The article "Joel Fuhrman" appears to be a self-promotional vanity piece.
Agreed. This article definitely requires a major cleanup. --
Evan Brenner
05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Artcle is a self-serving promotion of a person's sales. This person has no formal training in the field his promotionl materials are based in. This person has no notable accomplishments or research and the article should be removed as many thers have been for the same lack of notability, 99.251.112.162 ( talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
He's a medical doctor. What do you mean he has no formal training in the field in which he writes his books? MaynardClark ( talk) 03:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see what the page was like in April 2006, but now in August 2006 it wasn't too bad. I did go through it and clean up a lot of the "opinionated" parts that were still left, in order to keep NPOV. The article is a good summary of the book contents (I have indeed read it), as well as a good summary of the concepts Fuhrman promotes. Fuhrman is indeed a known figure in health/diet circles. I did also remove a few editorial words to preserve NPOV (e.g., "disgusting but allegedly healthy recipes"... haha). (No, I haven't tried the recipes.) Migp 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)MigP
Karuna8: this article clearly lacks NPOV. People come to wikipedia in part because they want a different perspective from the one marketed to them. Dr. Fuhrman writes that he has 'hundreds of articles' including a number in scholarly journals, but he does not list them on his website. Those unfamiliar with the publishing process may incorrectly assume by his publishing with St. Martin's Press/Griffin that his work has been vetted by knowledgeable peers. I am going to replace the qualification, though in a different place. LeoTrottier 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh ... what is that? I've never heard of it. It doesn't seem to add anything, so I'm going to edit it out (though I'll retain the substance of the previous edit). LeoTrottier 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote the opening paragraph to establish notability. I would like input on if I did it correctly. Any suggestions on how to better organize the sections would be nice too. I have some peer reviewed studies I want to reference as well and don't know if I should make another section. Also, am I allowed to add all his published works to the bibliography? Is the notable mentions section ok? I put it on there to establish more notability and will be adding to it overtime. There is at least 20 books he has been mentioned in. Dr. OZ has a section like that. Please help me do this right!-- Healthyelijah ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I made "books" and "scientific publications" subsections of "Published Works." Scientific publications include either DOI or PubMed ID. Is this sufficient? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I want to add redirects to this page for Dr Fuhrman, Dr Joel Fuhrman and Doctor Joel Fuhrman. Am I allowed to do this? Also can I do mispellings as well, like Furman? It is very common for people to spell his name like Furman. Thanks for the input. In the meantime i will keep reading guidelines and help sections but it really does take a ton of spare time to know all the rules. If I search for Dr. OZ he comes up but no Dr. Fuhrman. There used to be search results for Dr. Fuhrman but it seems someone has removed them. Help me!-- Healthyelijah ( talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"For example in autoimmune diseases such as lupus, asthma or inflammatory bowel disease Fuhrman sometimes advocates fasting 2 – 4 days a month on water only. He may utilize juice fasting in appropriate settings but not in cases where maximum autoimmune suppression and complete bowel rest are more appropriate."
This sounds wrong. In Fasting - and eating - for health his says juice fasting retards the healing process and that regular short fasts shouldn't be undertaken as fasting frequently doesn't give your body enough time to regain nutrients.
-- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.28.46 ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Should not this article have a warning at the start that independent verification of the Fuhrman diet advocated in his books is presently lacking? That is, the diet is an experiment itself with no proven medical history over the long term. Hence the article falls into the category of "alternative medicine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2012
Here I cut and pasted the article ~65% which is solely about diet and nutrition. By the way, Fuhrman only has TWO journal articles peer-reviewed in PUBMED. I find it questionable one calls two a "a number of".
"Fuhrman is the author of five books, and a number of journal articles. The Second Edition of Eat to Live reached the New York Times Best Seller list in June, 2011. He has appeared on several radio and television shows.[3][dead link] Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian" to label people who adopt a micronutrient-rich diet style. He created the Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories (abbreviated as H = N/C). This equation signals that future health can be predicted by the micronutrient per calorie density of the diet.
Joel Fuhrman is featured in the documentaries A Sacred Duty (2007), Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2009), Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010) and Vegucated (2011).[4] In 2011, Fuhrman launched 3 Steps to Incredible Health!, a sixty-minute PBS pledge program that addresses the crisis of obesity and chronic disease plaguing America.
Although there is general consensus amongst doctors advocating plant-based diets, Joel Fuhrman has disagreed with T. Colin Campbell and Caldwell Esselstyn on the use of nuts and seeds.[5]"
References
MaynardClark ( talk) 05:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Diet and micronutrients and how not to get fat seem like "Alternative medicine" given their unproven status and counter position to the FDA MACROnutrient guidelines.
This is pure "Alternative Medicine".
References for FDA macronutrient guidelines reference (above)?
MaynardClark ( talk) 04:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What I find objectionable about Joel Fuhrman is his very broad claims that his approach to eating will prevent and even cure a broad range of diseases. Consider the titles of his books which includes these phrases: "Disease Proof Your Child", "The End of Diabetes", "Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", "A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease".
In the course of a single talk on PBS to the general public he will go even further with many flat statements that he can cure this and prevent that condition or disease. To me this raises huge red flags. Where is the scientific support for curing and preventing all these diseases he mentions by diet alone?
In his many popular talks on PBS he almost never references any studies or provides any documentation that would support his broad disease preventing/curing claims. It all comes down to trust him, he as seen it work in his patients. As 'proof' he will occasionally tell the story of single patient whose life he changed. Curiously in the years I have watched him speak on PBS I have never heard him tell of patient in which his approach didn't work. Only success stories in Fuhrman's talks, another red flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfulton ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
In Men's Journal, Mark Adams opined that Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom". Adams also reported that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".
The removal of the Adams content from the lead leaves the article in violation of WP:UNDUE in failing to present the subjects wild claims in the context that they are seen by mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
" In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Furman's is MOST DEFINITELY a minority viewpoint and needs to be presented as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind cleaning up the way you've phrased the UNDUE tag, TRPoD? It currently reads "This this article fails NPOV requirement to place the claims in context of mainstream academic views lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies," which is grammatically confusing, especially the part I've italicized for emphasis. Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to do things:
One Wikipedian decided to label one as 'promotion' [this link (where the voiceover during their skating called them brother and sister (figure skating already had been mentioned in the article)] and the other 'likely spam'! I think it's important to clarify this because a quick (but wrong) assumption is that he was skating with his wife (not Gale), thinking wrongly that Gale is his wife's name. Further, I think that THAT Wikipedian's judgment is not defensible. He just didn't want that kind of link.
References
MaynardClark ( talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a biography of a living individual, not a commentary on differences of opinion. However, there are some research data which tend to support the idea that, beyond a threshold of nutrition, diminishing returns are realized (not only in mortality reduction, but also in the therapeutic benefits of nutritional support from food). Many people in America are overfed and under-nourished. That some persons here are not undernourished seems, to me, not to justify attacking Dr. Fuhrman's encouragement of nutrient-dense food selections (over empty calories). PBS seems to like broadcasting him. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ages TODAY would be: 26 (Talia), 23, 20, 12 (Sean) [4] MaynardClark ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
References
References
The content, "Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian"[5][6][7]" has some problems with the references. Ref 7 http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/food/nutrition/nutrition/dietary_guide/hgic4062.html has neither (the term) 'nutritarian' nor Fuhrman. Ref 6 is as primary as the come, a book by the subject. I haven't had a chance to check Ref 5 but I also suspect it contains neither reference to Fuhrman or nutritarian. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters to the spats going on in the Talk page ()here), but if we look around the Internet, we found countless incompetible (with one another) interpretations of Dr. Fuhrman's teachings, citing them explicitly:
etc.
Read into that array (i) nothing but amateurishness or idiosyncrasy OR (ii) see that there are a number of folks who walk away from reading or watching a Fuhrman presentation with something. Not everyone 'reads' Fuhrman through MHJ or through a critic's eyes, ears, and mind. Many who want to think for themselves listen to a presentation then apply that which appears to them to make sense. If he once said 'eat lots of spinach' OR 'you could eat lots of spinach' - he may at another time have said 'eat a colorful array of fresh garden vegetables' (something I've heard him say more often).
Is there not some problem in letting only critics of Fuhrman interpret what he says? He's a frequent enough public presence that the collection of his writings and appearances can be studied for clarity and integration. The standard may be validation through published 3rd party references, but these ought to be contextualized in a realistic way (by not over-prioritizing the POV of any of them), in the same way that Wikipedians ought not to try to 'read' the developing idea of nutritarianism (a catchy term, basically, which means an emphasis on nutrient-rich foods) through any one interpretation of 'Fuhrman's teachings'.
With that said, I do NOT think we need a section on different interpretations of Fuhrman's nutritarian teachings. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The controversial reversal by Alexbrn makes no sense.
Look at each one of those edits: clear, precise, and non-controversial.
I'll start with just one: who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet.
Putting "which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet" in the lead paragraph is noncontroversial because it's in the body of the acceptyed text already.
The others are similarly noncontroversial.
What is controversial is the Adam attack, a PARTIAL quote which several Wikipedians have sought to correct. MaynardClark ( talk) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's 'Lipson' rather than 'Lipsom'. Are you reading carefully? In the cited blog article, Peter Lipson makes the broad generalization that a common theme in 'alternative medicine' is that all disease is the sufferer's fault. Here, we have an interpretation of a point of view common in medicine that the sufferer has some role in his or her pathology, often poorly-recognized relationship between behaviors (often copied from within one's social culture) and one's (eventual) suffering. That's not a claim that all suffering is entirely one's own fault, but behaviors are believed by many writers (which are known to those in the field) to have some role in contributing to illness and suffering that results from such illness. Here, I'm showing that Peter Lipson's blog commentary is not really an objective citation, the standard to which other citations are supposedly held. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be (in the current version) an over-reliance on one commentary, the "Men's Health Journal" article (MHJ). More than one comment draws from it (though it may not, and I believe that it is not, representative of what Dr. Fuhrman teaches. Editors ought to understand the subject of the article, not merely one critic's view of the subject of the article. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
What more objective reference is needed that a book was written and is being sold than the large, aggregating online bookstore, Amazon.com, that there are nine (9) published books by Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Isn't this evidence that would be acceptable in a US court of law? I argue that to require a noncommercial source for this is unreasonable (though not impossible to satisfy). MaynardClark ( talk) 01:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Lipson commentary, Lipson is distorts the meaning and intention of “H = N/C.” H=N/C simply states that for optimal health one should attempt to follow a diet with a sufficient amount of micronutrients per calorie. Obviously “health” cannot be quantified; the equation is meant to provide a conceptual guideline for healthful eating. The criticism here is based on Lipson’s incorrect interpretation. Also, it is unclear why this particular physician’s criticism (but no positive commentary) has been deemed worthy of mention here. For example, a balancing positive commentary that could be added to maintain NPOV: Referenced with an article in the
Denver Post, Jairam Vanamala, a professor in the department of food science and human nutrition at Colorado State University has supported the "nutritarian" eating style recommended by Fuhrman, saying that eating foods rich in phytonutrients is “a step on the path toward good health.”--
Joel.Fuhrman (
talk)
15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) lists several of Joel Fuhrman's books. This is already in the article. MaynardClark ( talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The criticisms of Fuhrman's teachings could be aggregated and put in one place.
One additional criticism which the deletionists have not yet allowed is a recent study that criticisms the nutritarian position (shows that micronutrient-rich diets are important if Harvard studies them critically) as being helpful up to the point after which there may be 'diminishing returns' from additional nutrients.
So, such a 'Criticisms' section could have:
I agree on this point. The way the article is currently structured is biased. It does not allow a) the space for the authors position to be made without repudiating it in the next sentence and it b) gives the impression that he claims there is something called "micronutrients" in what he suggests to eat.
Concerning b) the basis of the nutrients are sourced from the USDA Standard Reference database, so he is not "claiming" here. This is misleading. The selection of the nutrients he has selected might be debatable but not the values themselves. Concerning a) by separating the two points, both sides of the discussion become clearer instead of giving that section such a biased outlook
Ebralph ( talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The concept of nutrient density is widely-discussed in the scientific literature.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 recommend the consumption of a variety of “nutrient-dense” foods and beverages within and among the basic food groups. So what is nutrient density? According to definitions, nutrient density is a measure of nutrients provided per calorie of food, or the “ratio of the amount of a nutrient in foods to the energy provided by these same foods.
National nutrition guidelines emphasize consumption of powerhouse fruits and vegetables (PFV), foods most strongly associated with reduced chronic disease risk; yet efforts to define PFV are lacking. This study developed and validated a classification scheme defining PFV as foods providing, on average, 10% or more daily value per 100 kcal of 17 qualifying nutrients. Of 47 foods studied, 41 satisfied the powerhouse criterion and were more nutrient-dense than were non-PFV, providing preliminary evidence of the validity of the classification scheme. The proposed classification scheme is offered as a tool for nutrition education and dietary guidance. [NOTE: PEER REVIEWED]
References
The point here is that the nutritional concept of nutrient density is not without scientific evidence, scientific justification.
MaynardClark ( talk) 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the purpose is? Neither one mentions Fuhrman or his work as far as I can see. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the Life and Career section describing Fuhrman's PBS pledge programs as "infomercials" is an opinion. The author of the Men's Journal article describes the programs as infomercials, but shouldn't this be quoted or at least made clear that this is that his opinion rather than fact? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It not a difference in terminology, it is inaccurate. An infomercial is a paid advertisement. The PBS programs aired during pledge drives raise money for PBS. The statement is inaccurate and negatively biased. -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is getting long and dated enough for auto archiving. When I get a chance I will do so, or someone else can. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A quick 'history' of some published discusson of nutrient density seems to have preceded PUBLISHED work on this topic by Fuhrman, as documented on the ANDI site (now merged with this one).
I propose that we include at least the historical discussion of that topic in the talk page in this article, since RedPenOfDoom decided to move/redirect the ANDI article into the Fuhrman topic.
The topic, again, may be original with Joel Fuhrman, BUT currently available evidence (as cited in that redirected article's talk page) seems to show that it was discussed in the refereed literature apart from involvement by Joel Fuhrman. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fuhrman on Fuhrman is only acceptable for Fuhrman's opinions and statements, factual content requires secondary reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the negatively biased content on this page is derived from one magazine article in particular (Men’s Journal), and it appears that negatively-biased quotations from the article were preferentially chosen. Suggested additions with quotes from the MHJ reference to maintain a neutral point of view: 1) Fuhrman holds that micronutrients are “one of the unacknowledged keys to understanding the American obesity epidemic” and “the fuel that turns on our body’s anticancer defenses.” 2) According to Adams, Fuhrman “isn't a crunchy holistic thinker. He's a data-analysis guy.” -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The assertion that I preach “something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom” is inaccurate and negatively biased. Encouraging people to eat more natural produce and an overall more healthful diet does not equate to fruitarianism or to the radical religious and anti-medical viewpoint of Christian Science. I am a board certified family physician, having spent a good portion of my career admitting and treating patients in clinical practice, nursing homes and hospitals. I work with nutritional scientists at leading research institutes across the country, including researchers at NIH (National Institutes of Health). Criticisms of the views I do hold would be reasonable on this page, however this is a criticism based on views I am not associated with, and has no place on an accurate biography page. Although Wikipedia relies on third-party sources, accuracy should be most important. -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The assertion that I believe the flu vaccine “isn't effective at all” is not true. I have never expressed such an opinion. I discussed the scientific research on the efficacy of the flu vaccine in my book, Super Immunity, but do not hold such an opinion, or have any “beliefs” on the matter. I can only report what researchers and authorities in this field report.-- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The page mentions only Eat to Live as a New York Times best seller, however I have 5 New York Times best selling books: 1. Eat To Live 2. The End of Dieting 3. The Eat To Live Cookbook 4. The End of Diabetes 5. Super Immunity-- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a founding member of the American College of Lifestyle medicine, served on the board with a demonstrative longtime effort to develop this specialty within the medical profession. I am a member of the Dr. Oz Show Medical Advisory Board (
http://www.doctoroz.com/medical-advisory-board). The following are a few articles that could be referenced by Wikipedia editors to include more information in the biography page, either positive or negative, based on accurate representations of my work:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/interviews/article/59411-nutritarian-living-pw-talks-with-joel-fuhrman.html
http://thechalkboardmag.com/get-dense-why-you-should-be-eating-foods-with-high-andi-scores
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/what-is-nutritarianism-and-how-can-it-help-the-athlete
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15235103
http://patch.com/new-york/sachem/whole-foods-explores-becoming-a-nutritarian
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/articles/mm-interviewwith-dr-joel-fuhrman/
http://spoonuniversity.com/2014/07/nutritarian-diet-changes-food-pyramid/
http://www.gmtoday.com/content/m_magazine/2014/July/m_072014_36.asp
http://theepochtimes.com/n3/813324-survival-on-the-road-dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-tips-for-healthy-summer-travel/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vitamix-brings-doctor-and-best-selling-author-dr-joel-fuhrman-to-cleveland-for-free-lecture-aimed-at-inspiring-clevelanders-to-eat-healthier-202361231.html
First For Women 6/10/13 and 6/23/14:
http://www.firstforwomen.com/
GGMG Magazine July/Aug 2013:
http://www.ggmg.org/narchive2013.html
Positive Impact Magazine, Fall 2012:
http://positiveimpactmagazine.com/
--
Joel.Fuhrman (
talk)
15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary contains an entry for the word “ nutritarian,” coined by me to define the diet-style I recommend, so it would be appropriate that wikipedia used this term in my biography page. For example, a suggested addition: “Fuhrman calls his recommended eating style “nutritarian,” to describe the focus on whole plant foods rich in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.” -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
A list of articles whether published in peer reviewed journals or not does not belong in the article. It is undue (per the policy WP:NPOV) and smacks of puffery (see the essay WP:LARD). If these articles are considered notable in reliable sources, when such references are provided they can be added back in. See the policy WP:NOT. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This ref only indicates that Fuhrman registered for the website, not that he set up the organization. In all likelihood he did indeed set it up. If we can find a ref verifying he founded it then the sentence would be appropriate. Who registered for a web address is almost never listed anywhere on Wikipedia and since this does not validate the content I have removed it and the ref.-- Daffydavid ( talk) 23:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal Adams reports that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".[3][non sequitur]
I added a [non sequitur] template to this statement as I believe that this statement should not be included in the diet section of this article As it has nothing to do with the diet that Joel Fuhrman prescribes? The statement should be deleted or moved to a new section? Also as per section 24 "Request to remove flu vaccine statement" Joel Fuhrman himself requested that the statement be removed. I would appreciate a more experienced editors input as regarding these issues as i do not know what wikipedia policy is regarding this is??? BTW if you could Ping me when adding your input i would appreciate it so i can learn more about the wikipedia thanks Sassmouth ( talk) 03:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The list of books written by Joel Fuhrman was deleted, with a comment stating "list of junky books." Regardless of that editor's opinion of the quality of those books, they were indeed written by the subject of the biography and several were on the NYT best seller list. This subject of this biography page became well-known because of a book on nutrition (Eat to Live, as noted in the intro paragraph of the page). A list of his books is relevant biographical information. What part of the biographies of living persons policies forbids a list of books written by the subject of the biography? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 19:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This user is repeatedly deleting edits to this page. Regarding the first sentence, "celebrity doctor" is a relative term and should not be used when there are far more accurate and well cited sources to state otherwise. Danielinnov8 ( talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This user is repeatedly adding spam to amazon.com. Before that this user was removing reliable sources that criticized Fuhrman's ideas. This kind of whitewashing is inappropriate. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
Requesting a peer review and changes to the article. I do not believe it to be correct or objective. For example the first sentence "is an American celebrity doctor who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet" is a subjective statement and is mis-quoted from the original reference which states "...and his nutrient density program..." page 41. Regardless this subcategory idea is not appropriate for the introduction of the subject. I propose a more accurate and fair introduction: "...is a Board Certified physician and author based in New Jersey."
The entire Diet and health section is essentially controversial material from one perspective (against) the subject. I propose renaming this heading to "Diet Controversy..." where all of the controversial material can go instead of being scattered throughout the entire article. Thank you. Danielinnov8 ( talk) 19:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
should be removed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Fuhrman appeared on the raw food documentary Simply Raw in which he promoted a vitalistic view of food and the pseudoscientific idea of detoxification. [1]
References
While there's certainly the possibility that Gorski was incorrect, the reference was removed erroneously [3]. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 04:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that Gorski either hasn't watched the documentary Simply Raw or has mistaken one of the other people who appear in the film as Fuhrman. And Gorski most definitely is saying Fuhrman made the claims in the documentary...
This is a direct quote from the source... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”
The problem with this source is it's completely inaccurate. Fuhrman's 15 second quote in the documentary Simply Raw is at 58 seconds in youtu.be/nBJZnakkoss?t=58 and I've also included the quote. He makes no other appearance in the documentary.
This is the exact quote from Fuhrman in the documentary..."We have an unbelievable epidemic of diabetes in this country. The rates of diabetes are skyrocketing and it parallels the epidemic of obesity. We have the most overweight population ever in the history of the human race and it's still growing fatter." Nowhere in the documentary does Fuhrman talk about his diet, or about detoxification or anything else.
The information being used in the Wikipedia article comes directly from this false information. It's the source that's the problem not the information.
Linking to a source that is obviously false and can be clearly demonstrated as false hurts the credibility of the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No the link I gave you is the documentary. It's simple enough for you to cross check that which I did. In most cases Gorski would seem to be a reliable source but on the topic of this documentary he is simply wrong. Furhman only appeared for 15 seconds and the quote above is word for word what he said. The documentary was filmed very cheaply and my guess is the film makers used the short interview of Furhman as a way to increase interest in their movie. He says nothing in his appearance about his diet recommendations or diet at all. He is not a narrator, and he also doesn't seem to have had any role at all as an advisor etc. There's simply nothing anywhere that supports Gorski's statements about what Furhman said in the documentary. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AndrewCeditor (
talk •
contribs)
03:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I think Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else. Fuhrman is not a raw food proponent. I have seen the Simply Raw documentary...and I watched it again after seeing your link because I couldn't remember Fuhrman being in it (lol thanks a lot of that...it's not a very good documentary). Fuhruman recommends both cooked and raw vegetables and beans (cooked) as a main source of carbohydrates, mushrooms (cooked) and broccoli (cooked). That makes this being a quote from him highly unlikely. He does recommend eating berries raw because cooking them removes some nutrients. In case you're wondering how I know I was a health writer for many years, I'm a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association and appeared as a regular guest on 40 radio stations across Australia. I'm familiar with a lot of diets. Furhman's is just a really extreme version of what most nutritionists recommend.
Again I don't mind what's in the Wikipedia page now I just want it to be from an accurate source...it's accurate enough factually in terms of some of what Fuhrman promotes...vitalism and detoxification...a huge percentage of qualified nutritionists promote something similar including one who's quoted further down in the same section and it's not really saying anything important...but what he's saying is not accurate in terms of saying it in the documentary Simply Raw. I also think you're actually quoting something Gorski says that's outside his field of expertise. If you found a quote based on him criticizing Fuhrman on his recommendations for cancer that would be brilliant and would add value to the article.
I couldn't find any other videos. If you share some links with me I'm happy to check them to see if I can find the quote.
Thank you. I went through all the parts with Fuhrman speaking. There's nothing vaguely like Gorski talks about in his blog post. In fact if Fuhrman was trying to stick to mainstream nutrition advice he's awfully close with almost everything he says. The closest to what Gorski is talking about is this direct quote that apart from the words "acid forming" you'd expect to hear from any responsible nutritionist around the world "To be in good health we want to eat a diet that's higher in nutrients and lower in calories. That means you have to eat foods that are largely high nutrient low calorie foods. Well the foods that are highest in nutrients are green vegetables, tomatoes, berries, oranges you know, carrots and you're gonna get a diet higher in fiber, higher in high nutrients, higher in phytochemicals...it's automatically not gonna be acid forming, it's gonna take all those features that each fad diet looks at are all put together when you eat a diet that's very nutrient dense."
It's not even vaguely close to his quote and there's no mention of eating raw which is what I'd expect because Furhman is not a raw food exponent as I mentioned before.
The quote you're referring to is not worded the way the average nutritionist would put it but it's not out there and again bears no relations to what Gorski was saying..."There's also a fact of nutrient, nutritional imbalances and deficiencies that makes the pancreas not responsive. So there's a certain loss of function to the pancreas due to the lack of phytonutrients and the variety and symphony of nutrients we need for normal tissue function. In other words the cells don't function at full efficiency when you just supply them with some macronutrients. They need a full symphony of, the full complement of, you know the artistry of thousands of different discovered and undiscovered chemicals to maximize cellular function."
Some important points. It's not what Gorski was talking about and it's not in the documentary Simply Raw (it's in Raw For Life).Can we just agree that Gorski is in error saying Fuhrman said these things in Simply Raw and find some other quality content to put in this article.
The statement you have based on Gorski's comments is not really adding anything anyway. There are far more important topics to cover like his promotion of super immunity instead of promoting social distancing as protection against covid-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is simply not acceptable. Accuracy is important. What you're saying is it doesn't matter that this whole quote is completely untrue and he that he never said any of these things or promoted them... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”
Having a commitment to the truth and accuracy is at the foundation of quality writing. There are plenty of other sources that quote Fuhrman accurately. This is just lazy writing with no commitment to the truth.
I did watch the documentary and if you look at my comments above I posted the comments Fuhrman made. None of them were even close to what Gorski reported and the documentary you're linking to is not Simply Raw it's Raw For Life. I posted a link to Simply Raw which is the documentary that Gorski says he watched in his blog post. What you're saying simply isn't accurate. I am fairly certain Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else in Simply Raw. Accuracy is important. I also provided the link to the documentary and copied and pasted the 15 second statement Fuhrman made.
I established the source was incorrect. If the source is incorrect by definition it's not a reliable source. As I've said before I have no particular problem with anything Gorski is saying but the source is incorrect for whatever reason. We should not be using an incorrect source.
Accuracy matters. This type of sloppy, lazy research and writing is why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a poor source for a BLP. I don't think it's a problem for statements of fact, but Adams writes that "Fuhrman isn’t a crunchy holistic thinker. He’s a data-analysis guy. Fuhrman says he has reviewed 20,000 journal articles on nutrition, culling the most important information from each."
?
[9] Fuhrman says a lot of things to promote himself, but we don't have to repeat them, let alone cherry-pick for "balance". --
Hipal/Ronz (
talk)
15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case then this should be removed because it's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion which is both misleading and inaccurate(Nutritarianism is in no way similar to fruitarianism)). Fuhrman's approach to diet is also mostly based on scientific evidence that is reasonably sound. He has obvious biases and makes some leaps but his approach is not belief based like Christian Science. Accuracy is important. Inaccurate information is why people don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. "Fuhrman preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom"
If you search for them you'll find much more accurate criticisms of Furhman's approach. Anti vaccination, teaching super immunity instead of social distancing as the first line of defense against covid-19, the fact his diet plan is extremely difficult to comply to long term etc.
This particular quote from the Men's Journal has no real significance or relevance, it's an opinion from someone unqualified in the field and it's both inaccurate and misleading.
How about this instead: In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal, Mark Adams stated that Fuhrman believes the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all." He’s also skeptical about the number of vaccines the average American child receives. Fuhrman says “There’s no chance of anyone getting polio in this country.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind I am a health writer and a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association with over a decade's experience including being internationally syndicated and being a regular guest on a show that fed to over 40 radio stations across Australia. I do know what is fringe and what is mainstream. There is nothing fringe about recommending eating vegetables, berries, nuts, or beans. You can find those recommendations on any government health website in the world in various forms. You could argue that the extremes he takes his diet to are fringe and that would certainly be reasonable but the actual base recommendations and science he shares are mostly mainstream studies that any nutritionist would know and share.
I actually know what his recommendations are because I've watched several of his presentations...something I do with most major health figures to stay up to date. And I'm familiar with the mainstream studies because I've written about many often pointing out their flaws or their good points.
When you criticize any information or diet "guru" you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.
There are multiple reliable sources who say most of the science he shares is sound including all three sources cited in this Wikipedia article (credible qualified nutritionists and dieticians). That's completely unsurprising because he shares quite common, well known studies...especially larger scale epidemiological studies on diet.
The thing most are calling into question is not the research but his tendency to take good research and use it to justify a relatively extreme approach to diet.
So again you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.
It would be nice if you stopped assuming I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm somehow biased. I just want accurate information shared here so that people can have confidence this site is a source of reliable information.
The sentence I"m referring to is not a criticism. It's an article from a non health writer talking about what he thinks of the way Fuhrman behaves. If you go read the article it's not critical at all. The writer tries the diet himself.
So if you're looking for accurate criticism this article isn't it. And the quote is out of context with the rest of the article.
Most importantly it's inaccurate and misleading. Fuhrman does not promote fruitarianism and he's not like a Christian Scientist either. When he speaks the vast majority of what he says is repeating well known studies and he comes across as angry.
It would be more accurate to say he's a diet extremist. There are plenty of good accurate sources of criticism about Fuhrman from people who are actually qualified to give it. This particular quote just makes the article look amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record I did add a citation that included a negative review of the diet in regard to compliance and it's stretch on some of the science (although the article didn't go into any detail) and I suggested adding more about Furhman's finge stance on vaccinations which is a real concern. I really am just looking for accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No offense but I did tell you I was familiar with his diet as I am with many diets. This statement is not accurate "It's basically a starvation diet". Fuhrman eats 2,000 calories a day which is right on the low end of recommended calories a day from the US government, exactly the recommended calorie intake from the Australian government. You might adjust up for activity, down for age (he's in his 60s...basal metabolic rate drops as you age meaning you require less calories) etc but it's in the ballpark. A labourer could eat more nuts and beans and easily get the calories and protein needed in exactly the same way a labourer would increase intake on any other kind of diet. That potential adustment is included in his diet calorie ranges for different food types. Sorry to get off topic about the editing but you did bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
AndrewCeditor added to the article "He also recommends eating at least one cup of beans a day as a protein and carbohydrate source and to increase resistant starch passing through the stomach to be fermented in the large intestine by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids." The source cited [11] says "Fuhrman suggests eating 1 cup daily to benefit fully from the fiber and resistant starch, which helps you feel full and passes through the intestine without being digested." The added line "by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids" is not in the cited source, nor does he suggest "at least one cup", the source says "eating 1 cup daily". This is just one sentence containing original research I have gone through so far which AndrewCeditor has added. I believe there are more. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My apologies. On the "at least one cup" I misread sited reference 15 which actually says at least 1/2 cup. I misread it as at least one cup. On the topic of the cited references is The Nutrition Health Review citation (number 11) considered a reliable source? I'm not sure how it got there and I'm not sure it should be there.
I really am just trying to increase the quality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The article "Joel Fuhrman" appears to be a self-promotional vanity piece.
Agreed. This article definitely requires a major cleanup. --
Evan Brenner
05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Artcle is a self-serving promotion of a person's sales. This person has no formal training in the field his promotionl materials are based in. This person has no notable accomplishments or research and the article should be removed as many thers have been for the same lack of notability, 99.251.112.162 ( talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
He's a medical doctor. What do you mean he has no formal training in the field in which he writes his books? MaynardClark ( talk) 03:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see what the page was like in April 2006, but now in August 2006 it wasn't too bad. I did go through it and clean up a lot of the "opinionated" parts that were still left, in order to keep NPOV. The article is a good summary of the book contents (I have indeed read it), as well as a good summary of the concepts Fuhrman promotes. Fuhrman is indeed a known figure in health/diet circles. I did also remove a few editorial words to preserve NPOV (e.g., "disgusting but allegedly healthy recipes"... haha). (No, I haven't tried the recipes.) Migp 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)MigP
Karuna8: this article clearly lacks NPOV. People come to wikipedia in part because they want a different perspective from the one marketed to them. Dr. Fuhrman writes that he has 'hundreds of articles' including a number in scholarly journals, but he does not list them on his website. Those unfamiliar with the publishing process may incorrectly assume by his publishing with St. Martin's Press/Griffin that his work has been vetted by knowledgeable peers. I am going to replace the qualification, though in a different place. LeoTrottier 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh ... what is that? I've never heard of it. It doesn't seem to add anything, so I'm going to edit it out (though I'll retain the substance of the previous edit). LeoTrottier 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I just rewrote the opening paragraph to establish notability. I would like input on if I did it correctly. Any suggestions on how to better organize the sections would be nice too. I have some peer reviewed studies I want to reference as well and don't know if I should make another section. Also, am I allowed to add all his published works to the bibliography? Is the notable mentions section ok? I put it on there to establish more notability and will be adding to it overtime. There is at least 20 books he has been mentioned in. Dr. OZ has a section like that. Please help me do this right!-- Healthyelijah ( talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I made "books" and "scientific publications" subsections of "Published Works." Scientific publications include either DOI or PubMed ID. Is this sufficient? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I want to add redirects to this page for Dr Fuhrman, Dr Joel Fuhrman and Doctor Joel Fuhrman. Am I allowed to do this? Also can I do mispellings as well, like Furman? It is very common for people to spell his name like Furman. Thanks for the input. In the meantime i will keep reading guidelines and help sections but it really does take a ton of spare time to know all the rules. If I search for Dr. OZ he comes up but no Dr. Fuhrman. There used to be search results for Dr. Fuhrman but it seems someone has removed them. Help me!-- Healthyelijah ( talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"For example in autoimmune diseases such as lupus, asthma or inflammatory bowel disease Fuhrman sometimes advocates fasting 2 – 4 days a month on water only. He may utilize juice fasting in appropriate settings but not in cases where maximum autoimmune suppression and complete bowel rest are more appropriate."
This sounds wrong. In Fasting - and eating - for health his says juice fasting retards the healing process and that regular short fasts shouldn't be undertaken as fasting frequently doesn't give your body enough time to regain nutrients.
-- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.28.46 ( talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Should not this article have a warning at the start that independent verification of the Fuhrman diet advocated in his books is presently lacking? That is, the diet is an experiment itself with no proven medical history over the long term. Hence the article falls into the category of "alternative medicine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2012
Here I cut and pasted the article ~65% which is solely about diet and nutrition. By the way, Fuhrman only has TWO journal articles peer-reviewed in PUBMED. I find it questionable one calls two a "a number of".
"Fuhrman is the author of five books, and a number of journal articles. The Second Edition of Eat to Live reached the New York Times Best Seller list in June, 2011. He has appeared on several radio and television shows.[3][dead link] Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian" to label people who adopt a micronutrient-rich diet style. He created the Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories (abbreviated as H = N/C). This equation signals that future health can be predicted by the micronutrient per calorie density of the diet.
Joel Fuhrman is featured in the documentaries A Sacred Duty (2007), Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2009), Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010) and Vegucated (2011).[4] In 2011, Fuhrman launched 3 Steps to Incredible Health!, a sixty-minute PBS pledge program that addresses the crisis of obesity and chronic disease plaguing America.
Although there is general consensus amongst doctors advocating plant-based diets, Joel Fuhrman has disagreed with T. Colin Campbell and Caldwell Esselstyn on the use of nuts and seeds.[5]"
References
MaynardClark ( talk) 05:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Diet and micronutrients and how not to get fat seem like "Alternative medicine" given their unproven status and counter position to the FDA MACROnutrient guidelines.
This is pure "Alternative Medicine".
References for FDA macronutrient guidelines reference (above)?
MaynardClark ( talk) 04:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What I find objectionable about Joel Fuhrman is his very broad claims that his approach to eating will prevent and even cure a broad range of diseases. Consider the titles of his books which includes these phrases: "Disease Proof Your Child", "The End of Diabetes", "Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", "A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease".
In the course of a single talk on PBS to the general public he will go even further with many flat statements that he can cure this and prevent that condition or disease. To me this raises huge red flags. Where is the scientific support for curing and preventing all these diseases he mentions by diet alone?
In his many popular talks on PBS he almost never references any studies or provides any documentation that would support his broad disease preventing/curing claims. It all comes down to trust him, he as seen it work in his patients. As 'proof' he will occasionally tell the story of single patient whose life he changed. Curiously in the years I have watched him speak on PBS I have never heard him tell of patient in which his approach didn't work. Only success stories in Fuhrman's talks, another red flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfulton ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
In Men's Journal, Mark Adams opined that Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom". Adams also reported that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".
The removal of the Adams content from the lead leaves the article in violation of WP:UNDUE in failing to present the subjects wild claims in the context that they are seen by mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
" In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Furman's is MOST DEFINITELY a minority viewpoint and needs to be presented as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind cleaning up the way you've phrased the UNDUE tag, TRPoD? It currently reads "This this article fails NPOV requirement to place the claims in context of mainstream academic views lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies," which is grammatically confusing, especially the part I've italicized for emphasis. Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to do things:
One Wikipedian decided to label one as 'promotion' [this link (where the voiceover during their skating called them brother and sister (figure skating already had been mentioned in the article)] and the other 'likely spam'! I think it's important to clarify this because a quick (but wrong) assumption is that he was skating with his wife (not Gale), thinking wrongly that Gale is his wife's name. Further, I think that THAT Wikipedian's judgment is not defensible. He just didn't want that kind of link.
References
MaynardClark ( talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a biography of a living individual, not a commentary on differences of opinion. However, there are some research data which tend to support the idea that, beyond a threshold of nutrition, diminishing returns are realized (not only in mortality reduction, but also in the therapeutic benefits of nutritional support from food). Many people in America are overfed and under-nourished. That some persons here are not undernourished seems, to me, not to justify attacking Dr. Fuhrman's encouragement of nutrient-dense food selections (over empty calories). PBS seems to like broadcasting him. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ages TODAY would be: 26 (Talia), 23, 20, 12 (Sean) [4] MaynardClark ( talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
References
References
The content, "Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian"[5][6][7]" has some problems with the references. Ref 7 http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/food/nutrition/nutrition/dietary_guide/hgic4062.html has neither (the term) 'nutritarian' nor Fuhrman. Ref 6 is as primary as the come, a book by the subject. I haven't had a chance to check Ref 5 but I also suspect it contains neither reference to Fuhrman or nutritarian. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Not that it matters to the spats going on in the Talk page ()here), but if we look around the Internet, we found countless incompetible (with one another) interpretations of Dr. Fuhrman's teachings, citing them explicitly:
etc.
Read into that array (i) nothing but amateurishness or idiosyncrasy OR (ii) see that there are a number of folks who walk away from reading or watching a Fuhrman presentation with something. Not everyone 'reads' Fuhrman through MHJ or through a critic's eyes, ears, and mind. Many who want to think for themselves listen to a presentation then apply that which appears to them to make sense. If he once said 'eat lots of spinach' OR 'you could eat lots of spinach' - he may at another time have said 'eat a colorful array of fresh garden vegetables' (something I've heard him say more often).
Is there not some problem in letting only critics of Fuhrman interpret what he says? He's a frequent enough public presence that the collection of his writings and appearances can be studied for clarity and integration. The standard may be validation through published 3rd party references, but these ought to be contextualized in a realistic way (by not over-prioritizing the POV of any of them), in the same way that Wikipedians ought not to try to 'read' the developing idea of nutritarianism (a catchy term, basically, which means an emphasis on nutrient-rich foods) through any one interpretation of 'Fuhrman's teachings'.
With that said, I do NOT think we need a section on different interpretations of Fuhrman's nutritarian teachings. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The controversial reversal by Alexbrn makes no sense.
Look at each one of those edits: clear, precise, and non-controversial.
I'll start with just one: who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet.
Putting "which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet" in the lead paragraph is noncontroversial because it's in the body of the acceptyed text already.
The others are similarly noncontroversial.
What is controversial is the Adam attack, a PARTIAL quote which several Wikipedians have sought to correct. MaynardClark ( talk) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It's 'Lipson' rather than 'Lipsom'. Are you reading carefully? In the cited blog article, Peter Lipson makes the broad generalization that a common theme in 'alternative medicine' is that all disease is the sufferer's fault. Here, we have an interpretation of a point of view common in medicine that the sufferer has some role in his or her pathology, often poorly-recognized relationship between behaviors (often copied from within one's social culture) and one's (eventual) suffering. That's not a claim that all suffering is entirely one's own fault, but behaviors are believed by many writers (which are known to those in the field) to have some role in contributing to illness and suffering that results from such illness. Here, I'm showing that Peter Lipson's blog commentary is not really an objective citation, the standard to which other citations are supposedly held. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be (in the current version) an over-reliance on one commentary, the "Men's Health Journal" article (MHJ). More than one comment draws from it (though it may not, and I believe that it is not, representative of what Dr. Fuhrman teaches. Editors ought to understand the subject of the article, not merely one critic's view of the subject of the article. MaynardClark ( talk) 21:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
What more objective reference is needed that a book was written and is being sold than the large, aggregating online bookstore, Amazon.com, that there are nine (9) published books by Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Isn't this evidence that would be acceptable in a US court of law? I argue that to require a noncommercial source for this is unreasonable (though not impossible to satisfy). MaynardClark ( talk) 01:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Lipson commentary, Lipson is distorts the meaning and intention of “H = N/C.” H=N/C simply states that for optimal health one should attempt to follow a diet with a sufficient amount of micronutrients per calorie. Obviously “health” cannot be quantified; the equation is meant to provide a conceptual guideline for healthful eating. The criticism here is based on Lipson’s incorrect interpretation. Also, it is unclear why this particular physician’s criticism (but no positive commentary) has been deemed worthy of mention here. For example, a balancing positive commentary that could be added to maintain NPOV: Referenced with an article in the
Denver Post, Jairam Vanamala, a professor in the department of food science and human nutrition at Colorado State University has supported the "nutritarian" eating style recommended by Fuhrman, saying that eating foods rich in phytonutrients is “a step on the path toward good health.”--
Joel.Fuhrman (
talk)
15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) lists several of Joel Fuhrman's books. This is already in the article. MaynardClark ( talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The criticisms of Fuhrman's teachings could be aggregated and put in one place.
One additional criticism which the deletionists have not yet allowed is a recent study that criticisms the nutritarian position (shows that micronutrient-rich diets are important if Harvard studies them critically) as being helpful up to the point after which there may be 'diminishing returns' from additional nutrients.
So, such a 'Criticisms' section could have:
I agree on this point. The way the article is currently structured is biased. It does not allow a) the space for the authors position to be made without repudiating it in the next sentence and it b) gives the impression that he claims there is something called "micronutrients" in what he suggests to eat.
Concerning b) the basis of the nutrients are sourced from the USDA Standard Reference database, so he is not "claiming" here. This is misleading. The selection of the nutrients he has selected might be debatable but not the values themselves. Concerning a) by separating the two points, both sides of the discussion become clearer instead of giving that section such a biased outlook
Ebralph ( talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The concept of nutrient density is widely-discussed in the scientific literature.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 recommend the consumption of a variety of “nutrient-dense” foods and beverages within and among the basic food groups. So what is nutrient density? According to definitions, nutrient density is a measure of nutrients provided per calorie of food, or the “ratio of the amount of a nutrient in foods to the energy provided by these same foods.
National nutrition guidelines emphasize consumption of powerhouse fruits and vegetables (PFV), foods most strongly associated with reduced chronic disease risk; yet efforts to define PFV are lacking. This study developed and validated a classification scheme defining PFV as foods providing, on average, 10% or more daily value per 100 kcal of 17 qualifying nutrients. Of 47 foods studied, 41 satisfied the powerhouse criterion and were more nutrient-dense than were non-PFV, providing preliminary evidence of the validity of the classification scheme. The proposed classification scheme is offered as a tool for nutrition education and dietary guidance. [NOTE: PEER REVIEWED]
References
The point here is that the nutritional concept of nutrient density is not without scientific evidence, scientific justification.
MaynardClark ( talk) 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the purpose is? Neither one mentions Fuhrman or his work as far as I can see. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the Life and Career section describing Fuhrman's PBS pledge programs as "infomercials" is an opinion. The author of the Men's Journal article describes the programs as infomercials, but shouldn't this be quoted or at least made clear that this is that his opinion rather than fact? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It not a difference in terminology, it is inaccurate. An infomercial is a paid advertisement. The PBS programs aired during pledge drives raise money for PBS. The statement is inaccurate and negatively biased. -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This talk page is getting long and dated enough for auto archiving. When I get a chance I will do so, or someone else can. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A quick 'history' of some published discusson of nutrient density seems to have preceded PUBLISHED work on this topic by Fuhrman, as documented on the ANDI site (now merged with this one).
I propose that we include at least the historical discussion of that topic in the talk page in this article, since RedPenOfDoom decided to move/redirect the ANDI article into the Fuhrman topic.
The topic, again, may be original with Joel Fuhrman, BUT currently available evidence (as cited in that redirected article's talk page) seems to show that it was discussed in the refereed literature apart from involvement by Joel Fuhrman. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Fuhrman on Fuhrman is only acceptable for Fuhrman's opinions and statements, factual content requires secondary reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the negatively biased content on this page is derived from one magazine article in particular (Men’s Journal), and it appears that negatively-biased quotations from the article were preferentially chosen. Suggested additions with quotes from the MHJ reference to maintain a neutral point of view: 1) Fuhrman holds that micronutrients are “one of the unacknowledged keys to understanding the American obesity epidemic” and “the fuel that turns on our body’s anticancer defenses.” 2) According to Adams, Fuhrman “isn't a crunchy holistic thinker. He's a data-analysis guy.” -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The assertion that I preach “something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom” is inaccurate and negatively biased. Encouraging people to eat more natural produce and an overall more healthful diet does not equate to fruitarianism or to the radical religious and anti-medical viewpoint of Christian Science. I am a board certified family physician, having spent a good portion of my career admitting and treating patients in clinical practice, nursing homes and hospitals. I work with nutritional scientists at leading research institutes across the country, including researchers at NIH (National Institutes of Health). Criticisms of the views I do hold would be reasonable on this page, however this is a criticism based on views I am not associated with, and has no place on an accurate biography page. Although Wikipedia relies on third-party sources, accuracy should be most important. -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The assertion that I believe the flu vaccine “isn't effective at all” is not true. I have never expressed such an opinion. I discussed the scientific research on the efficacy of the flu vaccine in my book, Super Immunity, but do not hold such an opinion, or have any “beliefs” on the matter. I can only report what researchers and authorities in this field report.-- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The page mentions only Eat to Live as a New York Times best seller, however I have 5 New York Times best selling books: 1. Eat To Live 2. The End of Dieting 3. The Eat To Live Cookbook 4. The End of Diabetes 5. Super Immunity-- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a founding member of the American College of Lifestyle medicine, served on the board with a demonstrative longtime effort to develop this specialty within the medical profession. I am a member of the Dr. Oz Show Medical Advisory Board (
http://www.doctoroz.com/medical-advisory-board). The following are a few articles that could be referenced by Wikipedia editors to include more information in the biography page, either positive or negative, based on accurate representations of my work:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/interviews/article/59411-nutritarian-living-pw-talks-with-joel-fuhrman.html
http://thechalkboardmag.com/get-dense-why-you-should-be-eating-foods-with-high-andi-scores
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/what-is-nutritarianism-and-how-can-it-help-the-athlete
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15235103
http://patch.com/new-york/sachem/whole-foods-explores-becoming-a-nutritarian
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/articles/mm-interviewwith-dr-joel-fuhrman/
http://spoonuniversity.com/2014/07/nutritarian-diet-changes-food-pyramid/
http://www.gmtoday.com/content/m_magazine/2014/July/m_072014_36.asp
http://theepochtimes.com/n3/813324-survival-on-the-road-dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-tips-for-healthy-summer-travel/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vitamix-brings-doctor-and-best-selling-author-dr-joel-fuhrman-to-cleveland-for-free-lecture-aimed-at-inspiring-clevelanders-to-eat-healthier-202361231.html
First For Women 6/10/13 and 6/23/14:
http://www.firstforwomen.com/
GGMG Magazine July/Aug 2013:
http://www.ggmg.org/narchive2013.html
Positive Impact Magazine, Fall 2012:
http://positiveimpactmagazine.com/
--
Joel.Fuhrman (
talk)
15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary contains an entry for the word “ nutritarian,” coined by me to define the diet-style I recommend, so it would be appropriate that wikipedia used this term in my biography page. For example, a suggested addition: “Fuhrman calls his recommended eating style “nutritarian,” to describe the focus on whole plant foods rich in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.” -- Joel.Fuhrman ( talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
A list of articles whether published in peer reviewed journals or not does not belong in the article. It is undue (per the policy WP:NPOV) and smacks of puffery (see the essay WP:LARD). If these articles are considered notable in reliable sources, when such references are provided they can be added back in. See the policy WP:NOT. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This ref only indicates that Fuhrman registered for the website, not that he set up the organization. In all likelihood he did indeed set it up. If we can find a ref verifying he founded it then the sentence would be appropriate. Who registered for a web address is almost never listed anywhere on Wikipedia and since this does not validate the content I have removed it and the ref.-- Daffydavid ( talk) 23:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal Adams reports that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".[3][non sequitur]
I added a [non sequitur] template to this statement as I believe that this statement should not be included in the diet section of this article As it has nothing to do with the diet that Joel Fuhrman prescribes? The statement should be deleted or moved to a new section? Also as per section 24 "Request to remove flu vaccine statement" Joel Fuhrman himself requested that the statement be removed. I would appreciate a more experienced editors input as regarding these issues as i do not know what wikipedia policy is regarding this is??? BTW if you could Ping me when adding your input i would appreciate it so i can learn more about the wikipedia thanks Sassmouth ( talk) 03:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The list of books written by Joel Fuhrman was deleted, with a comment stating "list of junky books." Regardless of that editor's opinion of the quality of those books, they were indeed written by the subject of the biography and several were on the NYT best seller list. This subject of this biography page became well-known because of a book on nutrition (Eat to Live, as noted in the intro paragraph of the page). A list of his books is relevant biographical information. What part of the biographies of living persons policies forbids a list of books written by the subject of the biography? -- Deana.ferreri ( talk) 19:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This user is repeatedly deleting edits to this page. Regarding the first sentence, "celebrity doctor" is a relative term and should not be used when there are far more accurate and well cited sources to state otherwise. Danielinnov8 ( talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
This user is repeatedly adding spam to amazon.com. Before that this user was removing reliable sources that criticized Fuhrman's ideas. This kind of whitewashing is inappropriate. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
Requesting a peer review and changes to the article. I do not believe it to be correct or objective. For example the first sentence "is an American celebrity doctor who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet" is a subjective statement and is mis-quoted from the original reference which states "...and his nutrient density program..." page 41. Regardless this subcategory idea is not appropriate for the introduction of the subject. I propose a more accurate and fair introduction: "...is a Board Certified physician and author based in New Jersey."
The entire Diet and health section is essentially controversial material from one perspective (against) the subject. I propose renaming this heading to "Diet Controversy..." where all of the controversial material can go instead of being scattered throughout the entire article. Thank you. Danielinnov8 ( talk) 19:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
should be removed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Fuhrman appeared on the raw food documentary Simply Raw in which he promoted a vitalistic view of food and the pseudoscientific idea of detoxification. [1]
References
While there's certainly the possibility that Gorski was incorrect, the reference was removed erroneously [3]. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 04:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that Gorski either hasn't watched the documentary Simply Raw or has mistaken one of the other people who appear in the film as Fuhrman. And Gorski most definitely is saying Fuhrman made the claims in the documentary...
This is a direct quote from the source... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”
The problem with this source is it's completely inaccurate. Fuhrman's 15 second quote in the documentary Simply Raw is at 58 seconds in youtu.be/nBJZnakkoss?t=58 and I've also included the quote. He makes no other appearance in the documentary.
This is the exact quote from Fuhrman in the documentary..."We have an unbelievable epidemic of diabetes in this country. The rates of diabetes are skyrocketing and it parallels the epidemic of obesity. We have the most overweight population ever in the history of the human race and it's still growing fatter." Nowhere in the documentary does Fuhrman talk about his diet, or about detoxification or anything else.
The information being used in the Wikipedia article comes directly from this false information. It's the source that's the problem not the information.
Linking to a source that is obviously false and can be clearly demonstrated as false hurts the credibility of the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
No the link I gave you is the documentary. It's simple enough for you to cross check that which I did. In most cases Gorski would seem to be a reliable source but on the topic of this documentary he is simply wrong. Furhman only appeared for 15 seconds and the quote above is word for word what he said. The documentary was filmed very cheaply and my guess is the film makers used the short interview of Furhman as a way to increase interest in their movie. He says nothing in his appearance about his diet recommendations or diet at all. He is not a narrator, and he also doesn't seem to have had any role at all as an advisor etc. There's simply nothing anywhere that supports Gorski's statements about what Furhman said in the documentary. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AndrewCeditor (
talk •
contribs)
03:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I think Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else. Fuhrman is not a raw food proponent. I have seen the Simply Raw documentary...and I watched it again after seeing your link because I couldn't remember Fuhrman being in it (lol thanks a lot of that...it's not a very good documentary). Fuhruman recommends both cooked and raw vegetables and beans (cooked) as a main source of carbohydrates, mushrooms (cooked) and broccoli (cooked). That makes this being a quote from him highly unlikely. He does recommend eating berries raw because cooking them removes some nutrients. In case you're wondering how I know I was a health writer for many years, I'm a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association and appeared as a regular guest on 40 radio stations across Australia. I'm familiar with a lot of diets. Furhman's is just a really extreme version of what most nutritionists recommend.
Again I don't mind what's in the Wikipedia page now I just want it to be from an accurate source...it's accurate enough factually in terms of some of what Fuhrman promotes...vitalism and detoxification...a huge percentage of qualified nutritionists promote something similar including one who's quoted further down in the same section and it's not really saying anything important...but what he's saying is not accurate in terms of saying it in the documentary Simply Raw. I also think you're actually quoting something Gorski says that's outside his field of expertise. If you found a quote based on him criticizing Fuhrman on his recommendations for cancer that would be brilliant and would add value to the article.
I couldn't find any other videos. If you share some links with me I'm happy to check them to see if I can find the quote.
Thank you. I went through all the parts with Fuhrman speaking. There's nothing vaguely like Gorski talks about in his blog post. In fact if Fuhrman was trying to stick to mainstream nutrition advice he's awfully close with almost everything he says. The closest to what Gorski is talking about is this direct quote that apart from the words "acid forming" you'd expect to hear from any responsible nutritionist around the world "To be in good health we want to eat a diet that's higher in nutrients and lower in calories. That means you have to eat foods that are largely high nutrient low calorie foods. Well the foods that are highest in nutrients are green vegetables, tomatoes, berries, oranges you know, carrots and you're gonna get a diet higher in fiber, higher in high nutrients, higher in phytochemicals...it's automatically not gonna be acid forming, it's gonna take all those features that each fad diet looks at are all put together when you eat a diet that's very nutrient dense."
It's not even vaguely close to his quote and there's no mention of eating raw which is what I'd expect because Furhman is not a raw food exponent as I mentioned before.
The quote you're referring to is not worded the way the average nutritionist would put it but it's not out there and again bears no relations to what Gorski was saying..."There's also a fact of nutrient, nutritional imbalances and deficiencies that makes the pancreas not responsive. So there's a certain loss of function to the pancreas due to the lack of phytonutrients and the variety and symphony of nutrients we need for normal tissue function. In other words the cells don't function at full efficiency when you just supply them with some macronutrients. They need a full symphony of, the full complement of, you know the artistry of thousands of different discovered and undiscovered chemicals to maximize cellular function."
Some important points. It's not what Gorski was talking about and it's not in the documentary Simply Raw (it's in Raw For Life).Can we just agree that Gorski is in error saying Fuhrman said these things in Simply Raw and find some other quality content to put in this article.
The statement you have based on Gorski's comments is not really adding anything anyway. There are far more important topics to cover like his promotion of super immunity instead of promoting social distancing as protection against covid-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is simply not acceptable. Accuracy is important. What you're saying is it doesn't matter that this whole quote is completely untrue and he that he never said any of these things or promoted them... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”
Having a commitment to the truth and accuracy is at the foundation of quality writing. There are plenty of other sources that quote Fuhrman accurately. This is just lazy writing with no commitment to the truth.
I did watch the documentary and if you look at my comments above I posted the comments Fuhrman made. None of them were even close to what Gorski reported and the documentary you're linking to is not Simply Raw it's Raw For Life. I posted a link to Simply Raw which is the documentary that Gorski says he watched in his blog post. What you're saying simply isn't accurate. I am fairly certain Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else in Simply Raw. Accuracy is important. I also provided the link to the documentary and copied and pasted the 15 second statement Fuhrman made.
I established the source was incorrect. If the source is incorrect by definition it's not a reliable source. As I've said before I have no particular problem with anything Gorski is saying but the source is incorrect for whatever reason. We should not be using an incorrect source.
Accuracy matters. This type of sloppy, lazy research and writing is why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a poor source for a BLP. I don't think it's a problem for statements of fact, but Adams writes that "Fuhrman isn’t a crunchy holistic thinker. He’s a data-analysis guy. Fuhrman says he has reviewed 20,000 journal articles on nutrition, culling the most important information from each."
?
[9] Fuhrman says a lot of things to promote himself, but we don't have to repeat them, let alone cherry-pick for "balance". --
Hipal/Ronz (
talk)
15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case then this should be removed because it's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion which is both misleading and inaccurate(Nutritarianism is in no way similar to fruitarianism)). Fuhrman's approach to diet is also mostly based on scientific evidence that is reasonably sound. He has obvious biases and makes some leaps but his approach is not belief based like Christian Science. Accuracy is important. Inaccurate information is why people don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. "Fuhrman preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom"
If you search for them you'll find much more accurate criticisms of Furhman's approach. Anti vaccination, teaching super immunity instead of social distancing as the first line of defense against covid-19, the fact his diet plan is extremely difficult to comply to long term etc.
This particular quote from the Men's Journal has no real significance or relevance, it's an opinion from someone unqualified in the field and it's both inaccurate and misleading.
How about this instead: In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal, Mark Adams stated that Fuhrman believes the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all." He’s also skeptical about the number of vaccines the average American child receives. Fuhrman says “There’s no chance of anyone getting polio in this country.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind I am a health writer and a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association with over a decade's experience including being internationally syndicated and being a regular guest on a show that fed to over 40 radio stations across Australia. I do know what is fringe and what is mainstream. There is nothing fringe about recommending eating vegetables, berries, nuts, or beans. You can find those recommendations on any government health website in the world in various forms. You could argue that the extremes he takes his diet to are fringe and that would certainly be reasonable but the actual base recommendations and science he shares are mostly mainstream studies that any nutritionist would know and share.
I actually know what his recommendations are because I've watched several of his presentations...something I do with most major health figures to stay up to date. And I'm familiar with the mainstream studies because I've written about many often pointing out their flaws or their good points.
When you criticize any information or diet "guru" you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.
There are multiple reliable sources who say most of the science he shares is sound including all three sources cited in this Wikipedia article (credible qualified nutritionists and dieticians). That's completely unsurprising because he shares quite common, well known studies...especially larger scale epidemiological studies on diet.
The thing most are calling into question is not the research but his tendency to take good research and use it to justify a relatively extreme approach to diet.
So again you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.
It would be nice if you stopped assuming I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm somehow biased. I just want accurate information shared here so that people can have confidence this site is a source of reliable information.
The sentence I"m referring to is not a criticism. It's an article from a non health writer talking about what he thinks of the way Fuhrman behaves. If you go read the article it's not critical at all. The writer tries the diet himself.
So if you're looking for accurate criticism this article isn't it. And the quote is out of context with the rest of the article.
Most importantly it's inaccurate and misleading. Fuhrman does not promote fruitarianism and he's not like a Christian Scientist either. When he speaks the vast majority of what he says is repeating well known studies and he comes across as angry.
It would be more accurate to say he's a diet extremist. There are plenty of good accurate sources of criticism about Fuhrman from people who are actually qualified to give it. This particular quote just makes the article look amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record I did add a citation that included a negative review of the diet in regard to compliance and it's stretch on some of the science (although the article didn't go into any detail) and I suggested adding more about Furhman's finge stance on vaccinations which is a real concern. I really am just looking for accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No offense but I did tell you I was familiar with his diet as I am with many diets. This statement is not accurate "It's basically a starvation diet". Fuhrman eats 2,000 calories a day which is right on the low end of recommended calories a day from the US government, exactly the recommended calorie intake from the Australian government. You might adjust up for activity, down for age (he's in his 60s...basal metabolic rate drops as you age meaning you require less calories) etc but it's in the ballpark. A labourer could eat more nuts and beans and easily get the calories and protein needed in exactly the same way a labourer would increase intake on any other kind of diet. That potential adustment is included in his diet calorie ranges for different food types. Sorry to get off topic about the editing but you did bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
AndrewCeditor added to the article "He also recommends eating at least one cup of beans a day as a protein and carbohydrate source and to increase resistant starch passing through the stomach to be fermented in the large intestine by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids." The source cited [11] says "Fuhrman suggests eating 1 cup daily to benefit fully from the fiber and resistant starch, which helps you feel full and passes through the intestine without being digested." The added line "by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids" is not in the cited source, nor does he suggest "at least one cup", the source says "eating 1 cup daily". This is just one sentence containing original research I have gone through so far which AndrewCeditor has added. I believe there are more. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My apologies. On the "at least one cup" I misread sited reference 15 which actually says at least 1/2 cup. I misread it as at least one cup. On the topic of the cited references is The Nutrition Health Review citation (number 11) considered a reliable source? I'm not sure how it got there and I'm not sure it should be there.
I really am just trying to increase the quality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)