Talk:Feingold diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale


Contents

[edit] Research

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

Without further support of these conclusions, this information *must* be removed. I will wait on this for a short period; however, if it is not supported, it will be removed.
The graph was removed. I've added an original research tag to this section. It really just needs very little: something that spells out the conclusions drawn in the article. You can't draw conclusions without the proper cites to back it up! -- Tmassey 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The chart that was added has the same problems as the graph. However, it's being worked on. -- Tmassey (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I remove my objections to this, as long as no one describes the chart as proving some point. Let the reader draw whatever conclusions they want, but the chart as documented to me seems fine. I would recommend removing this discussion from the Talk page after July 1, 2008, if there are no other objections. -- Tmassey (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We normally keep all discussions on the talk page. When it gets to be too long, we can create a complete archive and start over fresh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requirement Fullfilled

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Articles

Hi,

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

(1)Donna McCann et al (2007). "Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial". The Lancet in press. 

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

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

  • Actually, prior to the McCann & Bateman studies, they did put all the kids on an additive-free diet and noted that parents reported that they all were quieter and better behaved (even though they did not have any ADHD diagnosis). Schab did not do a study but a meta-analysis. Shulae (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Are these studies in the article? If so, should we delete this section from the talk page? The research section *has* been rewritten... -- Tmassey (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
We do not remove comments from talk pages. You can mark them {{done}} if you want, but comments should be easily accessible to all future editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External comment

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

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

[edit] Feingold Horrors

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

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

I find it shocking that in a world where you cannot trust anyone and we all know that how man is ready to kill another man for money. But we just refuse to belives someone who is warning us of such inhumanity, but we believe these companies that produce additives and are reaping huge profits.

[edit] Answer to Dr. X

The unsigned gentleman has obviously been misinformed about the Feingold diet. The diet removes ADDITIVES. Nobody has ever been documented with Red #40 deficiency ... or BHT deficiency.
The diet allows every kind of food. Additives are not food. Even at the very beginning, when certain salicylates are to be eliminated for a few weeks, it is a matter of substituting pears for apples; grapefruit juice for orange juice; kiwi for grapes, and so on. LOTS of fruits and MOST vegetables and ALL meats, fish, and chicken are fine, as long as they are not laced with the additives to be eliminated.
Within a month or so, most children are able to start reintroducing the salicylates to determine their individual tolerance; most people tolerate at least some of the salicylate foods. As I said, as long as it is FOOD, not petroleum-derived additives, they can eat it. As part of the Program materials, the Feingold Association provides a Foodlist with over 150 pages listing thousands and thousands of products that meet Feingold guidelines. Most of these products - including hot dogs, desserts, even candy - are available in your normal supermarket.
Long ago, because people like Dr. X were afraid the diet would be inadequate, two studies were done. Harper, 1978: 'Nutrient intakes of children on the hyperkinesis diet' and Dumbrell, 1978: 'Is the Australian version of the Feingold diet safe?' Both these studies concluded that the children on the Feingold diet ate better and were more likely than children on the "normal" diet to get the recommended daily allowances of vitamins and minerals.
That was 30 years ago. As natural foods become more and more available in supermarkets, the diet becomes easier, with more choices and less home cooking required.
Finally, I will concede that Dr. X can probably find somewhere an abused child who is also on the Feingold diet. It's hard to believe that an abusive parent would go to the trouble, but you never know. Much more common is the child new to the Program who has been on stimulant meds which destroyed their appetite, or they were picky eaters for some other reason; most regain their appetite and their weight once they are eating real food. Shulae 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote #42

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

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

[edit] Reuters?

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

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

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

[edit] Invitation

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