Talk:Apple cider vinegar

Proposal to Update the “Health effects” Section Based on Recent Evidence

Hello everyone,

I’d like to propose an update to the “Health effects” section of the Apple cider vinegar article to reflect recent scientific findings.

Current Text:

“Despite its history of use in traditional medicine, there is no credible evidence to support any health claims—such as for weight loss, glycemic control or skin infections—in humans, and its use is not recommended for any indication in medical guidelines of major public health organizations or regulatory agencies.”

Proposed Revision:

Recent systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials suggest that apple cider vinegar (ACV) may have favorable effects on glycemic control, lipid profiles, and weight management in adults. One meta-analysis found that ACV consumption was associated with improvements in glycemic and lipid parameters, particularly in individuals with type 2 diabetes and those consuming ACV over extended periods. Another meta-analysis indicated significant improvements in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, and total cholesterol levels with ACV consumption, especially in diabetic patients. Additionally, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that ACV intake over 4 to 12 weeks led to significant reductions in weight, body mass index (BMI), waist/hip circumference, body fat ratio, blood glucose, triglycerides, and cholesterol levels without observed side effects.

References:

1. Pourmasoumi M, Hadi A, Najafgholizadeh A, Kouchaki E, Rouhani MH. The effect of apple cider vinegar on lipid profiles and glycemic parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. 2021;21(1):179. 2. Pourmasoumi M, Hadi A, Najafgholizadeh A, et al. The effects of apple cider vinegar on cardiometabolic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2023;10:1218387. 3. Abou-Khalil R, et al. Apple cider vinegar for weight management in Lebanese adolescents and young adults with overweight and obesity: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. 2024.

Rationale:

These studies are high-quality sources, including meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials and a randomized controlled trial, which are considered reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources.

Updating the article with this information would provide a more current and balanced view of the scientific evidence regarding ACV’s health effects.

Disclosure:

I am a nutrition scientist with a Master’s degree (MSc) in Nutrition Science and have been following the latest research on apple cider vinegar. I have no conflict of interest regarding this topic.

Request:

I welcome feedback on this proposed change and am open to suggestions to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards and consensus.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards, Heiko HWalzinger (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

CAM journals are generally not reliable sources, and Frontiers journals are also questionable. Primary sources are also not WP:MEDRS. Given this substance is a focus of health fraud and bogus claims, sourcing should be impeccable for any claims of health benefit, which would by their nature be exceptional. 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bon courage,

Thank you for your continued engagement on this matter. I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia’s medical content.

However, I have concerns about the dismissal of the high-quality sources I’ve proposed. The studies I referenced are recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals:

1. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies is part of the Springer Nature group, known for its rigorous publishing standards.

2. Frontiers in Nutrition is indexed in major databases like PubMed and follows a strict peer-review process.

3. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health is published by the BMJ Group, a highly respected entity in medical publishing.

According to WP:MEDRS, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered high-quality secondary sources suitable for supporting medical content. These studies synthesize data from multiple randomized controlled trials, providing a comprehensive overview of the evidence.

I believe it’s important to evaluate sources based on their merit and adherence to scientific standards rather than categorically dismissing them. If there are specific methodological concerns or issues with these studies, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on them. Constructive critique can help us ensure that the information we include is both accurate and reliable.

Regarding the potential for health fraud and bogus claims, I agree that we must be cautious. However, by presenting well-researched, peer-reviewed evidence, we can offer readers a balanced perspective that reflects the current state of scientific understanding.

I hold a Master’s degree (MSc) in Nutrition Science and have been actively involved in research related to dietary interventions and metabolic health. My aim is to enhance the article by incorporating recent, high-quality evidence in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Understanding your expertise or specific concerns would be helpful in reaching a consensus. Collaboration and open dialogue are essential for improving the article and providing readers with accurate information.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Best,

heiko HWalzinger (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this AI? Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope HWalzinger (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've given my view. We need the WP:BESTSOURCES, not marginal ones. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your dismissal of high-quality, peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses — the gold standard in medical research — is questionable, the arguments you present plain wrong. Ignoring these top-tier sources blatantly undermines Wikipedia’s standards for reliable medical content. Your approach disregards the requirement to use the best available evidence and does a disservice to readers seeking accurate information. HWalzinger (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They're not high-quality. That is the problem. "Top tier" would be - best - clinical guidelines, Cochrane reviews or something from genuine top-tier journals (Lancet, BMJ, Cell, JAMA ...). When you say stuff like Springer being "known for its rigorous publishing standards" or that being in PUBMED is some kind of mark of quality, then that is "plain wrong". It is obviously much more complex than that. Bon courage (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming with your own reply, that I used a top tier source: BMJ. You seem to navigate the complexity fairly well HWalzinger (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

BMJ Nutrition and BMJ are different journals, but in any case your BMJ Nutrition source is primary research so not usable. Anyway, I've given my view; I am sure other editors will be along soon to give theirs. Bon courage (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zefr,

Sources 1 and 2: These are recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals. As per WP:MEDRS, such sources are considered high-quality secondary sources. While they do mention limitations (which is pretty standard in research), they still offer valuable insights into the potential effects of apple cider vinegar on glycemic control and lipid profiles.

2. Source 3: You’re correct that primary studies are generally less preferred. This one is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in a reputable journal.

Please propose a version with a more balanced view. However, the statement that „there is no credible evidence“ is plain wrong and requires an update.

Looking forward to your proposal

Best,

– User:YourUsername HWalzinger (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

None of the proposed sources is high-quality or "top-tier", but rather WP:FRINGE. Sources 1 and 2 mention disqualifying limitations of the underlying studies that would have prevented publication in a high-quality or top-tier clinical journal. Source 3 is primary research which does not meet WP:MEDASSESS.

For further background on choosing sources for medical content, see WP:MEDFAQ under the Sourcing and Neutrality sections. Zefr (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zefr,

Sources 1 and 2: These are recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals. As per WP:MEDRS, such sources are considered high-quality secondary sources. While they do mention limitations (which is pretty standard in research), they still offer valuable insights into the potential effects of apple cider vinegar on glycemic control and lipid profiles.

2. Source 3: You’re correct that primary studies are generally less preferred. This one is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial published in a reputable journal.

Please propose a version with a more balanced view. However, the statement that „there is no credible evidence“ is plain wrong and requires an update.

Looking forward to your proposal

Best, HWalzinger (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement in the lede is "There is no high-quality clinical evidence", and the statement under 'Health effects' is "no credible evidence to support any health claims", both of which should remain unchanged because the sources offered here are not high in quality, as would be for The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The BMJ, etc. Zefr (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources I provided are systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which meet Wikipedia’s WP:MEDRS standards. The Lancet and NEJM focus on breakthrough medical topics, not typically food-related research, which is why these studies appear in other reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Your insistence on excluding them favors outdated information and undermines the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, doing a disservice to millions of obese people who could benefit from this information. HWalzinger (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)