm no expert on weight loss, but isn't that fairly quick?". Frankly, I am surprised how you can combine such a lack of knowledge with your obstinacy in editing: don't you see the problem there? The fact is that around a pound a week is considered a modest rate of loss by every reputable source I can find. For example, see practical advice by the NHS at http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss-guide/Pages/losing-weight-getting-started.aspx which involves a similar amount of calorie reduction to the 5:2 diet on a weekly basis, and is likely to result in approximately a pound a week weight loss.

By contrast with subjective opinions, here are the results - hard facts, not an opinion - of one of the pieces of research specifically on the 5:2 protocol referred to by the better informed, more specialized article on the NHS choices website (IER refers to the 5:2 protocol, CER refers to a comparable modest constant calorie reduction). Read this list carefully and try to understand the difference in nature between this and your favourite opinion:

• IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss
• Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2.
• Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than CER

This is one of the reasons I am justified in saying intermittent dieting is somewhat better than constant calorie reduction, health-wise: the superior improvement of insulin metabolism. This is just what I would have hypothesised based on my own knowledge. You do understand this is better, right? If not, why are you arguing with someone who does understand this? You even explicitly agreed with my statement "the point here is that a diet which involves healthy, modest reduction in calorie intake and a body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating excellent health benefits is in no sense a fad diet." above, but you seem to not understand research such as the above that justifies it.

Sorry to be blunt, but it is no good you saying you read the research and that these results (and other similar positive ones) weren't there: they are. 84.93.58.41 (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"I am sure you are well-meaning (even though it has led to ego-related issues)"

How can being well-meaning lead to ego-related issues? Also: What ego-related issues? ...and unless they are ego-related issues of your own, then you are making baseless assumptions about others, which Wikipedia is pretty clear that you aren't supposed to do, as that is very detrimental to proper dialogue.

"but the problem is that you are not very good at objectively weighing scientific information."

Oh really?

"You are fixated on quoting a glib opinion"

Glib? On what grounds would you say that it is glib?

"The fact is that you won't find any evidence out there that it is not effective, sustainable and healthy."

You are shifting the burden of evidence. You cannot claim that the diet works, or that it is safe, unless you have evidence.

You can't just claim that it does work, and is safe, until that is disproven. It doesn't work that way. You claim that you have a couple of degrees, and if you do, then you should already know this.

"There are reasons why this is so: the truth is (based on a combination of the published scientific evidence, the simple nutritional facts, and examining as many of the experiences of subjects as possible that (1) the 5:2 diet works (2) it works in the long term (3) it makes people more healthy."

That makes no grammatical sense, but I guess you mean that published scientific evidence states that it works, both in the short and long term, and that it is healthy.

This is simply not true. There are no studies that support that.

If there are, please show them ...and show where it says that they are long-term studies ...and that they are studies about the 5:2 diet, and not just any diet that has some intermittent fasting element to it.

"Perhaps your knowledge of human physiology doesn't extend to the fact that human beings don't drop dead (or indeed suffer any harm) if they don't get three big meals every day."

You may want to read Wikipedia:Don't be rude.

"However, to not be aware that fasting for a day (as opposed to heavily restricted calorie intake) is not a problem for any person is a severe barrier to your understanding."

People can survive fasting, without any serious health issues. That is not the same as that fasting "not being a problem", or "not being detrimental to their health".

"but I do have two excellent degrees from the top scientific university in the country"

So what?

"with all due humility, very strong ability to weigh objective evidence."

...according to your own, personal and very biased, opinion.

"You, by contrast, seem way too fixated on a very weakly supported pejorative by the anonymous author of an article with no scientific references which fails to fully meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (it relies solely on its URL)."

1. It's not a pejorative.

2. The article is no of the kind that needs scientific references.

3. It's the NHS!

4. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's criteria for WP:Reliable Sources (WP:notability isn't relevant here, nor is the related issue of W:Undue weight)

"This statement is a quoted opinion, not an objectively verifiable fact"

Yes it is.

According to the definition of what a fad diet is, the 5:2 diet is, very clearly, a fad diet. In fact, it's a logical truth. It is true by definition. It can be stated as objectively and absolutely true.

"This blinkered viewpoint"

I would like to point out that one of the policies, indeed one of the WP:Five pillars, of Wikipedia is WP:Civility. You are certainly not following it. Your comments are filled with insults, assumptions of incompetence and loads of condescension.

"The fact is that around a pound a week is considered a modest rate of loss by every reputable source I can find. For example, see practical advice by the NHS at http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss-guide/Pages/losing-weight-getting-started.aspx which involves a similar amount of calorie reduction to the 5:2 diet on a weekly basis, and is likely to result in approximately a pound a week weight loss."

Maybe so (I can't be bothered to look it up), but that doesn't really matter anyway. The 5:2 diet still qualifies as a fad diet, either way.

"By contrast, here are the results - hard facts, not an opinion - of one of the pieces of research specifically on the 5:2 protocol referred to by the better informed, more specialized article on the NHS Choice website (IER refers to the 5:2 protocol, CER refers to a comparable modest constant calorie reduction)."

You're quote mining/cherry-picking. The study was short-term.

Also it didn't involve the 5:2 diet!!!

"This is just what I would have hypothesised based on my own knowledge. "

I.e. it is WP:Original research ...and thus forbidden on Wikipedia.

"Sorry to be blunt, but it is no good you saying you read the research and that these results (and other similar positive ones) weren't there: they are."

In small, short-term studies. That doesn't count.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal this morning

I removed the "fad" tag this morning before realising there was this thread. TBH I didn't bother to read it, a wall of text going back over such a minor point leaves me cold, but defining something negatively in the opening sentence of an article is just poor practice. It's a diet: good, bad, fad, popular, blah, blah, blah: it's a diet. Keep it clean, simple and neutral in the opening lines of an article and then raise the question of it being a fad later. I had a skim through several other diets (some currently popular, some long forgotten, some which could be decsribed as "fad", such as Atkins): all begin in a neutral manner and then deal with criticism later in the article. I strongly advise this also stays neutral in the opening sentance then deals with the criticism later: it's extremely poor Wiki-practice to try and do it the other way round. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The 5:2 diet is a fad diet. To describe it as such is perfectly valid ...and saying "but that other Wikipedia article doesn't do it like that" is not a valid argument.

Also, you talk of being neutral, but... There is such a thing as false balance (see also the article on the false compromise fallacy). Intelligent design states that the notion is pseudoscience in it's first sentence. There is nothing wrong with that. Trying to say that saying that is "not being neutral", is not really a valid argument ...nor is it valid to say that stating the 5:2 diet as being a fad diet, is not being neutral. It is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies, including the Neutral Point of View policy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's "a diet". Calling it a "fad diet" is the POV of some of the sources, not all of them, and it is therefore a very poor way to open the article. Not all the sources call the diet a "fad", and some of the sources are supportive of it and would reject the notion of it being labelled as such. It is therefore the most neutral approach that needs to take precedence here, thus "is a diet" is quite correct for the opening line. The opinions about it being a fad need to be included in the article, but not in a neutrally-constructed opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Zarlan, Just edit warring to force your own version back on is not helpful. There have been a lot of people who have changed away from your version to a more neutral one, so perhaps you should think if they may all have a point? - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As you seem unable to accept any advice but your WP:OWN POV, I'm going to open an RfC on this. Your approach to this matter is belligerent and disruptive at best. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling it a fad diet is not POV in any way. According to the definition of fad diet, 5:2 is a fad diet.

"Not all the sources call the diet a "fad""

That's beside the point. I haven't claimed that it is a fad. I'm saying its a fad diet. "Fad diet" and "fad" are not synonymous.

Sure, some sources don't use the term "fad diet" ...but that doesn't mean that they don't consider it to be one. Just that they didn't use that specific term. The supportive sources are generally 5:2 diet advocates and people who sell books about the 5:2 diet. Scientists and scientific organizations, on the other hand...

"I'm going to open an RfC on this."

Be my guest. This issue has been up in a WP:DRN before, as well. The person who argued against me didn't have a leg to stand on, and that was acknowledged in the DRN.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously calling it a fad is inappropriately POV. I think we should look closely at the definition of Food faddism. It's unkind. Obviously the authors of the books (amongst researchers, see the work of Mark Mattson for instance) do not think fasting is a fad. makeswell (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a box that says "There is a consensus that including "is a fad diet" in the lead section is not a sufficiently neutral way to introduce the topic. There is support, within the scope of this consensus, for a rewording of the opening lines similar to that suggested by User:JonRichfield, but not for the precise wording". Is this just being ignored? It seems the argument has gone on a while, with no resolution. The point is that "fad" is generally seen as a negative term, as is "fad diet", which doesn't have any special distinction from "fad". Even if people might argue that the term is neutral, it would surely be better to use a term that is generally agreed to be neutral, rather than insisting on the controversial wording, for which there seems to be no benefit in using. Plus it can still say that such and such an organisation labels it as a fad diet. Bejjer (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Re-insertion of "fad" on line 1

@Alexbrn: On 22 March you changed the first phrase from "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is a diet which…" to "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is a fad diet which…". The inclusion or exclusion the word "fad", is clearly controversial, as shown by the lengthy debate on this topic in this discussion section plus the related sections here and here, which resolved itself by leaving the word out. I therefore question if the word should have been re-inserted without any accompanying explanation on this talk page, i.e. providing a fuller justification, and seeking a consensus.

Your edit summary says this is for "neutral point of view" (NPOV) reasons. But the objectivity and neutrality required by NPOV were not served by making such a contentious edit in a way that could be construed as deliberately unobtrusive. The best way forward from here is to reopen the discussion here, with an open mind to reverting the recent change.

My own view: After the long debate (mainly in 2014) on whether the diet is a fad or not, there has been no change in the (lack of) scientific evidence one way or the other. There are still no secondary sources to cite in the "Evidence" section. The NHS choices article has nothing truly damming to say about the 5:2 diet, saying that it might be difficult to keep up long term, and that (as we all know here) evidence for its claims is lacking. They discuss the 5:2 diet under the fad-diet heading, but to me 5:2 is not like the two other diets described in that section (one based on eating a single food or meal, the other based on cutting out foods based on a person's blood type). More objectively, the NHS article does not justify how intermittent fasting is a fad, while continuous methods of caloric reduction are acceptable.

Given the absence of change in the science, I cannot see any justification for changing the first line.

Can you expand on the basis for your edit? Timlev37 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NHS is a mainstream WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and of course recognizes that the 5:2 is a classic "fad diet" (or as has been said elsewhere, "to describe the 5:2 diet as the fad de jour would be an understatement".[2]); we follow RS such as the NHS since WP is an encyclopedia written from a mainstream POV. I note the word "fad" has been removed completely from the lede now, which is a bit naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NHS quotes one dietician (Ursula Arens), and it relies heavily on the British Dietetic Association as a source. The BDA may be an unbiased source, though I doubt they have access to research data that we do not have. Their list of ways to spot a fad diet has 16 entries. The 5:2 diet does not match any of the major entries on this list, not even "offer[s] no supporting evidence apart from a celebrity with personal success story to tell" because there have been studies to test the intermittent fasting hypothesis, albeit these studies are underpowered and inconclusive. The Telegraph article you cite is one person's report. Long-term caloric restriction is part of the answer to obesity, and it cannot yet be said if 5:2 is less efficient than continuous lower level restriction. Timlev37 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: What should the opening line be?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the opening line of this article be the neutral "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is a diet", or should it be the more contentious, non-neutral "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is a fad diet". Although there is no disagreement that there are reliable sources which describe the diet as being a "fad" (and this should be made clear elsewhere in the article), it's inclusion in the opening line is under question here. Comments are invited from all parties. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fad" and "fad diet" are two different things.

According to the definition of what "fad diet" is, the 5:2 diet is clearly a "fad diet" ...and there are Reliable Sources that verify that it is a "fad diet" (but not that it is a "fad"!).

There is nothing NPOV about calling it thus. No more than saying that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, in the first sentence of the article. To claim that it is not neutral, is to advocate for a False balance.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, for those who may be interested: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 85#5:2 diet.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the opening should be neutral ("diet" or "fast diet"). The debate / discussion of whether it is a fad diet, including relevant sources, can be included in a relevant section. The opening should be neutral, as per wikipedia policy. Any argument against is pretty weak, because the preferable version ("diet" or "fast diet") is noncommittal - it could still be a "fad diet" (which is discussed in the article) or indeed a "well established" diet (i.e., not fading away after temporary popularity, which naturally cannot be said - because it has not faded away! - I remember someone arguing that Islam traditions include something similar in fact, which is hardly a 'fad diet'). Anyway, it's contentious, so keep it in the main text. Freeranging intellect (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly the opening should be neutral ("diet" or "fast diet")."

There is nothing non-neutral about calling it a "fad diet". It's no different from Mount Fuji stating that it's a mountain, Giant panda stating that it's a bear, or Intelligent design stating that it is pseudoscience.

It's simply an accurate statement of what it is.

"The debate / discussion of whether it is a fad diet, including relevant sources, can be included in a relevant section."

What debate? There is no such thing.

"/.../the preferable version ("diet" or "fast diet") is noncommittal - it could still be a "fad diet" (which is discussed in the article) or indeed a "well established" diet (i.e., not fading away after temporary popularity, which naturally cannot be said - because it has not faded away!"

As I have pointed out several times here, and as I've pointed out to you many times even before this current discussion:

A fad diet doesn't have to be a fad. The Atkins diet is well established and not a fad ...yet it is a clear example of a fad diet.

"I remember someone arguing that Islam traditions include something similar in fact"

It isn't really similar at all.

"which is hardly a 'fad diet')."

As it doesn't claim to be scientific, nor to be healthy or good for weight loss... True. The fasting in Islam cannot be called a fad diet.

...but none of those reasons apply to the 5:2 diet.

"If you look at the wikipedia entry for Fad diet, you'll see that it also needs to "enjoy temporary popularity"."

No it does not.

Nowhere in fad diet does it state that a fad diet needs to "enjoy temporary popularity".

I challenge you to find even a single sentence in that article, which does so (without editing it to create one. It's in my watchlist, BTW)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, challenge accepted. Read the VERY FIRST sentence. Here it is to make it easier for you: "The phrases food faddism and fad diet originally referred to idiosyncratic diets and eating patterns that promote short-term weight loss, usually with no concern for long-term weight maintenance, and enjoy temporary popularity"

See those last four words - there you go. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the implication of a few words there:

"The phrases food faddism and fad diet originally referred to idiosyncratic diets and eating patterns that promote short-term weight loss, usually with no concern for long-term weight maintenance, and enjoy temporary popularity"

Thus you fail to meet the challenge.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. And where is the 'current' definition that says temporally popularity isn't required? It's not there. Only in your mind. Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Zarlan - I note with interest that (to replicate your own incorrect and deliberately inflammatory use of 'refuse' elsewhere in this talk page), you refuse to answer my question here. Oh, and don't even bother with your typical tactic to break down and focus on my use of the word 'inflammatory', which I can see coming a mile off. I just don't care enough. Freeranging intellect (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I refuse. I've just gotten tired of doing it over and over again.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, actually you have never been able to answer this request. It's interesting how you suddenly 'get tired' when you can't answer something. 76.118.197.26 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: Am I right in thinking that the reason why some sources call it a 'fad diet' is that there isn't much evidence for its effectiveness? Are there other reasons why it gets called a 'fad diet'? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the wikipedia entry for Fad diet, you'll see that it also needs to "enjoy temporary popularity". (The 5:2 diet's popularity has not declined, so is not, by definition, a 'fad diet'). Freeranging intellect (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Am I right in thinking that the reason why some sources call it a 'fad diet' is that there isn't much evidence for its effectiveness? Are there other reasons why it gets called a 'fad diet'?"

The fact that it claims to have scientific backing, despite not having any evidence that either doesn't really support it and/or doesn't follow the Scientific Method, the fact that it gets a sudden gain in popularity...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Over at WP:FTN, Bhny has kindly drawn attention to these definitions from medical dictionaries:

fad diet

Any of a number of weight-reduction diets that either eliminate one or more of the essential food groups, or recommend consumption of one type of food in excess at the expense of other foods. Fad diets rarely follow sound nutritional principles for weight loss, which focus on ingesting fewer calories and/or consuming more energy through exercise; fad diets are generally not endorsed by the medical profession.

Segen's Medical Dictionary.

fad diet

Popular nutrition Any of a number of weight-reduction diets that either eliminate one or more of the essential food groups, or recommend consumption of one type of food in excess at the expense of other foods; FDs rarely follow modern principles for losing weight. See Diet.

McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.

fad di·et (fad dī'ĕt)

A nutritional regimen, generally of an extreme nature, intended to produce results more quickly than a traditional diet-exercise combination; often of a dubious nature.

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see from the diet, there is no such recommendation to remove any food group or type from one's diet. There is a calory reduction on two of the days (down to 600 calories). - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"From what I can see from the diet, there is no such recommendation to remove any food group or type from one's diet."

The stated definitions are merely general guidelines of how fad diets generally look. They are short dictionary definitions, not a proper overview of the exact nature of the concept.

This is also a reason why dictionaries generally don't count as Reliable Sources.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

...and also, the last one does fit.

"A nutritional regimen, generally of an extreme nature, intended to produce results more quickly than a traditional diet-exercise combination; often of a dubious nature."

I'd say that describes the 5:2 diet, rather well.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So you say dictionaries don't count as sources, but want to rely in the third one as justifying inclusion? I hope the irony isn't lost on you! Just to clarify a misconception you may have: dictionaries can be reliable sources, but they have to be treated carefully: in other words, a blanket and blunt "don't count" is misleading. As to your description of the 5:2 diet in fitting the third definition, I'm not entirely sure you're describing the diet fully or properly. It is not "extreme"' and AFAIK it doesn't claim to give a faster weight loss than other diets. In other words, that's your POV talking. As with all this, we are talking about the use of the term in the opening line, not trying to exclude it from the article altogether, and I suggest there is enough doubt in the exactness of the use here that we should not be relying on it as one of the main descriptors. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"So you say dictionaries don't count as sources, but want to rely in the third one as justifying inclusion?"

No.

Your misunderstanding is understandable, but I merely pointed out that the third one does cover the 5:2 diet. Never did I argue, or even imply, that it should be used to support that it is a fad diet.

I was pointing out yet another flaw in your argument (i.e. that it doesn't even work to support the claim that the 5:2 diet isn't a fad diet, even if I were to accept your argument as valid), rather than trying to strengthen my own.

"dictionaries can be reliable sources"

...in other circumstances/contexts.

Not this one.

Please read WP:DICTIONARIES.

"I'm not entirely sure you're describing the diet fully or properly"

How so?

"It is not "extreme"'"

Fasting (though the actual practice doesn't really warrant the word, IMO, as I think "fasting" means no consumption) isn't extreme? How so?

"and AFAIK it doesn't claim to give a faster weight loss than other diets."

It clearly does. Pretty much all pro-5:2 diet sources do claim it.

"we are talking about the use of the term in the opening line, not trying to exclude it from the article altogether"

On what grounds? ...and in what possible way, is that not a double standard?

"I suggest there is enough doubt in the exactness of the use here that we should not be relying on it as one of the main descriptors."

Doubt among who?

Some of the Wikipedia editors present? That doesn't count. Many 5:2 diet proponents? That doesn't count. Many laymen? That doesn't count.

Doubt among who?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say something very similar: when it suits his/her arguments, Zarlan becomes obsessive about dictionary definitions. But when it does not, suddenly dictionary definitions are "merely general guidelines". Hilarious. The sad thing is that I don't think Zarlan even sees his/her inconsistencies Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"when it suits his/her arguments, Zarlan becomes obsessive about dictionary definitions"

I challenge you to give a single example of that being the case.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the arguments against the 5:2 diet being a fad diet, are essentially either that it isn't a fad (which is a failure to understand what "fad diet" means), or trying to claim that there is evidence for it (beyond the short term, that is, as pretty much all fad diets have positive short term results) ...which always fails, as there is no such evidence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't ever try and double guess what other people are trying to say: you have misrepresented certainly my position. You are clutching at straws in some of your arguments, which really are deeply flawed. When I can summon the energy to go through what you've misrepresented line by line and point out the inaccuracies, misrepresentation and drivel, I'll do so, but your intransigence on is deeply depressing to have to deal with. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Where in that comment did I state anything that could in any way be construed as double guessing what others try to say?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"your intransigence"

That is a genuine example of double guessing things about others.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

bollocks: your entire post is a double guess misrepresentation. "As I see it," That's always a red flag of someone about to 'summarise' a line of thought. You then go on to... summarise the arguments of others! If you can't even be honest about something as basic as this, then there is going to be a problem in communication going forward on this. You can "WTF" and feign surprise as much as you like, but don't try and play silly buggers with me, it just won't wash. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

""As I see it," That's always a red flag of someone about to 'summarise' a line of thought."

I was clearly giving my impression of the situation. If I am wrong about any of it, please demonstrate how this is the case, rather than just calling it bollocks.

"You then go on to... summarise the arguments of others!"

...which is exactly what I had stated that I would do, by saying "As I see it".

"If you can't even be honest about something as basic as this"

...

I say that I'll give my impression of what has been said, and proceed by giving my impression of what has been said.

How is any of that dishonest? I am completely unable to understanding what you mean.

Please explain.

Just being rude about it doesn't make your argument any more valid. A mere accusation doesn't get you anywhere. You need to actually back up your accusations.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to demonstrate any further. I have done so. If you can't be bothered to accept it, then it says more about you than me, despite your bizarre discussion practice,of creating walls of text by breaking arguments down into,sections. And don't try and lecture me on civility: I have done nothing to justify it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"There is no need to demonstrate any further. I have done so."

No, you clearly have not. Just claiming that you have, is not an argument.

"despite your bizarre discussion practice,of creating walls of text by breaking arguments down into,sections."

I fail to see how "standard practice" qualifies as bizarre.

"And don't try and lecture me on civility: I have done nothing to justify it."

...

1. At 13:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC) you said claimed that I was unable to accept any advice outside of my personal POV (without any clear evidence) and that my approach is "belligerent and disruptive at best"

2. At 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC) you say I am "cluthing at straws" and go on about why the reason you don't actually point out my errors, as you see them, because my "intransigence on is deeply depressing to have to deal with."

3. At 22:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) You accuse me of dishonesty, that I feign surprise (i.e. lie) and state "don't try and play silly buggers with me"

4. At 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC) you accuse me of relying on "bludgeoning people" with proof by verbosity (Proof by intimidation) ...and saying "The wall-of-text merchant" is what is know as name-calling, if I'm not mistaken.

5. ...and now you simply dismiss what I say, out of hand and simply state that you're right, because you are.

I'd say that is a repeated pattern of WP:Incivility, assumptions of bad faith (WP:ASSUME) and WP:personal attacks.

You have done plenty.

...except for actually addressing my arguments, that is.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that when something is shown to you, you just deny it, regardless of what the situation is. The intransigence really is depressing. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Show me a single example of me having done so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...is a fad diet (Uninvolved editor here) If there are multiple WP:RS that explicitly describe it as a "fad diet", and there are no WP:RS that state it is not a fad diet, then the diet should be described as a fad diet. "Fad diets" are, like "pseudoscience", a fuzzy category where the dictionary definitions must be weighed against closeness to various exemplars; the job of making such difficult and subjective judgements belongs to the WP:RS, not to us, and they seem to have weighed in as labeling it a fad diet. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: no-one has said that we should not refer to the term in the article: this is about how to describe it in the opening line. The wall-of-text merchant whose arguments rely on bludgeoning people to the point of distracted numbness by weight of words (rather than strength of argument) considers it should be in the opening line. Others think it should also be in the lead, but not in the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat (talk) I'm fine with just "Some experts consider it a fad diet" or "Some experts believe it unsafe or impractical" prominently in the lead, if someone is making that as an alternate proposal. The current lede is too weak given that the mainstream press coverage seems to be skeptical. "Its critics consider it a fad diet" would also be too weak in tone for the lede; it's axiomatic that "its critics" would be critical. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: I'm slightly confused here. We are talking about the very opening line (as opposed to any other line in the lead, or elsewhere), which states what the 5:2 diet actually is. The RfC is only about the opening line, not what follows (even in the next line) Do you want to open the article with "Some experts consider it a fad diet" as that opening line, or are you happy that this goes.to be a second line, after the line that currently opens the article? - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat No, I obviously don't want "Some experts consider it a fad diet" as the opening line since that would make no sense. What I'm trying to say is, with the article as it is, I'm advocating "The 5:2 diet... is a fad diet" as the opening line. Since I have currently have no personal knowledge whether "Some experts consider it a fad diet" would be accepted by the page editors (including you) as the second sentence, I can't unconditionally advocate that the first line remain as-is. I'm merely pointing out that if the second sentence were "Some experts consider it a fad diet", I would be fine with "The 5:2 diet... is a diet which..." Does that clarify my position? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. In that case, your suggestion fails NPOV. 1) Not all the academic/scientific sources agree on whether this is a fad diet or not; and 2) What is a fad diet? Can you point me to a single, agreeable definition that the scientific community are happy to work with? ZtG has provided us with definitions from English language dictionaries which differ considerably (to the extent that the 5:2 diet doesn't qualify as a fad diet). Some academic sources, for example are so vague to be useless (such as Princeton's definition). - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get where you're going with (2); there's no single, agreeable definition for pseudoscience either. But (1) sounds more promising: "Not all the academic/scientific sources agree on whether this is a fad diet or not". Can you point me to the sources backing up that assertion, or would I need to read through the walls of text? Edit: never mind, I've said my piece; I'll let other editors weigh in. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not all the academic/scientific sources agree on whether this is a fad diet or not"

Show me a source that disagrees.

"What is a fad diet?"

Read fad diet ...and no, there is no firmly or formally established and precise definition, that is used in academia ...because it is not an academic term.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You really are the most awkward editor I have ever had the misfortune to come across. I have read fad diet. Apart from not relying on Wiki articles to provide evidence, there is no agreed definition present on the page, apart from Princeton's. Want to go with that? "not an academic term"? Stop being so bloody obtuse: I use the term in its usual setting, which includes the field of medical research, which is an academic field. THERE IS NO SINGLE, WORKABLE DEFINITION OF FAD DIET. I find it odd to label something in the opening line as being a "fad diet", when the main academic sources do not provide a good enough definition. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Apart from not relying on Wiki articles to provide evidence"

You cannot use a wiki article as a source for Wikipedia article, sure, but that is hardly relevant here, now is it?

"I use the term in its usual setting, which includes the field of medical research, which is an academic field."

How you can possibly believe that the usual setting for the term "fad diet" is in the field of medical research, I cannot possibly understand.

It is not.

The usual setting for the term "fad diet" is in news media, social media, popular science sources and the like. Not in research or in any other part of academia.

"THERE IS NO SINGLE, WORKABLE DEFINITION OF FAD DIET"

I don't think you understand what the term "workable" means.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be misleading. It would make it look like most experts think it's good, but some few experts disagree. It would be like saying "some experts consider Astrology to be pseudo-scientific". There are practically no experts that would claim that there is any long term evidence for the 5:2 diet. Whether or not they explicitly use the term "fad diet", is beside the point. Some sources call it a fad diet ...and there is no reliable academic/medical source, not a single one, that disagrees with that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@ZarlanTheGreen I agree that "some experts consider Astrology to be pseudo-scientific" would be too weak, but I perceive the scientific community's disdain for astrology to be much stronger than its disdain for the 5:2 diet. Nonetheless, it might be a moot (irrelevant) point if neither side is biting at the proposed compromise. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"but I perceive the scientific community's disdain for astrology to be much stronger than its disdain for the 5:2 diet"

True, but... There is no Reliable Source to back up the notion that the 5:2 diet is not considered a fad diet by the scientific community, but there are Sources to show that they do. Just because they don't feel as strongly about it as they do with astrology is beside the point.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not quite as concrete as you make out, I'm afraid. Actually as the book was written by a doctor, he is, in his own right, a medical source, and he cites a number of supporting academic sources (especially in the documentary that preceded the book) that agree with him. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Actually as the book was written by a doctor, he is, in his own right, a medical source"

No.

No it doesn't.

A scientific paper by a genuine scientist is not accepted as a Reliable Source, unless it is peer-reviewed ...and not always even that isn't enough. (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP)

It doesn't matter if the author has a degree or not.

Furthermore WP:MEDRS requires papers to be from reputable journals ...and books (be they academic or popular), naturally, have to be peer-reviewed.

The book is not peer-reviewed, nor is it accepted by any scientific institution. Thus it does not qualify under WP:RS, and certainly not under WP:MEDRS.

"and he cites a number of supporting academic sources"

None of which are long term, or establish that the 5:2 diet is good and safe, as he himself admits. I've seen the documentary. Though he is quite positive towards the diet, he is careful to state that there is no established evidence for the 5:2 diet's long term safety, healthiness or efficacy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"The wall-of-text merchant whose arguments rely on bludgeoning people to the point of distracted numbness by weight of words (rather than strength of argument) considers it should be in the opening line."

That is a WP:Personal attack and a clear violation of WP:Assume good faith.

It's also a dismissal of my words, for no good reason.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've described your ongoing bludgeoning of any and all arguments here by using walls of text: that's not a PA: it's a description of your battlefield approach to this thread. You are right that I have dismissed your arguments, but wrong that it is for no good reason: I do not find them convincing for the reasons that have been outlined both by me and Freeranging intellect. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"that's not a PA: it's a description of your battlefield approach to this thread."

You assume that I am not only intentionally verbose, but that it is for the purpose of bludgeoning. That is and assumption of bad faith, as well as a personal attack. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battlefield.

"You are right that I have dismissed your arguments, but wrong that it is for no good reason: I do not find them convincing for the reasons that have been outlined both by me and Freeranging intellect."

You would need to actually read the arguments, to know on what grounds you could possibly disagree with them.

Also, you say that you and Freeranging intellect have outlined your reasons, but... You have outlined your reasons for believing that the 5:2 diet shouldn't be called a fad diet, but you haven't actually addressed any of the flaws in those reasons, that I have pointed out, or the reasons I have outlined for why it is a fad diet and should be called that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your ongoing accusations against me are, I am sure, as tedious as mine are against you, especially when you are quoting to me the very thing I am accusing you of (battlefield mentality etc). I do, however, think you have lost subjectivity on this point, and seem determined, against the thoughts of others, to continue with the belligerent stance of insisting it's your way and no-one else's. We are talking about a neutral opening line (a single open, neutral descriptor). The third party opinion descriptors can go after that opening line. That's pretty common practice on Wiki (and policy, with NPOV), and I'm really not sure why you are insisting that your very POV is the determine factor in opening this article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your ongoing accusations against me are, I am sure, as tedious as mine are against you, especially when you are quoting to me the very thing I am accusing you of (battlefield mentality etc)."

I make no accusations for which there isn't clear evidence (and thus I do not go against Wikipedia policy) ...and often even admissions from you. You on the other hand, make accusations based on nothing other than assumptions.

"That's pretty common practice on Wiki"

Nope.

See Cabbage soup diet, Grapefruit diet, Israeli Army diet, Master Cleanse (doesn't mention the term fad diet, as such, but...), Morning banana diet... I could go on. Also: Intelligent design, Homeopathy, Flat Earth, Phrenology... Again I could make this a very long list.

"(and policy, with NPOV)"

To cite from WP:NPOV:

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Some Reliable Sources state that the 5:2 diet is a fad diet.

No Reliable Sources say otherwise.

Also please note WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" and WP:NPOV#Fringe theories and pseudoscience, which warn against causing a False balance.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You really are too tiresome to deal with: you are spouting absolutel nonsense here "Nope": that's just utter balls, I'm afraid, and your intransigence on even the most minor points is unlikely to lead to any happy consensus, or a compromise. I give up in trying to discuss things with you: a battlefield mentality, lack of flexibility and a propensity to batter everyone with your opinions, half-truths and misleading statements is enough for me. Well done: you have managed to bully an editor from a discussion with your approach. I will let you carry on and continue WP:OWNing your article. I hope you are happy with yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat - I'm sorry that Zarlan's had his usual (and no doubt intended) effect on you by his/her bullying. "' WP:OWNing your article."' describes Zarlan's approach perfectly. Both I and another Editor have previously asked Zarlan if they have a conflict (because of their desire to own this article). Zarlan refused to answer with typical levels of being obtuse. Zarlan was actually the first Editor I encountered on Wikipedia when I first joined. It's a miracle I'm still here frankly. Oh and Zarlan - I know that you're about to break this down into a wall of text. Do it if you like. I don't care. Freeranging intellect (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all points ...and the point about letting the Sources decide, rather than random Wikipedia editors, is pretty much the whole point of WP:V ("Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it") and WP:RS.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And yet, here are scientific (not pseudoscientific) studies with results supporting the 5:2 diet. But, even if you don't like the 5:2 diet, it is clearly under scientific studies with some positive findings:

- Harvie, M. N., Pegington, M., Mattson, M. P., Frystyk, J., Dillon, B., Evans, G., … Howell, A. (2011). The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 35(5), 714–727. doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.171

- Harvie, M., Wright, C., Pegington, M., McMullan, D., Mitchell, E., Martin, B., … Howell, A. (2013). The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women. The British Journal of Nutrition, 110(8), 1534–1547. doi:10.1017/S0007114513000792

- Liu, Y.-M., Lacorte, J.-M., Viguerie, N., Poitou, C., Pelloux, V., Guy-Grand, B., … Clément, K. (2003). Adiponectin gene expression in subcutaneous adipose tissue of obese women in response to short-term very low calorie diet and refeeding. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(12), 5881–5886. doi:10.1210/jc.2003-030886

- Logue, J., Allardice, G., Gillies, M., Forde, L., & Morrison, D. S. (2014). Outcomes of a specialist weight management programme in the UK National Health Service: prospective study of 1838 patients. BMJ Open, 4(1), e003747. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003747

- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-intermittent-fasting-might-help-you-live-longer-healthier-life/

Freeranging intellect (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women."

You mean this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

I do believe that you've proposed that study before ...and plenty of the rest of the ones you refer to, as well. I've already pointed out to you why these don't demonstrate the long-term effectiveness, safety or healthiness of the 5:2 diet, but...

"DESIGN: Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (? 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (? 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months."

As I've pointed out, short term results are irrelevant. There's hardly any fad diet that doesn't have that. It's the lack of confirmed long term results that are important, in determining if it is a fad diet or not.

"The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women."

Again you refuse to provide a link, so I have to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120

"Overweight women (n 115) aged 20 and 69 years with a family history of breast cancer were randomised to an overall 25 % energy restriction, either as an IECR (2500-2717 kJ/d, < 40 g carbohydrate/d for 2 d/week) or a 25 % DER (approximately 6000 kJ/d for 7 d/week) or an IECR+PF for a 3-month weight-loss period and 1 month of weight maintenance (IECR or IECR+PF for 1 d/week)./.../ In the short term, IECR is superior to DER with respect to improved insulin sensitivity and body fat reduction. Longer-term studies into the safety and effectiveness of IECR diets are warranted."

Again, it shows no long term results.

"Adiponectin gene expression in subcutaneous adipose tissue of obese women in response to short-term very low calorie diet and refeeding. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism"

Still no link...: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-030886

First of all, it even says short-term in the name of the study.

Also, it talks about a very low calorie diet, but I see no indications, anywhere, of it being for only two days a week (and no, the mentions of "2-d" is not an indication of "two days").

...and no indications of how long the study lasted.

"Subjects Fourteen unrelated Caucasian morbidly obese women"

That is a ridiculously low sample size. Also "Caucasian morbidly obese women" does not reflect the general population.

"Outcomes of a specialist weight management programme in the UK National Health Service: prospective study of 1838 patients."

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/1/e003747.full

...

That study has absolutely no connection to the 5:2 diet, or any other form of intermitten fasting, or diet that involves any form of fasting.

"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-intermittent-fasting-might-help-you-live-longer-healthier-life/"

In what possible way, could that be called a scientific study?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth and the content of the discussion above, there is no need for me to add any further comments. From what I have gathered, however, I vote no, keep the neutral phrase. --JustBerry (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? (pointing to arguments already made is acceptable)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get consensus to use criteria similar to [3]? If so, we can narrow the question down to "does 5:2 have a substantial following in the scientific community", and skip arguing about definitions or about whether the lede sentence should be polite or whether it should be maximally informative. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"polite or whether it should be maximally informative"? That is a total misrepresentation of the discussion here: I strongly suggest you strike that and ask again in neutral terms. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm misconstruing this enormously long discussion. What do you think about the criteria I'm proposing? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"If so, we can narrow the question down to "does 5:2 have a substantial following in the scientific community"

I see nothing like that in WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience, actually. Either way, there is no substantial agreement in the scientific community that the 5:2 diet is shown to be good, in the long term. Not even among the people who are positive towards the diet. There are some academic sources that refer to it as a fad diet and none that contest that, nor the notion that it has no demonstrated positive long term outcomes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." vs. "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." In which case, I'm asking whether we can all voluntarily agree, even though the guideline says "pseudoscience" and not "fad diet", to use the specific criterion "does 5:2 have a substantial following in the scientific community" (like psychotherapy, but unlike astrology) in deciding whether to place "fad diet" in the first sentence. This is a different criterion than "does it have demonstrated positive long term outcomes", which would also be a reasonable criterion, but not one directly backed (to my knowledge) by current Wikipedia policies. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"even though the guideline says "pseudoscience" and not "fad diet", to use the specific criterion "does 5:2 have a substantial following in the scientific community" (like psychotherapy, but unlike astrology) in deciding whether to place "fad diet" in the first sentence."

I see. Well in that case: No, not really.

There are some scientists who are hopeful and positive about the 5:2 diet ...but none who can actually point to any real evidence. Only hypothesizing and speculation. That might still count, but... They are far from substantial, as far as I can tell.

"This is a different criterion than "does it have demonstrated positive long term outcomes", which would also be a reasonable criterion, but not one directly backed (to my knowledge) by current Wikipedia policies."

That's because you are looking at general pseudoscience policy. That isn't quite right, in determining if a diet is a fad diet or not ...not that Wikipedia editors are supposed to determine such matters. That counts as Original Research.

The sources say that it's a fad diet (and not a single one disagrees). Thus it is a fad diet.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rolf, Part of the problem is that there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a "fad diet". General dictionaries can't agree and academic sources (as broadly constituted and agreed by normal people) can't agree either. If there's no definition of a fad diet, it's difficult to categorise it as a pseudoscience. (It's also a little difficult to opening the article by describing the diet as a "fad diet" if the reliable sources can't agree on the definition). - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no agreed definition of what exactly constitutes a "diet" either, or a "country", or a "science"; we rely on our WP:RS to categorize things, even when the WP:RS disagree about what exactly makes France a "country". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are definitions of "diet", "country" and "science": quite tight ones too, about which there is general agreement. Princeton have a broad definition of fad diet which does not come close to describing the 5:2 diet. If there is no agreement on something as fundamental as the label you wish to apply to the diet, then it should certainly not be one of the main, defining descriptions we use in the opening line. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, for example science: [4]. Anyway, you asked for comments; those were my comments. Maybe other RfC repliers will have better luck than me in fostering agreement; if not, you'll have to move on to the next stage of dispute resolution. I wish you all luck in sorting this out. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

For "country", I would advise you to take a look at this brief explanation about how that is an extremely disagreed upon and disputed term. As to science... Well there is quite strong disagreement about what "science" means in the scientific community! Outside of the scientific community the views of what the term means is even less agreed upon ...or understood.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Rolf H Nelson's suggestion: "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, described by some experts as a fad diet, involves severe calorie restriction ...". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support and comment.

Not personally concerned. Propose wording a little more definite, say:

"The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is based on intermittent fasting[2] for two non-consecutive days a week. The severe regimen, combined with extravagant claims that are not supported by the medical profession, nor by scientific evidence for its safety and effectiveness, characterise it as a fad diet.

The diet originated in the UK, and has spread to Europe and the USA.[1] JonRichfield (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support: I think a lot of arguing could have been avoided had alternates like this been suggested from the start. My only concern with Jon's version is the semicolon, which I think should be a period. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem; I had scribbled down the wording in a hurry; apologies. I have replaced the semicolon and done a bit of editing for smoother reading, but actually I am not much concerned with the details. Any improvements would be welcome. JonRichfield (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines seems sensible to me. I might rework it something like this:

"The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is based on intermittent fasting[2] for two non-consecutive days a week. Some experts characterise it as a fad diet, due to its severe regimen and to the lack of medical evidence to support claims for its safety and effectiveness"'.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't, in the least, share the opinion that the suggested phrasing will be any more accepted by those that disagree with the use of "fad diet", though it would be great if I was proven wrong on that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support It's an excellent improvement!--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• general Support (responding RFC) of the version which include the term "fad diet" into intro. However the phrasing "some experts" is weak. IMO the fact-stating phrase is more like in JonRichfield's version: "Due to its severe regimen and lack of medical evidence to support claims for its safety and effectiveness it is characterized as a fad diet by independent experts". It makes sense to write "some experts" only if there is a continuation "while others <say something opposite>". Otherwise it is WP:WEASEL. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well said.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As you asked, here is one expert who supports the effectiveness of the diet: http://thefastdiet.co.uk/why-fast/. He is a medical doctor. Now, you may disagree with him, but that's not the point. It shows that not all experts agree. So we do need (at least) SOME experts. Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

One expert who makes claims about the diet which he is making money out of promoting. Where is his evidence? A small fringe is not notable and to mention such things in the lead would clearly be WP:Undue weight.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the evidence is in the scientific papers I have referenced previously. And it's not up to you to decide what does or does not count as a 'small fringe'. When does it move beyond 'fringe' - 5 people, 50, 500? You seem to have a control problem. Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Well, the evidence is in the scientific papers I have referenced previously."

Did he say that? Or are you simply assuming that he considers that to be his evidence? Unless you can prove that you are the expert in question, then you are not in any place to speak for him.

"And it's not up to you to decide what does or does not count as a 'small fringe'. When does it move beyond 'fringe' - 5 people, 50, 500? You seem to have a control problem."

That is a silly Slippery slope fallacy, but more importantly: You are not simply arguing against me. You are arguing against established Wikipedia policy. The policies I have pointed to, clearly state that we not just can, but must decide (based on what the Reliable Sources say), what counts as a small fringe or not.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral opening. I would suggest the first line simply summarize the diet and save the opinion for the second line -- see Cabbage soup diet or Blood type diet. That way seems to flow more cleanly and you can go with the cites more clearly. Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How is calling it a fad diet not part of an accurate summary of the diet?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• diet. "Fad" is clearly a derogatory term bearing little information in itself. We mention later in the article that it is called a fad by critics, but given that there isn't a clear definition of the term, we can't just stamp it in the lede without explanation. --GRuban (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Fad" is clearly a derogatory term bearing little information in itself"

Derogatory? Yes. Bearing little information in itself? No. It clearly says that it is an unproven diet. How is that "little information"?

but given that there isn't a clear definition of the term"

There is a definition that is clear enough.

There is no clear definition of the terms "health", "death" (when exactly, do you count as being dead?), "moral", "country" or "science", yet those are used all the time. How is this any different?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two dictionary definitions given above (in theory three, but the first two share word for word). And they disagree. The McGraw-Hill one does not use your meaning "unproven"; according to it, the diet might have been proven to work, and still be a fad due to being popular and eliminating food groups. So your definition disagrees with that. The last says "intended to produce results more quickly" which again, the first two do not. So clearly there is major inconsistency. There is not that kind of disagreement of the meaning of other words you have cited - the dictionary definitions of those generally agree, even if there are some edge cases. For "fad diet", the basic definition is unclear, it may as well be "diet we don't like". --GRuban (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• ...is a diet

My theory is that the editors who wish to call the 5:2 diet a fad simply haven't seen the evidence out there.

There has been a lot of research showing that intermittent fasting, a broader term which includes the 5:2 diet, has benefits similar to Calorie restriction including a reduction of insulin and glucose levels, reduction of inflammation, and neuroprotective effects as detailed in this review article: Caloric restriction and intermittent fasting: Two potential diets for successful brain aging

It is hard for me to believe that the editors who've supported calling the diet a fad, and given as their reasoning that the diet exists on, "extravagant claims that are not supported by the medical profession, nor by scientific evidence for its safety and effectiveness," have seen the widespread and novel research still taking place on the health effects, largely conceived of as health benefits, of intermittent fasting.

I have removed my writing about how there are two definitions of a food fad, one which denotes it's temporal aspect and one which denotes it's lack of supporting evidence, for brevity. It seems most of the editors here have been concerned with the lack of evidence and that makes sense since, after all, there are more apt words than fad to denote the diet's relatively new status, for example, "new". I am genuinely curious what the editors think of the article I linked to detailing the effects of intermittent fasting, and how it fits into their view on the evidence for the 5:2 diet. makeswell (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If anybody would like to continue this conversation with me please leave a message on my Talk page. I think I do get emails when someone leaves a message there. I am not on Wikipedia enough to check this Talk page routinely. makeswell (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

I'm putting a poorly written part of the article here...

This section,

A review of a book promoting this diet by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics concluded, "It is not something that is good behaviorally, and it is not a realistic long-term solution. It also does not complement other healthy lifestyle components, such as being physically active and achieving quality sleep," before finally concluding that diet is not recommended.

inaccurately summarizes the citation it gives by saying that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics says ______. Actually it's just one nutritionist who works for them and reviewed the book and said _____ and with no other information about her it's hard to know how reputable her opinion is. Moreover there have *got* to be some better resources for critical reviews of the diet than just some dietitian given the amount of controversy on this Talk page. It's kind of funny how much debate there's been on the use of the word, "fad," compared to how sparse the article is itself, especially in terms of information in the article about the people who consider the diet to be a fad! makeswell (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Promising studies

Hi. Positive statements about this diet don't need to be removed out of a reflex. I brought in a reliable source that is quite positive. Thank you to the editor who checked my enthusiasm. I've changed the quote on the side of caution. I don't plan to participate in a lengthy discussion so a heads up on my talk page would be appreciated. No idea what studies are being referred to (which would really help). But I am 100% certain that an AND spokesperson is paid to know what she can say to the New York Times and to know what she can't say. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a broken link. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Alexbrn, the link to the book review comes from a previous talk thread. My source is the New York Times. I see the broken link is now appearing above this thread as it should. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)`

Ah right. But a blog from the NYT is not a WP:MEDRS for biomedical/health content. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it was awfully close. My earlier comment stands. An AND spokesperson has to know what she can say and the NYT is unlikely to misquote her. But, from WP:MEDRS, "Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article." HNR gave the NYT between three and five stars for its health work, but it specifically calls out Jane Brody and the Well blog as inaccurate. Mr. O'Connor is not Jane Brody (with whom I have my own complaints) but because of the taint of problems with this blog, I have to agree with you. May I suggest that you are way too quick on the draw with edit warring tags? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please calm down and revert your edit or I will have to do it. There was an RFC on this topic. Please see above. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That was nearly two years ago. Consensus can change (esp. with newer sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And where did you arrive at this new consensus? For something argued strenuously from both sides, and in light of the AND spokesperson's opinion, I think you need to be able to point to the new source of your view. If you can't do that then please revert your edit. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we now have the NHS (2015) counting the 5:2 among the many fad diets out there. NHS is as mainstream as it gets, and Wikipedia mirrors the mainstream. This is just the way these diets are categorized ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. I guess you are saying that your new consensus comes from NHS Choices who reviewed their 2011 opinion in 2015? Where did you discuss this with any other Wikipedian? Extraordinary claims like reversing an RFC require proof. The first place I checked was the BBC. I'd say the wind has changed. Kindly reverse your edit or cite your claim. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

BBC "good food" is not a great source for health categorization. The NHS citation is there in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so you are using a five year old source that was reviewed last year to overturn a two year old RFC singlehanded? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The NHS source was updated in 2015 (and will be reviewed next year) so the original date is irrelevant. You haven't addressed the main issue: we need to reflect quality RS. We proceed here according to the WP:PAGs, not to some dated RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Telling me I haven't addressed a point overlooks the fact that you tagged my talk page prematurely for edit warring (which I undid after you replied here) and never apologized, and that you say "consensus can change" and that new sources would drive that. You never achieved a new consensus or gave a new source. Play fair! Bye. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about "playing" - Wikipedia is not a game. The edit warring warning is a courtesy to inform users who might not be aware of edit-warring policy. WP:CCC is a concept enshrined in policy. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Description section

Hi. I think we ought to add a note of caution which I am about to do. Do we have any objections? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Pregnant women, underweight people, people with diabetes, children and growing teenagers, and people who have issues with food should avoid the 5:2 diet."

User:Alexbrn. 1) Perhaps you can tell me why you reverted my edit but you seem to have ignored my request here for objections? Possibly our different time zones gave you no chance to reply before your revert, but then why not after? 2) Then, perhaps you can tell me how Forbes, The Telegraph, Yahoo! Lifestyle, BBC Horizon, Huffington Post, and the Daily Mail are in any way better WP:MEDRS sources than the two I offered? Surely a caution is in order. How about a direct quote from Dr. Mosley and Ms. Spencer from their book? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources are not WP:MEDRS (which applies to WP:Biomedical information) and Wikipedia does not give health advice. We already mention that the NHS says everybody should consult a physician before embarking on this diet, in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You mention it in a section on another topic ("Evidence"). I am going to have write a blog about this diet because Wikipedia makes no sense. Forbes, The Telegraph, Yahoo! Lifestyle, BBC Horizon, Huffington Post, and the Daily Mail are all the sources you've got besides three others. See ya. Tom Lehrer wrote, "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department,' says Wernher von Braun." -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For content of lesser weight, lesser sources are okay. Your drama is not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you, Alexbrn. I learned a bit about medical sourcing and finished my blog. I think you can serve your goals with a little more flexibility but ultimately we are on the same side anyway. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is late 2016: has this subject moved on?

The main page appears to be stagnant, with the latest references dated May 2014, and most of them dated 2012 or 2013. Perhaps that accurately reflects the state on this subject, but does it? I've tried to form a coherent view of the state of the subject from all the above comments on this Talk page, but my brain is not up to the task! There are 30 times as many words on this Talk page as on the main page. Here is a page from Diabetes.co.uk that appears to be constructive: "5:2 Fasting Diet". (I'm not sure why the word "fasting" appears on the main page. A day of calorie reduction, rather than calorie elimination, doesn't resemble the Wikipedia description of fasting). Barry Pearson 13:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

An observation: as far as I can tell, the words "fast diet" in the first line refer to the title of the book by Dr Michael Mosley and Mimi Spencer. The latest issue of this book is a revised and updated edition dated 18 December 2014. There is therefore a risk that references to the book dated before then, on the main page or in this talk page or elsewhere, are no longer valid. That risk therefore applies to all the references on the main page. The updated edition contains (among other things) extra references to studies on "intermittent fasting". For example, the study in my paragraph below (published in 2013) is included in the updated edition, but not in the first edition that references on the main page had available at the time. Anyone relying on the first edition of the book for identification of studies may be unaware of relevant studies. (And there may be more studies since the publication of the updated edition). Barry Pearson 01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Researchers have compared an intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction diet for 2 days per week with a daily energy restriction diet, showing better results with the intermittent diet. "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women". There is a PDF of the full 14-page paper. They showed that intermittent energy restriction may result in greater improvements in insulin sensitivity and weight control than daily energy restriction. Overweight women were randomised to an overall 25% energy restriction, as an intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction diet for 2 days per week, or a daily energy restriction, or an intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction diet which allowed ad lib protein and fat. Insulin resistance reduced with the intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction diets. Reductions with the intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction diets were significantly greater compared with the daily energy restriction diet. In the Discussion, they pointed out that no single dietary approach will be appropriate and feasible for all, and there is unlikely to be a panacea given the complexity of weight management, but the addition of a further choice of intervention may be helpful. Barry Pearson 00:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That study is not a reliable source: we need WP:MEDRS for such content. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and generally lags behind the present because it must reflect settled knowledge. If and when the settled knowledge on 5:2 Diet changes then we can update the article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've examined several of the diets in the List of diets, and there is no evidence of a rule that diet pages must conform to WP:MEDRS. There isn't even evidence of a convention that they should. And WP:MEDRS hasn't been a constraint on the references on the main page here. (As far as I can tell from this Talk page, the first mention of WP:MEDRS was in March 2016). If it is to apply to new material, yet old material to which it didn't apply is to remain, then this would mean that there is a built-in bias towards out-of-date material. Should all non-WP:MEDRS material be removed from this article? Barry Pearson 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There appear to be only two references in the article that might conform to WP:MEDRS. The NHS reference and the Nursing Standards reference. The latter requires payment so I can't judge it. But the NHS website cannot be relied upon to give up-to-date information about health matters that do not originate in the NHS itself. Here are some example that illustrate the problem. (1) Vitamin D: Years ago, the NNH website said "During the winter, we get vitamin D from our body's stores and from food sources". The implication was that (except for identified groups of people) no supplements were needed, but no evidence of its own was supplied for this implication. Now, of course, the NHS reflects the new recommendation that everyone considers taking a Vitamin D supplement. It is good that the NHS eventually updates its advice; my point is that its earlier information was potentially dangerous because it relied on (apparently unidentified) sources outside its own expertise. (2) High Intensity Interval Training: It's main statements on high intensity interval training were published as reactions to articles in the media (first example). In a second example, where neither the media nor the research they referred to had anything to do with HIIT, it was spuriously identified in the NHS page as HIIT! No attempt was made to examine the extensive scientific literature (many 1000s of hits on Google Scholar, including plenty of secondary sources) on HIIT over the last 20 years. It is as though NHS pages concerning matters that didn't originate within the NHS are often written by people who are out of their depth and therefore take a "defensive" and negative attitude. Barry Pearson 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS is needed for WP:Biomedical information. The two references you mention are good ones, which we accordingly reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider the NHS page. It asks narrow questions: (1) "what pattern of IF is the most effective in improving health outcomes – 5:2, alternative day fasting, or something else entirely different"? Obviously the answer to that question will differ from one person to another, depending on a range of physical, psychological, and social factors. (If there were a diet that suited everyone, we would know about it!) (2) "what is the optimal calorie consumption during the fasting days – the 5:2 diet recommends 500 calories for women and 600 for men, but these recommendations seem arbitrary without clear evidence to support them"? Those are a starting point, as with pretty-well any guidelines, official or unofficial. (Required calorie consumption is known to depend on the proportions of the different macro-nutrients being consumed, basal metabolism, amount of physical activity, etc). (3) "how sustainable is IF in the long-term – would most people be willing to stick with the plan for the rest of their lives?" What plan? There in no suggestion that people should expect to stick to 5:2 for the rest of their lives. Both authors of the book state in it that, at the date of publication, they typically use a 6:1 maintenance version, having successfully achieved their initial targets. (That isn't very different from people who miss a meal or two occasionally). Barry Pearson 10:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This page is for discussing improvements to the article in line with the WP:PAGs - i.e. proposing content backed by appropriate high-quality sources so as to reflect accepted knowledge on the subject. Is a concrete proposal in the offing? Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "fast diet" in the phrase "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet" appeared in April 2014, as did the redirect-page "Fast diet". I assume this was in response to the book with that name which popularised the 5:2 diet. The latest edition of the book (ISBN-10: 1780722370; ISBN-13: 978-1780722375), was published in December 2014. It is a secondary source: it has 58 references to other sources, most of them apparently primary sources of research into matters of health including, but not only, dieting. It appears to be more comprehensive in its range of sources than all the other references. It certainly supersedes the Horizon program (September 2012), and the first edition of the book. Should it be referred to on the article page, instead of or as well as the other references? Barry Pearson 09:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the website of the 5:2 fast diet be referenced on the article page? (It was first registered in 2012). It has information that it typically not available for other diets, such as the ability to track weight loss across the people who use its Tracker, and then to publish summaries of average weight loss over months in participating people. (That page is relevant to the effectiveness of this diet). Barry Pearson 09:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as typically found in high-quality secondary sources. The 5:2 site/book is a poor-quality primary source and its use risks pushing fringe promotional content into the encyclopedia. Of course if this stuff has coverage in good secondary sources so we can establish WP:WEIGHT, then bring them forth! Alexbrn (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS

WP:Biomedical information must be based on WP:MEDRS, not unreliable sources (such as primary sources). Alexbrn (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course we do not want unreliable sources, or primary sources, and specifically we should not rely on the 'official' website, book or whatever. But I think WP:MEDRS is setting the bar too high for a diet. (Look at Weight Watchers for example). The International Journal of Obesity and the Nutrition Society seem to be reliable sources which is why I added that material back. Mcewan (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the links above? Any health claims on Wikipedia need WP:MEDRS - can't just edit against the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course I have read them. And any health claims need medrs, but I still think unthinking application of that policy to every piece of information about what is after all just a diet is over the top. Just to be clear, I aim not to evangelise this diet, rather to have a decent article about it. It's piss poor at the moment. Mcewan (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Effects on obesity and risks of cancer incidence are health effects. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"at least some evidence of its efficacy"

User AlexBRN is intent on reverting a change to the description of what a linked source says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5%3A2_diet&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=762197516&oldid=762196985

The linked source says:

> But since this article was originally written in January 2013 we have been alerted to research, led by Dr Michelle Harvie, which did look at the 5:2 model. > In one study carried out in 2010 the researchers did find that women placed on a 5:2 diet achieved similar levels of weight loss as women placed on a calorie-controlled diet. > They also experienced reductions in a number of biological indicators (biomarkers) that suggest a reduction in the risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. > A further study in 2012 suggested that the 5:2 model may help lower the risk of certain obesity-related cancers, such as breast cancer. > The increasing popularity of the 5:2 diet should lead to further research of this kind.

Quite how that's not *prima facie* "at least some evidence of its efficacy", God only knows. 61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Evidence is already dealt with in the "Evidence" section where the NHS source considers all the studies (not just the one you're picking) and summarizes the evidence as "limited" (i.e. poor). Surfacing the details of primary studies gives a misleading impression of what he evidence quality is, and is undue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have quoted the entirity of the "Evidence about the 5:2 diet" section except for the first line. The one that followed with "But", countering your point. You appear to be conflating that with the "Evidence about other forms of IF", which might be suitable for a page about Intermittent Fasting. Please explain what you mean by "the one you're picking" -- is there another section about 5:2 diet evidence I'm missing? If "Surfacing the details of primary studies gives a misleading impression", perhaps you should take that up with the NHS?

The writer of the article, on the NHS website, chooses to surface two studies to support the 5:2 diet, and no contradicting studies. It itself counters its description of "limited" in the next sentence. So again, I ask, on what basis does the article not show "at least some evidence of its efficacy", given that under a heading titled "Evidence about the 5:2 diet" it chooses to show two studies that show positive results? 61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The evidence is limited. Saying "at least some" is special pleading. Every ineffective diet has "at least some" evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Having made a bunch of incorrect and misleading statements, you're making no effort to back any of those up? You suggested I was cherry-picking evidence, and you said that I was failing to consider "all the evidence". Neither statement was true, and both are trivially shown as untrue. Unsure what you're trying to achieve here? With regards to ""Every ineffective diet has "at least some" evidence"", could you show another example where the NHS has listed exclusively supporting evidence in their summary? It sounds a lot like you're trying to second-guess the NHS.61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:FOC. What I wrote was right: overall, the assessment of the evidence is that it is "limited". Taking one of the mentioned studies and forming your own differing conclusion of "at least some ..." is not neutral, as it gives a false positive impression. For other fad diets with limited evidence look at pretty much any of the diets in our fad diet category: the Paleo diet, e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote was that I was cherry-picking studies listed on the page to miscategorize what the link said. Now you're saying it again. It's just as untrue the second time. *Every* study listed under "Evidence about the 5:2 diet" shows efficicacy. You are complaining about the neutrality of the source, not my neutrality. On paleo diet, the NHS Choices site clearly calls it a fad, and lists prominently the unscientific nature of the study that was meant to support it (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/05May/Pages/Cavemanfaddiet.aspx) This is rather different from the 5:2 one where it points to high quality studies such as this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017674/ . I appreciate your desire to keep things factual here, but you appear to be doing a fair amount of cherry-picking yourself.61.90.62.218 (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The primary sources say what the primary sources say. Our expert source summarizes that as limited evidence, so we follow. You cannot come to your own conclusion as you have no standing to assess the quality of the primary sources (which are more often wrong than not). If you want to make an extraordinary claim (i.e. a claim about a positive human health effect) you need an extremely solid WP:MEDRS source to support it. Alexbrn (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Our expert source summarizes that as limited evidence" And so I assume you'll be happy with "limited evidence exists that the 5:2 diet is effective"?61.90.62.218 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a copy-paste which we shouldn't do, so not so good. It also doesn't capture the nuance of "significant gaps in the evidence" mentioned in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the evidence

Given "however as with other fad diets" is original research, as is "these claims are not supported", and the "by high-quality evidence" appears to be not true (the cited article gives two examples of high-quality evidence), I have changed this to the rather more neutral "the evidence supporting these claims is limited", which is essentially a copy-paste job from the primary NHS source. 61.90.62.218 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source says "More worryingly, many fad diets are based on dodgy science or no research at all, prescribing eating practices that are unhealthy and can make you ill." So this is not original research. You're dumbing the article down because of mistaken reading and edit-warring, which is not good. We summarize source and should not be copy/pasting in a partial way. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Trueland J (2013). "Fast and effective?". Nursing Standard

From the "you must be kidding me" and "did you even read it" sections.

I have purchased this article. It's a glossy magazine opinion piece with over half the 2 page spread taken up by illustrative pictures. It makes no cited claims what-so-ever. The author is "Jennifer Trueland ... freelance journalist". It's used to back up several points in this page as if it were somehow authoritative. For example, here's what it has to say about fad diets:

"Sceptics warn that this wonder diet may turn out to be a fad, like many others. There is no alternative, they insist, to following accepted lifestyle advice and eating a healthy diet". Which skeptics? Not mentioned.

So which experts do they quote?

"Intermittent energy restriction has also been shown in a clinical trial to be as effective as continual energy restriction. But Dr Deakin warns: ‘The important thing for nurses is to give the message to patients that it is not a quick fix.`"

"Scottish Practice Nurses Association chair Gill Dennes. ‘Many patients have mentioned the 5:2 diet but I have no empirical evidence, only anecdotal evidence of efficacy,’ she says."

"Jane Diggle, a practice nurse and community diabetes educator ... ‘Anecdotally, people who have tried it have not been able to stick to it for more than a couple of weeks`"

Oh, and there's a quote from someone called "Linda Gruchy", who it says is a "Crime Writer".

This appears to have been added in egregious bad faith, on the hope that no-one would pay for the article. I suspect I can guess who added it.61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a good source for its use, to say that critics of the diet term it a fad diet. That's not in doubt is it. Sources only need to be as strong as the claim they support - see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It's used as a citation for "however as with other fad diets these claims are not supported by high-quality evidence" in the second sentence of the article. It sounds like you agree that the article doesn't say that, and we can remove it? Secondly, regarding it being a fad, the article says "Sceptics warn that this wonder diet may turn out to be a fad, like many others", which is substantially different from "critics of the diet term it a fad diet". I have to ask -- have you read it? 61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the whole article, not just one source. The fact that "these claims are not supported by high-quality evidence" is also not in doubt, so no problem (as it is well-sourced). Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, simply: please can you tell me which part of the article, or any of the wording in the article, supports "critics of the diet term it a fad diet"? If not, I'm nuking it. I have no trouble at all with you finding a credible source, and I'm sure there are many, to support that statement, but I'm unsure why you're doubling down on this one.61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be where the NHS source says "Cabbage soup, blood group, the 5:2 diet and other fad diets are often far-fetched". You've removed the source about the skeptics' warnings. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the source about the skeptics' warnings, which is what this section is about. I'm not sure what your wider point about the NHS source has to do with it?61.90.62.218 (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well you can hardly complain the source no longer verifies what skeptics' claim after removing the supporting source. The NHS source verifies the "fad" categorization. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The original source, now removed, didn't verify that. You've put a high-quality one in its place, and I have removed the poor quality one. Thank you! You seem to think I have an agenda here beyond source evaluation. I came to Wikipedia today looking for information about the 5:2 diet, and would much rather I was able to trust the information on there, rather than sources being added on the basis of having the "right" viewpoint. 61.90.62.218 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source was fine, the new one is fine too. Lots of fuss about nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is fine and it is summarized accurately. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is neither fine, nor summarized accurately. Just to confirm we're reading the same source, could you tell me the last sentence of the source? I just want to make sure you do in fact have a copy, and have read it.61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me which part you think supports "skeptics and dieticians have categorized it as a fad diet". Exact quote, please, from the article61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "fad diet" from lede

I have been looking at this page intermittently for 2 years, but not for the last few months. I now find that between 08:56 and 08:57 on January 27 2017 the first clause of the article was edited from "The 5:2 diet, or "fast diet" is a diet …" to "The 5:2 diet, or fast diet, is a fad diet …". That is, the word "fad" was inserted to make the phrase "fad diet". There has been long argument on this one word ("fad") since 2014 see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5:2_diet/Archive_1#.22Fad.22. Similar debate has arisen on multiple occasions since. I would say that this one word is the single most contentious thing in the page.

This revision was done by Alexbrn, with the description "→‎top: summarize". Given the relative importance of this word, I looked at the Talk page to see what discussion was going one around that time on Jan 27. There were 25 entries for that day, none other for the entire year, and then (I cannot work out precisely when - can anyone help me with that?) the Talk page was archived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5:2_diet/Archive_1. Note that this comment is the first entry in the new Talk page.) So I looked for the explanation for this change in those 25 talk items, since it is not well explained by the description "→‎top: summarize". The user described as ["61.90.62.218"] and [[5]] argued points under 3 different headings, each started by the user "61.90.62.218". 11 posts were made by each between 08:07 and 11:05, on a strict comment/reply/reply/reply etc basis. The tree subheadings were "at least some evidence of its efficacy", Summarizing the evidence, and Trueland J (2013). "Fast and effective?". Nursing Standard.. Nowhere in these comments is thare debate on re-inserting fad into sentence 1. I therefore think that the reversion was done without clear explanation.

This is a repeat of a previous occasion where the same thing happened. On March 22 2016, AlxBrn inserted the word "fad" in the same place with the explanation "NPOV" . On march 25 2016 I made a long post (see "Re-insertion of "fad" on line 1" almost half-way down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5:2_diet/Archive_1 ). Alxbrn came back with one point which I answered. On that day some one anonymously edited the page to drop the word fad, which I was glad to see happen, (though ideally it would not have been done as an anonymous mobile web edit!) This removal of the word continued for months, until on 11:25, 24 November 2016 ( re-inserted "fad" (description "npov") Timlev37 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Timlev37 Next edit → — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlev37 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are fans who keep driving by and removing that. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, like most diet article there's a low-level WP:ADVOCACY problem as enthusiasts try and de-neutralize the article. But there's no doubt given the sources what we should be saying here. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I am struggling to keep my material in here because I am saving it wrong! Apologies.... For years the word "Fad" was excluded from sentence one, and people should not re-insert it without making it clear what the full reason is. "npov" is just your pov until you fully explain the neutral position. let me explain more: some people may think this is a fad diet and some may take it quite seriously and even carry out some type of scientific enquiry into its efficacy. The page can reflect that disagreement either with or without the pejorative word in sentence 1. In 2014 (before I started to read the page) that debate was decided as "without". How can you just revert that with no clear reason. How do you justify name calling me as "fan" or "enthusiast"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlev37 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

When sources change the article changes. From our current sources we see it's a fad diet for sure and no decent source disputes that. Is there actually a policy-based proposal on the table here? Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is "we"? What justifies "for sure"? Which source is "decent'? Many people think that "NICE" (UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is decent. I looked for their advice (see https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/diet#path=view%3A/pathways/diet/dietary-interventions-and-advice-for-adults.xml&content=view-node%3Anodes-reducing-calorie-intake). They say that low calorie intake (<800) every day is bad but they do not exclude (or include) intermittent fasting with 500-600 calories twice a week. You are a much more experienced Wikipedia user than me, but you reverted my edit with "POV-push, again" without answering the point I made: what changed in Jan 2017 to make this a fad when it had not been that since 2014? It is you who made the change, so I think it is reasonable to expect you to give a full explanation. Timlev37 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"We" are the editors on this page, and we agree that from our current sources, this is for sure a fad diet. Do you have a policy based proposal per Alex' question. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Timlev37: See the sources we use, they're even stronger today than in 2014. We must simply reflect what good sources say. For guidance on sourcing see WP:RS/WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually "we" are the WP editing community, which is governed by policies and guidelines, that we created. Among them is the notion that we follow reliable sources; we don't allow what we like and don't like to drive content. The topic of this article is the "5:2 diet" in particular - the topic is not intermittent fasting. The 5:2 diet is a fad diet and on top of that, a "craze". This is not ambiguous. Please do read the fad diet article. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have re-read the fad-diet page. In March 2016 I made specific points (never replied to) relating the use in that page of the BDA's Food fact Sheet on Fad Diets, which the wiki page still relies on. The references on that page now are mainly from 2014 and before. Among the newer ones is ref 8 from Aug 2016 (https://familydoctor.org/nutrition-weight-loss-need-know-fad-diets/) which does not mention the 5:2 among 17 fads. Ref 6 (Dec 2016) has 6 diets, none of them 5:2. Which sources changed on just before Jan 2017? The argument seemed pretty much settled until then. Timlev37 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We can't go by editors inferences about what source don't say, that would be naughty WP:OR. We have good sources for the fad diet categorization (which is obvious in any case) - the newest to the article I believe is the Irish Times ones. Is there actually a proposal here based on policy and sources? If not, I think we're done. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that source, and Google of "site:IrishTimes.com 5:2 diet" didn't reveal much. Please give a specific link. In essence I think that the 5:2 is not faddish because the actual diet seems harmless (a drop of ≤4000 cal per week, which fits very well with an "every day diet" recommended reduction of 600 cals per day. There may be no specific gain from IF compared to continuous, but the jury is still out. There may be people who can do the 5:2 regime for years on end but fail to stick to an "every day diet". Such people should not be discouraged by being told they are faddists, if the dangers they face from the diet are less than those faced by not being on the diet. As for a proposal, I might propose that we should be more circumspect about the use of the word fad, and include it lower down with something like "some sources say it is a fad diet" with links and specific reasons chosen from lists of reasons at sources such as the BDA Sheet. The 2017 NHS/livewell page http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/top-10-most-popular-diets-review.aspx#52 includes plausible Pros and Cons of 5:2, with some evidence both ways. That article holds back describe 5:2 as a "Fad". The 5:2 wiki page should be updated to refer to all this (in a neutral way of course). I do not suggest that the Fad Diet page be updated to reflect this. Timlev37 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What you think about the diet doesn't matter: we go by sources. The Irish Times source is cited in our article. The NHS do call[6] the 5:2 diet a fad diet - it obviously is. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not find the Irish Times a helpful source. It is behind a pay wall and inaccessible to me. Anyway, I can find no higher source than the NHS source, so on the basis of the 2015 article I agree to keep the wording of the first sentence, with the link to "fad diet". However, you should have included that in your edit of Jan 25, and you might have said all this in March 2016 when we were discussing this the first time round. I agree that my opinion is irrelevant, but thinking is necessary about the sources to look for consistency and validity. If any source, even from the NHS, identifies the diet as having properties identified in the BDA list, I will check if it really does have those properties, although that requires thinking. i.e. The NHS is fallible. I propose now that someone updates the page to include information in the NHS 2017 site. For example, the text that comes close to advice "According to NHS Choices, people considering the diet should first consult a physician, as fasting can sometimes be unsafe.[6]" should be replaced with text such as " The NHS "Livewell" website says 'if you choose to follow a 5:2 type diet, choose an evidence-based plan based on healthy, balanced eating and written by a dietitian, such as the "2-Day Diet". It's vital for your health to avoid nutritional deficiencies, dehydration and overeating on non-fast days. Never attempt to delay or skip meals if you are pregnant, have had, or are prone to eating disorders or diabetes.' " Is that proposal acceptable? Timlev37 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 5:2 diet. Not about intermittent fasting. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:What are you referring to? Are you answering the most recent point? Timlev37 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Above you proposed addding content about for example the 2 day diet. This is an article about the 5:2 diet. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a quote from NHS "Livewell" website's section titled "5:2 diet". Timlev37 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This page refers to a term that is now being used generically. The NHS treats the 5:2 diet term as an umbrella term, suggesting the "2-Day Diet" as one variant on the theme. This variant appears to have started in 2013. Timlev37 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it just varies topic between the specific and general in a way we can't. In Wikipedia intermittent fasting is discussed in its own article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying it's OK to quote what is said about "5:2 diet" in the some of the NHS's pages but not to quote or summarise its "verdict" from the 2016 page? If so you are suggesting [picking] (selective citation). Timlev37 (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly: we reflect what they say on the subject of the 5:2 diet, not (in this article) on other diets. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What they (the NHS) say (in their most recent page - end 2016) on the subject of the 5:2 diet is (to quote at length):

5:2 diet The 5:2 diet is based on a principle known as intermittent fasting (IF) – where you eat normally for five days a week and fast on the other two days. On top of losing weight, fans claim the 5:2 diet can improve lifespan and brain function, and protect against conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease. However, evidence on the effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited when compared with other types of weight loss techniques. One 2010 study found women placed on a 5:2 diet achieved similar levels of weight loss to women on a calorie-controlled diet, and were also less likely to develop chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. There is some evidence that the 5:2 model may help lower the risk of certain obesity-related cancers, such as breast cancer. Pros: Sticking to a regimen for two days a week is more achievable than seven days, so you are more likely to persevere with this way of eating and successfully lose weight. Two days a week on a restricted diet can lead to greater reductions in body fat, insulin resistance and other chronic diseases. Cons: The non-restricted days do not mean unlimited feasting. While you don't need to be as strict about your calorie consumption, you still need to make healthy choices and be physically active. Skipping meals could make you feel dizzy, irritable, give you headaches and make it hard to concentrate, which can affect work and other daily tasks. Other reported side effects are difficulties sleeping and daytime sleepiness, bad breath, and dehydration. BDA verdict: The 5:2 is a simple way to reduce calorie intake. There are lots of versions of this diet, with some less safe than others. Many studies on intermittent fasting are short-term, involve small numbers of subjects, or are animal-based. If you choose to follow it, choose an evidence-based plan based on healthy, balanced eating and written by a dietitian, such as the "2-Day Diet". It's vital for your health to avoid nutritional deficiencies, dehydration and overeating on non-fast days. Never attempt to delay or skip meals if you are pregnant, have had, or are prone to eating disorders or diabetes.

How would it fail to reflect what they say to quote some of that verdict? Or to put the question the other way round, since this is newer information than that included in the current page, how should we update to reflect this? Timlev37 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"There are lots of versions of this diet" - the "other versions" (which your edit addressed) are off-topic here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. They all versions of one diet, which is covered by one subsection of an NHS page, subheading "5:2 Diet". If the wikipage is about just one particular version of this 5:2 diet, then we should create a new page to cover the NHS-related term, and we should edit this page to disambiguate it from that one, and to state which very specific version it refers to. For example 1st words might be: "The version of the 5:2 diet publicised by Mimi Spencer and Michael Molesley as the "Fast Diet" is a fad diet. + insert a note: see "5:2 Diets" (wikipage) for a more general treatment of all 5:2 diets as defined by the NHS (etc.) Timlev37 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on intermittent fasting. We don't structure our articles entirely around the way one source classifies things. By all means propose a merge if you think it will fly. Maybe 5:2 diet should just be a section in intermittent fasting ? Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Either the point stands that this page (or this subsection of any page it is moved into) should be redefined at the top to specify that it is about just one flavour of the many 5:2 diets, or we have to accept that it is about many flavours of 5:2 diet that are widely referred to under the single over-arching term. An in-between position is not logically consistent. The NHS makes it clear that 5:2 is one particular sub-group of intermittent fasting, so it is not right to insist that all 5:2 diets that were not promoted specifically by Spencer and Moseley should go into a page about IF... unless we all agree that indeed this page can be about all 5:2 diets. Timlev37 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. This article is about Moseley's 5:2 ("Fast") diet, as stated in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is going round and round because your thinking is illogical. (1) you want the article to only be about " Moseley's 5:2 ("Fast") diet". Then (2) you say that the NHS advice about "5:2" diet is about some larger category of 5:2 (that includes this one). And (3) you say that the larger category of 5:2 does not merit a page, even though that is what people are (according to you) reading about at the NHS page. The distinction you make is false: there is no substantive difference between the 5:2 diet that most of the references are discussing and the NHS umbrella term. Also, we should (according to your view) adjust the lede to make it clear that this page only refers to Moseley's diet. Timlev37 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're over-reading the source. The "versions" it refers to are maybe the things like the "5:2 curry diet" and the "5:2 bikini diet" but who knows. We can't restructure our articles around one unclear phrase in sentence of one source. What we have now is perfectly clear. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5:2 diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910190417/http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/5-2-diet-intermittent-fasting-lose-weight-live-longer-starve.html to http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/5-2-diet-intermittent-fasting-lose-weight-live-longer-starve.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)