This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ancel Keys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 20, 2021 and November 20, 2022. |
This IP [1] is the blocked user JustANameInUse. This user who uses the IP range 93.141 has confessed to evading his block in the past "I was banned with no proof of sockpuppeting on the word of a editor with a COI" [2]
There are previous ANI discussions about his block evasion [3] and [4]. The consensus by the admins has been to block this user per WP:EVADE. This user always uses the IP range 93.141 and is blocked for a few months then returns again. He was last blocked in July on this IP [5]. When his range block expires he turns up again either on the Atkins diet, carnivore diet, saturated fat and now Ancel Keys. It is the same thing every time to push a low-carb POV. The user has been doing it for a year now. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This source that was added does not mention Keys, diet or fatty acids but it does mention LDL. It is original research to cite it [6] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The version as I found it read "has received criticism from the low-carbohydrate diet community" which, besides being a ridiculous phrase, is inaccurate. Keys has received criticism (to put it mildly) from many sane people who are not remotely "low-carb". Did the person who wrote that imagine that anyone who is not 'low-fat' must be 'low-carb'?
Anyway the whole section needs considerable expansion. It doesn't even scratch the surface of the relevant criticisms. 67.243.220.61 ( talk) 21:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Psychologist Guy - you reverted my changes regarding with the edit message claiming: "lying about sources. The is a strong consensus that saturated fat increases risk of heart disease." I wanted us to discuss this here so we can deep dive into this further.
I noticed that you're particularly active in this article about reverting edits containing any criticism of the subject, for example reverting edits which link to the Seven Countries Study, etc. - so I wanted to outline in a bit more detail what is in the sources.
When you claim "lying about sources"; firstly, I'm not sure if you've read the cited work by Dr Andrew Jenkinson, "Why We Eat (Too Much): The New Science of Appetite" which certainly supports the claim there is not consensus on the topic, with Jenkinson going as far as to say that Keys "knew very well that it was not the whole truth" and his work caused harm - you can read so here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QfimDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Hamley systematic review could not be more clear: "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations."
The systematic review by Clifton and Keogh states in the conclusion: "Reducing saturated fat and replacing it with carbohydrate will not lower CHD events ..." The BMJ systematic review states that RCT evidence "does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes." Etc, etc with other sources.
I'll revert your reversion for now in the event you've gained more understanding through reading the sources - but if this isn't sufficient to achieve consensus, why don't we remove any comment in the header about there being consensus for the research? E.g. We don't have on articles about gravity or even the COVID-19 vaccine a statement that there is consensus to support them. DrJoHeiter ( talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
attacking the numerous sources which disagree with you with ad hominem attacksvoicing one's concerns about the quality of the sources is not an ad hominem attack, it's what we're supposed to do if we have reason to believe that they are not reliable. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
3OR request declined. There are already more than two opinions. Polyamorph ( talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
That is precisely what is so notable about Keys. This is not the place to argue about the subsequent science. Bon courage ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reducing dietary fat intake, often targeted specifically to SFA, has been the orthodox position in the nutrition community since the 1950s following the Seven Country Study and the 'diet-heart hypothesis'.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ancel Keys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 20, 2021 and November 20, 2022. |
This IP [1] is the blocked user JustANameInUse. This user who uses the IP range 93.141 has confessed to evading his block in the past "I was banned with no proof of sockpuppeting on the word of a editor with a COI" [2]
There are previous ANI discussions about his block evasion [3] and [4]. The consensus by the admins has been to block this user per WP:EVADE. This user always uses the IP range 93.141 and is blocked for a few months then returns again. He was last blocked in July on this IP [5]. When his range block expires he turns up again either on the Atkins diet, carnivore diet, saturated fat and now Ancel Keys. It is the same thing every time to push a low-carb POV. The user has been doing it for a year now. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This source that was added does not mention Keys, diet or fatty acids but it does mention LDL. It is original research to cite it [6] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The version as I found it read "has received criticism from the low-carbohydrate diet community" which, besides being a ridiculous phrase, is inaccurate. Keys has received criticism (to put it mildly) from many sane people who are not remotely "low-carb". Did the person who wrote that imagine that anyone who is not 'low-fat' must be 'low-carb'?
Anyway the whole section needs considerable expansion. It doesn't even scratch the surface of the relevant criticisms. 67.243.220.61 ( talk) 21:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Psychologist Guy - you reverted my changes regarding with the edit message claiming: "lying about sources. The is a strong consensus that saturated fat increases risk of heart disease." I wanted us to discuss this here so we can deep dive into this further.
I noticed that you're particularly active in this article about reverting edits containing any criticism of the subject, for example reverting edits which link to the Seven Countries Study, etc. - so I wanted to outline in a bit more detail what is in the sources.
When you claim "lying about sources"; firstly, I'm not sure if you've read the cited work by Dr Andrew Jenkinson, "Why We Eat (Too Much): The New Science of Appetite" which certainly supports the claim there is not consensus on the topic, with Jenkinson going as far as to say that Keys "knew very well that it was not the whole truth" and his work caused harm - you can read so here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QfimDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q&f=false
The Hamley systematic review could not be more clear: "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations."
The systematic review by Clifton and Keogh states in the conclusion: "Reducing saturated fat and replacing it with carbohydrate will not lower CHD events ..." The BMJ systematic review states that RCT evidence "does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes." Etc, etc with other sources.
I'll revert your reversion for now in the event you've gained more understanding through reading the sources - but if this isn't sufficient to achieve consensus, why don't we remove any comment in the header about there being consensus for the research? E.g. We don't have on articles about gravity or even the COVID-19 vaccine a statement that there is consensus to support them. DrJoHeiter ( talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
attacking the numerous sources which disagree with you with ad hominem attacksvoicing one's concerns about the quality of the sources is not an ad hominem attack, it's what we're supposed to do if we have reason to believe that they are not reliable. M.Bitton ( talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
3OR request declined. There are already more than two opinions. Polyamorph ( talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
That is precisely what is so notable about Keys. This is not the place to argue about the subsequent science. Bon courage ( talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reducing dietary fat intake, often targeted specifically to SFA, has been the orthodox position in the nutrition community since the 1950s following the Seven Country Study and the 'diet-heart hypothesis'.