This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

While this may be true, I really don't think "Over the next few years, the Nutrition Foundation funded and designed several small studies carefully crafted to show that the diet produced little effect" violates the NPOV principle but I am not sure how to recast that. It's an accusation of deliberate bias, rather than something really proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.41.200 ( talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You may wonder, why is the citeneeded tag on a spot where there are a zillion cites? Because it seems that each of those cites are the datapoints on your "graph". However, I'm assuming that none of them draw the exact conclusion you are: that challenge dose is related to response. That's also why the original research tag was put on the "graph". You can't have original research in Wikipedia. It must be published (and backed) by someone else. (See WP:NOR) -- Tmassey 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Without further support of these conclusions, this information *must* be removed. I will wait on this for a short period; however, if it is not supported, it will be removed.

The graph was removed. I've added an original research tag to this section. It really just needs very little: something that spells out the conclusions drawn in the article. You can't draw conclusions without the proper cites to back it up! -- Tmassey 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The chart that was added has the same problems as the graph. However, it's being worked on. -- Tmassey ( talk) 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I remove my objections to this, as long as no one describes the chart as proving some point. Let the reader draw whatever conclusions they want, but the chart as documented to me seems fine. I would recommend removing this discussion from the Talk page after July 1, 2008, if there are no other objections. -- Tmassey ( talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We normally keep all discussions on the talk page. When it gets to be too long, we can create a complete archive and start over fresh. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been a long time with no further input or complaint. The chart stands on its merits without making claims but allowing the reader to make his own conclusions. Since the only final comments seem to be agreeing with me, but nobody taking the responsibility for removing this tag over the past year, I guess I am supposed to remove it myself. I will therefore do so now. Shulae ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. WP:MEDRS needs to be applied to this entire article, especially this section. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Requirement Fullfilled

I have added citations ... and more citations. I believe there is no more "original research" or uncited statements in here. If some got by me, please make a note here and I will address them. If not, I propose we could remove the warning on this section that says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." Shulae ( talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the conclusions are not being drawn around the chart, I would agree. Although, I would like to see the defensive weasel words removed from the paragraph after the chart (or, frankly, the entire paragraph). -- Tmassey ( talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A cut-n-paste from something you wrote above:

There are actually a couple of studies that show that these symptoms go together -- one that tells a doctor to look for ADHD later on in a child who has enuresis (bedwetting) and another that suggests that the more frequent the ear infections at a young age, the more severe the ADHD problems later on. Other studies tried to link asthma and ADHD together genetically, but failed to do so; yet the perception is that they frequently "go together" ... yes, indeed, they do, whether because their cause is at the same level where the additives cause damage, or whether because the colorings themselves are broncho-constrictors, is not known. Some of our asthmatic kids are highly sensitive to salicylates and cannot go on to Stage Two ever. It has been known since the 1930's or 1940's that there is cross-sensitization between tartrazine and aspirin. -- Shulae 12:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

These studies would be *perfect* for this section! In addition, if you've got non-FA, non-highly-technical websites that outline the above information, that would be *fantastic*. -- Tmassey 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still could use these studies... This is more uncited conclusion material in the article that would be backed up nicely by this information. -- Tmassey 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I just read an article showing that food colouring increases hyperactive behaviour(1), and it refers to a 2004 meta-analysis which shows a similar sized effect.(2)

(1)Donna McCann; et al. (2007). "Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial". The Lancet. in press. {{ cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= ( help)

(2)Schab DW, Trinh NH (2004). "Do artificial food colors promote hyperactivity in children with hyperactive syndromes? A meta-analysis of double-blind placebo-controlled trials". Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP. 25 (6): 423–34. PMID  15613992.

This is partly relevant, because although they did not investigate the effect of a withdrawal diet, they did show that food colouring has an effect. I haven't had time to properly discuss the research, but I have noted the articles. The whole "research" section needs a rewrite, though. Someday I'll get around to it. -- Slashme 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, prior to the McCann & Bateman studies, they did put all the kids on an additive-free diet and noted that parents reported that they all were quieter and better behaved (even though they did not have any ADHD diagnosis). Schab did not do a study but a meta-analysis. Shulae ( talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these studies in the article? If so, should we delete this section from the talk page? The research section *has* been rewritten... -- Tmassey ( talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We do not remove comments from talk pages. You can mark them {{ done}} if you want, but comments should be easily accessible to all future editors. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Food Additives and Hyperactivity, Again! mentions this article. Please look into the concerns raised in that news article. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a news article. That is a biased and somewhat incoherent blog entry. It does raise a valid point (the risk of bias in studies with strong individual bias), but completely ignores its own conclusion: a highly respected medical publication published research in support of the article! -- Tmassey ( talk) 06:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This "diet" removes necessary vitamins and minerals from a growing child’s diet. Information needs to circulate that lets responsible parents know to never allow this diet for their children. As a Doctor myself I have seen many children who are malnourished and under weight on this farce of a program. I will repeat myself and say to please post a warning on this "diet" that it is VERY VERY unhealthy, and traumatizes children, to the point where they are afraid to eat anything.. Beware this is a quack diet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.144 ( talk) 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like someone who believes in quackwatch.org. I found hsi fiengold page to be lies and the victim of feingold was anonymous. So checked the victims of other "quacks" most of them only existed on quackwatch.org or on similiar sites that copied from his site. no mainstream media or paper reported of deaths which followed by lawsuits. Can you believe that. I am sure if you did a research on quackwatch.org you would find these people are all fake.

I find it shocking that we live in a world where you cannot trust anyone and we all know how man is ready to hurt another man for money. And then we even refuse to believe someone who is warning us of such inhumanity in his research, and instead trust companies that produce these cheap synthetic additives, reaping huge profits at the cost of our health. This wikipedia article is an eye opener.

Answer to Dr. X

The unsigned gentleman has obviously been misinformed about the Feingold diet. The diet removes ADDITIVES. Nobody has ever been documented with Red #40 deficiency ... or BHT deficiency.

The diet allows every kind of food. Additives are not food. Even at the very beginning, when certain salicylates are to be eliminated for a few weeks, it is a matter of substituting pears for apples; grapefruit juice for orange juice; kiwi for grapes, and so on. LOTS of fruits and MOST vegetables and ALL meats, fish, and chicken are fine, as long as they are not laced with the additives to be eliminated.

Within a month or so, most children are able to start reintroducing the salicylates to determine their individual tolerance; most people tolerate at least some of the salicylate foods. As I said, as long as it is FOOD, not petroleum-derived additives, they can eat it. As part of the Program materials, the Feingold Association provides a Foodlist with over 150 pages listing thousands and thousands of products that meet Feingold guidelines. Most of these products - including hot dogs, desserts, even candy - are available in your normal supermarket.

Long ago, because people like Dr. X were afraid the diet would be inadequate, two studies were done. Harper, 1978: 'Nutrient intakes of children on the hyperkinesis diet' and Dumbrell, 1978: 'Is the Australian version of the Feingold diet safe?' Both these studies concluded that the children on the Feingold diet ate better and were more likely than children on the "normal" diet to get the recommended daily allowances of vitamins and minerals.

That was 30 years ago. As natural foods become more and more available in supermarkets, the diet becomes easier, with more choices and less home cooking required.

Finally, I will concede that Dr. X can probably find somewhere an abused child who is also on the Feingold diet. It's hard to believe that an abusive parent would go to the trouble, but you never know. Much more common is the child new to the Program who has been on stimulant meds which destroyed their appetite, or they were picky eaters for some other reason; most regain their appetite and their weight once they are eating real food. Shulae 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Both apples and oranges(both containing salycilates) are eliminated during a Feingold diet, see http://www.feingold.org/diet/ShoppingGuide.pdf for a clear listing. This listing still contains items with low amounts of salicylates but eliminates the most important ones. If parents do not consult a dietist to form a healthy diet for their child then that's a)their fault, b)their doctor's fault; and c) the fault of this shopping guide for not mentioning it in the introduction and instead expecting stupid people miraculously think of it by themselves. Conclussion: the items allowed by the Feingold diet are more than rich enough to form a healthy varied diet, parents need to consult a specialist to form a healthy diet with them though. If your dietist is an idiot show him this http://salicylatesensitivity.com/recipes/.-- 77.109.124.241 ( talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For some reason this footnotes wants to be a template. I must have done something wrong - help? It is simply intended to reference the Program Handbook, with a page number, as a footnote. Shulae ( talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a problem? I could not find the link you're talking about. -- Tmassey ( talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence is problematic: A new study by British researchers led by Jim Stevenson (University of Southampton) appear to confirm his theory but some other previous studies did not according to Reuters (2007).

Whose theory is being confirmed here? what previous studies? Reuters? What kind of a citation is this? I will not take it out today because perhaps somebody actually has some good information relating to it .... but at least I would like to update the sentence with a proper citation for the study, and to add the AAP Grand Rounds analysis. Shulae ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, nobody seems to be talking on this page lately ... and the Reuter's link is broken anyhow and I cannot find any source, so I have removed it. I have also added citations everywhere that they were requested. Okay - now what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulae ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The WPMED project is talking about starting a new article, Elimination diet. If you have an interest in this and would like to help, please feel free to join in. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Upon perusing the NPOV rules and finding the problem sentence pointed out in this talk page, in which it is assumed that the Nutrition Foundation purposely biased their studies (in spite of citing two other sources who published articles claiming the same thing, this could be considered a one-sided statement), so I changed the statement to simply indicate that they funded and designed studies which concluded there was little support for the diet. I have therefore removed the NPOV notice and hope that this resolves this problem. Shulae ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I find that the NPOV is obviously unmet; albeit, (probably) inadvertently. see e.g. "Adding to the confusion is the assumption that the National Advisory Committee is a governmental agency rather than an arm of industry." This sentence, and many others like it, is poorly constructed and confusing. I think the bulk of this entry needs to be revised. Or, maybe entirely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilcarbarca420 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the need for a rewrite. It seems to have attempted to solve the NPOV by flip-flopping between points of view, and reading the more scientific statements the use of citations seems overboard. For example, "Treating multiple symptoms" actually fails to address the question effectively at all, but has a massive number of citations at its end. Certainly one of the studies has proposed a mechanism or two for how it works, if it did find it isn't the placebo effect? Since it's an elimination diet, certainly somebody must have tested the 'kitchen sink' theory (lack of selectivity), rate of comorbidity (which certainly would justify a kitchen sink approach to elimination), no less the possibility that one or more of the things eliminated from the diet is flat-out toxic to children. One hopes that the possibility of the effects being due to improved nutrition has been checked, as well, since that certainly would be an important thing to check. This is a persistent problem, too; certainly somebody supporting the diet would have wanted to know the evidence for the pattern of exclusions, yet there seems rather little explanation to be had. Perhaps one of the cited articles in the history section would supply the answer, but it ought to be in the article itself. 24.167.165.202 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Most of this article rather blatantly violates NPOV. Every argument against the diet is accompanied by a litany of weasel-words/phrases in order to marginalize it, a fair amount of supporting evidence is under-cited (or not at all), and in general it all sounds more or less like an infomercial. And that's not counting the last section, which is arguably advertisement, and definitely un-encyclopedic. Needs a full rewrite. Drake144 ( talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Shulae is the "Webmaster" for the Feingold Association and a major contributor to this article. Fairly cut-and-dry case of COI. Drake144 ( talk) 12:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually, it is a cut-and-dry case of my being a person who knows the subject. And no, I did not get paid for any of this. Shulae ( talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • That seems a bit euphemistic, does it not? I believe you're acting in good faith (i.e. not suggesting you're doing this for pay), but the page now reads more like a promotional pamphlet. You do say you've been closely related to the subject of this article, including as a staff member of the Foundation solely dedicated to its promotion, and that throws up all kinds of red flags. From the Wikipedia COI guidelines:

"1. Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with Why we recommend this: When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world. Their closeness might cause them to see the subject in a more (or less) flattering light than the independent, reliable sources do. Wikipedia wants to reflect the sources' views, not the personal views of individual editors."

The reason they use "recommend" is because, yes, the entire ethos of Wikipedia is that "anyone can edit" it. But if someone close to the subject absolutely must be involved, they've got to be painstakingly careful to remain neutral and encyclopedic.

Needs a very, very thorough revision, if not a complete rewrite. Drake144 ( talk) 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the NIH link was broken, so I have replaced it with one that works. The Arnold link was restricted, which I don't understand. I am, however, familiar with the study. It is about "alternative" treatments for adults with ADHD, and in it he says, "Oligoantigenic (few-foods) diets . . . do not appear promising for adults." He explained to me in a personal communication that this conclusion was based, not on a study showing lack of effect, but on the lack of any study on the effect of diet on adults. Considering this explanation, the article is not relevant. I am replacing it with his article on children and alternative treatments, which he prepared under contract with the NIH for their 1998 Consensus Development Conference, and it was later published on its own as well. Shulae ( talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

>>>"Oligoantigenic (few-foods) diets . . . do not appear promising for adults." He explained to me in a personal communication that this conclusion was based, not on a study showing lack of effect, but on the lack of any study on the effect of diet on adults. Considering this explanation, the article is not relevant.<<<

Would this qualify as "original research", since this conversation is not verifiable from published sources and is at odds with a published source?