Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:43, 22 May 2016

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Untitled

This reads like an ad for Dr. John McDougall. His theories, which are that you need to be vegan to be healthy and take supplements for B12 are controversial and it needs to be put into the body of the article. Ruth E (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does read like a vanity page. I am going to add some content to put it into perspective. Tom Barrister 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)

This article still reads like an ad for McDougall. Personally I think his stance that eating more vegetables while stopping chemotherapy will cure cancer makes him an obvious quack. There should at least be something in this article about how his "views" are not widely (at all?) shared within the medical or scientific community.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.194.242 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can cite actual sources stating that other doctors and scientists do not share his views, feel free to add them to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Science, or otherwise. In fact, his own website and publications are referenced as the sources. Doesn't matter what anyone believes, that's not considered a reliable source, and makes the page incredibly biased.173.24.70.30 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In this Misplaced Pages article, the links to his web site are for establishing biographical information, not for establishing the scientific validity of the McDougall Program. In any case, my response from two years ago stands: If there are reliable sources that say McDougall's views are not shared by other doctors and scientists, feel free to add them to the article. Funcrunch (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal diet

It appears John A. McDougall does not identify himself as a strict vegetarian. In an interview he was asked "How long have you been a been a vegetarian?". He replied, "My diet has been 99.9% vegetarian for the past 28 years." Nirvana2013 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

True, he eats a slice of turkey every other year to "prove" he's not a vegetarian. Funcrunch (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

'Boring Diet' is meant to bring balance with a terrible reference?

Noting the discussion above, was introducing a one line critique meant to be be balancing? Ultimately a full discussion can't be had on a page like this - it would have to point to something else that presents pros/cons of a plant based diet as there is more than simply the McDougall Plan. Now, what this page CAN do is focus on the research and results that he performed - he is a published physician who has written books. Serious critiques of the diet should also be welcome as they specifically pertain to his research, including biases in methods, patient selection, and data analysis. The reference to "essential concepts for healthy living" is ridiculous as far as a critique is concerned and is filled with POV issues just in the table alone. Lets address the facts objectively, not with silly terms like "boring", or misleading opinions like flatulence. This isn't a moment to get into the details, but I'd like to see a revamp of this focusing on the facts (both for and against). 207.38.43.28 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Essential Concepts for Healthy Living is a well-established, well-published medical textbook: a secondary source of the very highest quality per WP:MEDRS and probably is by far the stongest source in this entire article. If there are other similarly strong sources, propose them ... but this text gives us a quality source to reflect for information about McDougall's diet plan. Alexbrn 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

So I don't have access to the book , but if it is indeed a strong source, then its either being referenced incorrectly, or it simply hasn't developed around this topic. Right now, we are relying on a subjective statement of "boring food choice", a potentially misleading statement of "flatulence" and a confusing statement of "might feel hungry" which begs asking 'then eat more?'. Isn't food choice subjective, especially when using the terms 'boring'? And where are there problems with flatulence? Does the book (if you have access it would be great) reference studies showing issues with flatulence on long term eaters following this type of diet? Why are there issues with hunger - does the diet require careful calorie counting with the aim of restriction? Otherwise hunger should be satisfied with consuming more.

For someone looking for a brief summary, all they will learn is that it is a terrible diet because not only are the choice not fun and exciting, they'll be hungry all the time while constantly farting. As I said - maybe its a great source that is referenced incorrectly, or maybe this "great source" actually hasn't really developed this topic.

For example (and use this as an EXAMPLE, as I'd prefer to go back to the primary sources referenced in the article):

Fruit and vegetables-especially boiled potatoes-proved to have high satiating values, whereas bakery products like cakes, croissants and biscuits were the least satiating foods. Protein-rich foods (fish, meat, baked beans, lentils and eggs) and carbohydrate-rich foods (pasta, rice, wholegrain breads and cereals) were among the most satiating foods.

I'm not arguing that fish, meat, eggs don't satiate because they do. But given that Potatoes, Pastas, Rice, Fruits and Vegetables are the core of this diet approach, it shows why I think the section is mis leading should be revamped per something along the lines of my original recommendations.

207.38.43.28 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We are obliged to reflect what good sources say, not what us editors might think. Have you got some good sources to consider? Alexbrn 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that Alexbrn is very anti-john mcdougall and seeks to critizise him at every opportunity. The McDougall plan is world wide known and one of the best ways to get healthy. Referencing a text book that makes an off the cuff mark that the diet is a Fad one (with absolutely NO evidence for this... i.e. NO patient sampling or questionnaires to back this claim up) is very poor editorial behaviour. Perhaps If I was to write a book saying "The diet is the best in the world" would Alexbrn use that just because it had been published in a book? Definitely not because he is obviously anti vegan and anti John McDougall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.134.70 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wrote it and it became a well-published & established textbook in its sixth edition (like our source) then yes, it would be an excellent source. But the reality is other than that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like Alexbrn has some serious hangups with McDougall and is intent on soiling his image. Just ignore people, he is out to reck what we all know is a great meal plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.132.172 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain what makes this health guide a good resource? Anyone simply searching for this publishing will find out it's nothing special. Being in its such-and-such edition means little to nothing when the majority of it might as well be copy/pasted, edition to edition. Seems that it's probably used by a certain university, which doesn't lend any more credibility to it seeing as someone here is probably working for the publishing company behind it.

Ahh, conflict of interest bias at its finest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6D:B140:10D0:FF79:130D:E340 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

clip of McDougall from Tedx

There is some interesting information presented in this clip that seems to be obviously questionable specifically the reference to Neanderthals and other ancient groups. Still, it is evident that physicians present all types of diets which do result in positive successful results for their patients. Certainly, McDougall deserves equal respect as any doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wfMNNr3ak

203.131.210.82 (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete: McDougall's diet – The McDougall Plan – has been categorized as a fad diet which carries some disadvantages such as a boring food choice and a risk of gas.

This is an opinion, not factual. Hebrewman76 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's well sourced and meets WP:V, so is in line with our WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The line "McDougall's diet – The McDougall Plan – has been categorized as a fad diet which carries some disadvantages such as a boring food choice and a risk of gas." is very controversial and seems purely objective. First of all it states "has been categorized" but doesn't mention who categorized it. In this case it is the writer of some other book with less credibility than McDougall himself. Also almost all of the McDougall lifestyle followers report feeling satisfied and happy with the lifestyle. There is no source for such claim and the source provided for the line doesn't have a source for it either.

To conclude, this line is very objective and contains unjustified and unsupported claims. Obenabde (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: As mentioned above in the exact same request, that line is referenced. We don't just remove controversial things because someone doesn't like it. As long as they are referenced they are fine. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fad diet clarification.

I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but saying "has been classified as a fad diet" seems a bit of a biasing statement. I'd be fine with it if there were sources as to its verifiability of being a fad or not, but as it stands, seems like a statement of opinion rather than fact. 67.233.64.238 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced to a reliable source & it's true. For neutrality we need to say it. Alexbrn (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/what-makes-us-feel-full/

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles