Talk:Atkins diet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Diet description in article lede

This article originally opened with "The Atkins diet is a low-carbohydrate fad diet" but was recently changed to just "diet." Since this is likely going to be contentious, I just wanted to get a consensus on what everyone thinks it should be. PureRED | talk to me | 19:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Fad diet, per the sources and as discussed ad nauseam here before. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If it can't be demonstrated that the source calls it a 'fad diet', neither can the article. Such consensus-absent adjective-orial 'pooh-pooh'-ing should have no place in a wikipedia article, anyway. If there is consensus on the subject, that should take precedent over individual opinion on the matter, especially in the lede. TP ✎ ✓ 08:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus that in our fad diet articles, we should go with the sources and use the description "fad diet" in the lead. We often find that fad diet users agree with this, except for the fad diet they are using, when they are adamant that their particular fad diet isn't a fad diet. Wikipedia will continue to label fad diets as such. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup it's obviously a fad diet, it's well-sourced that it's a fad diet, so Wikipedia says so too. To be neutral (that's core policy folks!). We do have a constant problem here with low-carb believers having difficulty with that, but ultimately their problem is with reality and it's not within our power to fix. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you mention specific WP:POVs (and the sources selected for the same) without mentioning consensus shows that there's 'obviously' already a problem, here. Just because some 'believers' (who also ignore the science the diet is based upon) swear by it doesn't mean that at least some of it isn't founded in fact. The article shouldn't be the one forcing a 'for' or 'anti' stance... it's the preponderance of a widest range as possible of sources that should be doing this for it. And be careful to differentiate opinion articles from informed and peer-reviewed science ones. TP ✎ ✓ 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We follow the sources. Fad diet based on dodgy ideas. There is no doubt about it in RS; neither should there be here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This article begins with a premise and chooses its sources to support it... that is obvious. Instead of citing individual sources that support your WP:POV 'belief' (and 'arguments' concocted thereof), scientific consensus is the only way to go. Even a tentative search shows that the scientific consensus is divided on this subject, yet this article has a blatantly 'anti' tone and 'stance'... wikipedia articles should have neither.

I do not want to see the Atkins people gaining anything, either (they have 'poisoned' a much-needed inquiry into dietary practices, modern and past), but articles like this only help to poison things even more. Let consensus speak for the subject, especially for the lede, and leave the individual-(selective-)study-quibbling for later in the article (if it need appear at all). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 14:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The article begins with a lede which summarizes material in the body. Gary Taubes is the opposite of a reliable source for this topic. You are advocating a WP:PROFRINGE approach to give us a WP:GEVAL. Instead we reflect accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I just edit conflict with Alexbrn, who is absolutely correct. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Who but you mentioned 'Gary Taubes'? That strawman is not even rational... and citing scientific consensus on the subject is WP:FRINGE (and tu quoque much)? Woof indeed. TP ✎ ✓ 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You linked to a Gary Taubes story in an effort to show that the "scientific consensus" is divided. Looking at the archives this just looks like you're brandishing the exact same WP:STICK as last year, with no advancement in WP:CLUE. In the absence of relevant sources I shall not respond further. That this diet is a fad diet based on fake science is just a fact, and we duly say so. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for yet again entirely missing (ignoring) my point.

The article I provided was not a reference (which is why I cared not who its author was), its point was to demonstrate that even mainstream media hesitates to pronounce themselves on carbohydrate intake one way or the other (as this article quite boldly does). Scientific peer-reviewed articles are demonstrably just as on the fence.

The point is that although the Atkins diet takes low carbohydrate intake to extremes, that is no excuse to pooh-pooh low carbohydrate intake itself... the fact that this is a question yet unanswered to any consensus must be made clear.

Yet this obviously WP:OWNed article ('protected' by a few militant 'believers' (woof woof! ; )), in its zeal to discredit Atkins (and his foundation) itself, is providing just as much disinformation, in a just as shrill manner, as the Atkins foundation is.

This black-or-white-ism 'us against them' behaviour (common to big-city, religious, and other '(mine is) bigger/better than yours/'they' are wrong'-prone topics) is the bane of Wikipedia, and poisons/falsifies every article it contaminates, and that is the WP:STICK I won't drop. TP ✎ ✓ 15:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It's very unecessary to call it a Fad diet. You can comfortably use it long term. You're just trying your hardest to give it bad press. I have been on a virtually carb free diet for 20 years and so have others I know. We're all in our 50's and in very good shape. I know one other person that has never eaten carbs for her whole adult life. She's in her 80's and fighting fit. You just don't need carbs. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.62.161 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The fad diet entry is being rewritten. Fad is primarily about the claims and popularity, but it has no bearing to the health or safety of a diet. I don't know the Atkins diet at all, but as with any diet, I can expect it has some pros and cons, it may not be adapted for everyone and maybe even dangerous for some, while it may work remarkably well for others whom it fits the eating patterns. Rather than fight on qualifications (and you won't win on this one, it's a fad diet! I can't even count the number of reliable sources that qualify this diet as such), you may help by finding reliable sources and expanding the entry. Below I have posted some refs about the history of the Atkins diet and its advertisement if you want to give it a try The goal is to expand knowledge, all together! --Signimu (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Text in #Description seems out of place

This text in the description seems out of place. What does this have to do with the Atkins diet? Perhaps it needs a tie-in or removed.

Fructose (for example, as found in many industrial sweeteners) has four calories per gram but has a very low glycemic index[10] and does not cause insulin production, probably because β cells have low levels of GLUT5.[11][12] Leptin, an appetite-regulating hormone, is not triggered following consumption of fructose. This may for some create an unsatisfying feeling after consumption which might promote binge behavior that culminates in an increased blood triglyceride level arising from fructose conversion by the liver.[13]

--BonzoFestoon (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, curious. Wonder if any of those sources actually even mention the diet. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed that content, it was completely off-topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing sources

If there are good sources we're missing, please indicate what they are.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17341711/
JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):969-77. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.9.969.
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial

Conclusions: In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15632335/
JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.1.43
Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial

Conclusions: Each popular diet modestly reduced body weight and several cardiac risk factors at 1 year. Overall dietary adherence rates were low, although increased adherence was associated with greater weight loss and cardiac risk factor reductions for each diet group.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25182101/
JAMA. 2014 Sep 3;312(9):923-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10397.
Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis

Conclusions and relevance: Significant weight loss was observed with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. Weight loss differences between individual named diets were small. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight.

--Nbauman (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The first three are primary, but the meta-analysis could be useful. It's a bit old, but we're lacking recent material on Atkins (I think there's little interest in it these days?) Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Then would you include the article Public Health Rev. 2003;31(1):33-44. Pandemic obesity and the contagion of nutritional nonsense? --Nbauman (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably not for hard biomedicine, but that looks useful for overall commentary on the "nutritional nonsense" aspects of Atkins, I should think, especially bearing in mind WP:PARITY requirements for this WP:FRINGE topic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this article have a massive NPOV problem?

This article misstates elements of the Atkins diet, and dismisses the ample research on ketogenic diets available, including modern sources. Although it is appropriately encyclopedic to include accounts of controversy regarding Atkins, his recommended diet, and ketogenic diets generally, this article treats the controversy as the whole story, and picks only one side of the controversy to communicate at that. I'm floored by the bias here.MikeGodwin (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia doesn't do "sides" but reflects reliable, mainstream sources - which seem to agree this is just one of the many silly fad diets out there being pushed in opposition to the consensus healthy diet. If there are good sources we're missing, please indicate what they are. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@MGodwin: Wikipedia treats WP:FRINGE topics in a way that comes across as non-neutral to most laypeople (which I know you aren't) by stating the skeptical viewpoints in Wikipedia's narrative voice rather than attributing those viewpoints to the reliable sources. Anything viewed as pseudoscience is called "pseudoscientific" by Wikipedia. I don't disagree with that in principle; my quibble is throwing around adjectives ("pseudoscientific" comes across as subjective opinion) instead of nouns ("pseudoscience" comes across as an affirmative statement).

What we have here is an attempt to give due weight to available sources without duplicating material already in the articles ketogenic diet and low-carbohydrate diet. So yes, it comes across as biased, because the coverage specific to the Atkins diet, at least in reliable sources, appears to be mostly critical. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this whole article is massively wrong and written from a biased point of view. The medical community is slowly waking up to the fact that Dr. Atkins was right - Chronic excess carbohydrate intake leads to chronically high insulin levels, which leads to insulin resistance, also known as metabolic syndrome, which leads to obesity and Type II diabetes. To reverse T2D, you need to go on a low carb diet. See Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data. Dr. Atkins was one of the first to recognize this. His diet is far from perfect, but at the time he published his book every diet and nutrition expert was giving the opposite advice, advocating for low fat diets. Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Atkins was a quack and his diet (high in saturated fat) has raised peoples LDL and given them heart attacks. People have even tried to file lawsuits against his company for this. There is no scientific evidence validating anything he proposed. Our Wikipedia article on Type 2 diabetes suggests that several diets might be effective such as "Mediterranean diet, low-fat diet, or monitored carbohydrate diets such as a low carbohydrate diet". The meta-analysis you linked to was only six months and showed a 32% remission. You are jumping the gun when you say this will reverse T2D full stop. But this is irrelevant to this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Stick to the facts. Hyperbole like the above is the problem with this article. You're essentially claiming that diets high in natural saturated fats lead to higher rates of cardiac disease. This was Ancel Keyes horrible, totally unsubstantiated hypothesis, which led to the disastrous USDA Food Pyramid, which led to an epidemic of obesity and heart disease from the time it was issued. You're dead wrong, and you have no solid scientific evidence to back that position. The opposite is true. Animal fats are low in Omega 6 linoleic acid (PUFA), which causes inflammation. Seed oils are high in PUFAs, and they are at the root of cardiac disease. Off topic, but for your benefit in case you are metabolically unhealthy... To reverse insulin resistance and obesity, you need to do 3 things... 1 - eat a ketogenic diet, 2 - fast intermittently (limit your feeding window each day, and ideally use alternate day or extended fasting, and 3 - avoid seed oils like the plague. This new understanding of metabolic health is steadily replacing the old, outdated, medically unsubstantiated theories that Ancel Keyes and big agribusiness interests inflicted on the world. The Atkins diet wasn't perfect, but it's the disciples of Atkins that are reversing the obesity epidemic, not the disciples of Keyes. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been scientifically proven that reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol [1] most in the medical community accept this. The current consensus is telling people to avoid foods high in saturated fat/trans fat or processed sugar. I understand the keto/cholesterol denialist/high-fat crackpot conspiracy mind-set is doing the rounds on social media platforms these days but there is no scientific evidence for the idea to eat loads of saturated fat. If that is your thing and you want to damage yourself and clog up your arteries that is up to you but don't promote it on here as science. There is robust scientific evidence that elevated levels of LDL blood cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease [2]. Over 200 studies involving over 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and more than 150 000 cardiovascular events. Together these studies provide remarkably consistent and unequivocal evidence that LDL causes ASCVD. This is the scientific consensus from the broad medical community. The people that deny this are the same people that oppose vaccinations. Conspiracy theorists quacks. You can easily see from the Blue Zones that the longest living peoples on the planet are not eating a high-fat keto diet quite the opposite in fact. They avoid foods high in saturated fat/trans fat or processed sugar. Okinawa (Japan); Sardinia (Italy); Nicoya (Costa Rica); Icaria (Greece); and the Seventh-day Adventists in Loma Linda, California do not eat a keto diet, nor practice intermittent fasting etc. This Wikipedia talk-page is not the place to promote your unscientific conspiracy theories. It's quite clear nothing you suggest will end up on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Weak. "We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI." Also, thank you for your unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. Very professional. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No it's not weak. The latest updated Cochrane Review of long-term trials demonstrated unequivocally that reducing saturated fat lowered the risk of combined CVD events by 17%. That doesn't sound like a lot but in medical terms it is huge. "The Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials." That's not compatible with the Atkins or high-fat keto diet or anything you have said. The topic of debate was does saturated fat increase CVD events not anything else and it's quite clear that is does from the latest Cochrane review. You have turned up on this talk-page saying there was no link between saturated fat consumption and CVD but you have been proven wrong. More importantly, you complained the article is biased against the Atkins diet but provided no evidence for this. What actual improvements do you suggest for the page? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

More Ad Hominem attacks. I posted a peer-reviewed meta analysis study showing that low carb diets are more effective at reducing type II Diabetes, but instead of responding to that you want to change the subject and engage in personal attacks, ignoring WP:AGF. Have I attacked you? No. The subject under discussion is not me, or you. It is whether this article is written from WP:NPOV or not. Calling Dr. Atkins a "quack" is obviously biased. He wasn't pushing unsubstantiated theories. His theory that low fat, higher carb diets lead to excess insulin production, leading to insulin resistance is well grounded and demonstrably correct. The study I posted is a meta-analysis showing that you only have to reduce carbs, thereby reducing insulin levels, thereby up-regulating insulin receptors in your cells. Show me your studies proving that a low carb diet is better to reduce insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Low Carb is hardly a fringe nutritional theory. There are countless doctors and researchers who subscribe to the theory of minimizing carbohydrate intake, dozens of best-selling books, entire conferences for researchers, etc. Tvaughan1 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The meta-analysis is not good evidence for anything long-term and had some nasty side-effects. As of 2021 there is no reliable evidence on the long-term efficacy of low carbohydrate diets on individuals with type 2 diabetes. The evidence is inconclusive and of low quality [3] (most recent to date which you cited earlier). "At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes". Is that good evidence for a low-carb diet to you? The meta analysis was based on 23 trials but "Eleven studies reported total adverse events or serious adverse events at six months". That doesn't sound good. Lastly what about this... "LCDs had clinically important harms on quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months, with little to no effect observed at six months. LCDs had little or no effect on total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations or C reactive protein related inflammation at six and 12 months." Even this meta-analysis notes that low-carb has "clinically important harms" on low density lipoprotein cholesterol. So what you are citing is not good evidence. Does clinically important harms sound good to you? You wouldn't get that on a Mediterranean, pescatarian or vegan diet.

We need positive results from long-term intervention trials. Long-term intervention trials are required but they are currently also studying vegan, vegetarian and Mediterranean dietary patterns as management of type 2 diabetes. These were mostly six month as well [4] but they produced better and safer results than the low-carb. In 5 or 10 years we may have more data on all this. But we can see that low-carb diets are not safe in the long-term. Atkins was wrong about absolutely everything and the Wikipedia article is not biased it is completely accurate and represents the scientific consensus. Psychologist Guy (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted some personal attacks from a banned user per Wikipedia:RPA [5] using an IP. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This article strikes me also as being biased and out-of-date. In my opinion as a Wikipedia user, it at least deserves a box saying the article's slant is controversial.Randomalphanumericstring (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This article cherry-picks negative sources, and often the sources don't support the Wikipedia text. The tone is inappropriately negative, and it looks like an advocacy piece out to prove that the Atkins diet is quackery.

I personally started out as a skeptic of the Atkins diet, and all fad diets, but I have to accept the results of peer-reviewed articles in major medical journals. I'd be perfectly happy to write an entry debunking the diet, if there are direct quotes from WP:MEDRS sources supporting that, but so far the entry doesn't meet that test.

It needs a substantial copy editing, eliminating unsupported claims. --Nbauman (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Atkins diet is quackery, a dull establish fact reflected in the sources which Wikipedia is obliged to reflect per core WP:NPOV policy. If you have a specific proposal, make it. General arm-waving is not helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of "quackery" is, but three articles in JAMA takes it out of that category. At the beginning, I thought it was quackery too, but Atkins followed the rules, did the work, and published in major journals. He might be wrong, but that's not quackery.

"General arm-waving is not helpful" violates WP:CIVIL.

I don't enjoy arguing with people who are not receptive to arguments based on data and logic, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this page. --Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Net carbs" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Net carbs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#Net carbs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 02:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mindimine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of per-reviewed randomized Controlled Trial and addition of original research to the article

User:Alexbrn, Please explain why you removed a results of per-reviewed randomized study published by prestigious medical primary source (that is covered by many secondary sources as well) and added a claim that is not based on any source given. I intend to take this to relevant noticeboards, as a per-reviewed randomized study is not a "fringie" source, but a relevant and reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy guidelines.Tritomex (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Alex' edsum read "unreliable/fringe" to which I'd add primary and non WP:MEDRS in a biomedical context. Note that I'm not answering for Alex. You would get the same answer if you went to dramah boards. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User: Roxy the dog This is all totally incorrect. The study titled "Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial" was published in JAMA a most prestigious a peer-reviewed medical journal of American medical association. Although primary sources are usable according to Wikipedia policy, it could be also cited by reliable secondary sources like the Nature magazine or Cambridge University Press [6]. It is also in Cohrain library. What is astonishing is that my properly sourced and properly attributed text was replaced with an original research, a medical claim that does not exist in source given. This claim is "sourced" by another primary source. So no, I am sure that relaible noticeboards will know to differentiate between peer-reviewed medical journal and quackery, pseudomedical claims that are not based on any sources or are taken out of context from primary sources.Tritomex (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. Primary sources are generally not reliable for biomedical claims; old ones are even worse. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, without WP:IDONTHEARYOU, If you question the reliability of primary sources, why you User:Alexbrn, made this controversial biomedical claim [7], based on this primary source [8]? Worse you took a sentence from the introduction of the study, unrelated to the aim or results of that study. Here are WP:RS secondary sources that I intend to put alongside the primary source. From The Stanford News: [9] "Researchers at the School of Medicine have completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets, and the lowest-carbohydrate Atkins diet came out on top...." Than, many more WP:RS secondary sources to back it up [10] from Science Daily, also this meta-analysis [11]. There are plenty of additional secondary sources as well. So your initial argument faills (fringie-extensively covered by secondary source, additional per-reviewed studies came to same conclusions)and your newest argument (primary sources) could be resolved by addition of secondary sources, Questions remain on other parts of text that are sourced with primary sources, especially with the highly controversial medical claim, you replaced my text.Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This [12] is a review. It is not a primary source so it is suitable for the article. The paper you wanted to add from 2007 is a trial so it is a primary source [13]. As for Healthline not a reliable source, and we don't cite Science Daily for medical claims. In conclusion nothing you have mentioned is reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

And a news report of a primary study certainly doesn’t satisfy MEDRS.

If the study “could be also cited by reliable secondary sources” then the conclusions of those secondary sources are what should be cited. The CUP book chapter linked cites 157 other sources. What are its conclusions? What does it say that justifies singling out this particular study for mention? Brunton (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we either have a WP:CIR problem here or a troll (LTA?). Either way it's not good. Tritomex you need to get a WP:CLUE and stop making wanky comments. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing most of the diet

THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T MENTION DIABETES ONCE. Diabetes prevention and control were major aspects of the diet. But why include something good about the diet you can't spin? His books frequently mention the issues of diabetes, insulin resistance, hyperinsulin production, etc. and the diet being a way to bring down blood glucose levels, alleviating as much reliance on drugs.

Both this article and the bio page for Dr. Atkins are terribly biased and lacking much of any pertinent information. Just for example in the section "effectiveness and risk" the claim is made it may increase heart disease risk, because Dr. Atkins himself had heart problems. This would be trash on its own and no way up to Wikipedia standards if this were true but you're lying. It's even mentioned in his bio article that it was due to infection, not eating steaks, as you desperately insinuate. That bio page is trash too, focusing a lot of attention on his death, again abandoning science for "hurr look he dead, that means diet bad!"

This article mentions a few negative things said about it, but doesn't include any positive. It repeatedly, in excess, calls it a "fad diet" as if the entire point of this article is to push a narrative, rather than providing even a rudimentary overview of what the diet encompasses (as this article utterly fails to do). At best the two or three references repeatedly cited stating the diet works, but you spin that as a negative because the two or three studies cited say it didn't do a lot better than others. But it did do better, and yet you word that like it's a bad thing.

Oh so terrible a type 2 diabetic might be able to have a diet that virtually removes their need for medication and entirely abates their high blood glucose levels regardless if they're hyperinsulin or not producing. Better not include this at all. J1DW (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Source? So far as I can see this was rubbish promoted for weight loss, not diabetes mgt. Alexbrn (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The sugar conspiracy…

I suggest someone add to either this page or Robert Atkins page the somewhat conspiratorial belief that Atkins was demonized and attacked by a “sugar lobby” throughout his career. What is fact is that proponents of many diets today have an understanding of nutrition that stems from Atkins belief that sugar, and not fat, is what’s damaging American health most.

That was a big part of Atkins work, and that’s been adopted by many even outside of his low carb diet. 2600:1700:E690:91E0:F90E:DB1E:3404:742E (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You are going to need a reliable source for that if you want it on the Wikipedia article. The were a lot of guys before Atkins who argued that processed sugar is bad for health, examples John Yudkin, Thomas L. Cleave, Gayelord Hauser, Lelord Kordel and Alfred W. McCann. Most of Atkins ideas had already been proposed by Richard Mackarness and Walter L. Voegtlin. I find it doubtful that Atkins ideas have been adopted outside of the low-carb community and have not seen any reliable sourced that verify that.. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Non neutral viewpoint

The bulk of the current article clearly reflects the mindset of traditional diet advocates (Low fat and moderate to high carb) and lacks any pretense of neutrality - I at least removed the word "fad" from the first sentence. I was introduced to and recommended the diet by two different surgeons. The whole article realy needs a neutral rewrite PJK 38.140.193.178 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The neutral view is the view of the WP:BESTSOURCES. Any we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

“Two different surgeons” IP refuses to name, probably non-notable, presumably with no meaningful or relevant credentials. Dronebogus (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather huge amount of bias in the wording and omissions

The current science continues to be surprised that saturated fats are not harmful - good for us - ignoring that they make up most of the fats in breast-milk and what our own liver produces (C-16 SF). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ There is also the omission of any mention of Dr. Gordon - it was his 1962 JAMA article that Atkins based his diet to help heart patients. This page is much too close to passive propaganda.

Current science is pointing to insulin as the cause of thickened intima of heart arteries. Insulin goes up with sugar/starch and artificial sweeteners. Insulin is a growth factor that is thought to cause this thickening.

The LDL narrative has been completely discredited in the science that has appeared in the last decade or so. This narrative was promoted by people selling drugs.

https://journals.lww.com/co-endocrinology/Fulltext/2022/10000/Assessing_cardiovascular_disease__looking_beyond.4.aspx

Not everything that was promoted in Atkins name was good (artificial sugars look to do real harm), but it is not deniable that low carb lowers insulin - the key metric that defines metabolic disease - the pandemic that is killing and/or disabling so many.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. For content on this diet we need sources which discuss it. Is there a source for this "Dr Gordon" claim? Bon courage (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your second link was written by conspiracy theorist Malcolm Kendrick, not a reliable source for anything. The first source you listed has not been published yet, it looks interesting but none of the authors are trained physicians who know anything about cardiovascular disease. The chief author of that paper is Reimara Valk (Google her), she works as a business manager! You couldn't make this stuff up. You are citing conspiracy theorists, fringe theorists and non-specialists. It is the same story every time. Next you will be citing Gary Taubes. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)