Talk:Ancel Keys/Archive 1

CVD studies before Keys

the following paper is the cohort study including CVD mortality. Keys's study may not be the first, strictly speaking.

DOLL R, HILL AB. Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking; a second report on the mortality of British doctors. Br Med J. 1956 Nov 10;12(5001):1071-81

This is reprinted in BMJ, 328 (7455): 1529. (2004)

how much did he learn from: A University of Minnesota study in the late 1940s injected 11 public service employee volunteers with malaria, then starved them for five days. Some were also subjected to hard labor, and those men lost an average of 14 pounds. They were treated for malarial fevers with quinine sulfate. One of the authors was Ancel Keys... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.17.91 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputing CVD epidemiology

The problem with epidemiological studies is that they can only show an association, but not prove cause and effect. Ancel Keys was a nutritionist and associated the incidence of CVD with diet. There is a much closer correlation of the incidence of CVD with geographic latitude, and thus ambient temperature. If this is the right answer then fifty years have been wasted promoting dietary change in populations to little effect. The incidence of CVD is now falling, but this is possibly mainly resulting from global warming. Warrenward 22:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)warrenward

That's even worse conjecture than cholesterol being associated with CVD. Now it's global warming? Japan is at the same latitude as California, yet Japanese in California suffer notably higher incidence of CVD. Perhaps now it's a meridial relation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.244.100 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people can not resist stepping over the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.232.166 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad Science

I am not a nutritionist, but do have an interest in this field and believe that the Seven Countries study of Ancel Keys has being much criticised. Should this piece on Ancel Keys mention criticisms of the Seven Countries Study? If expert nutritionists wish to challenge me here, I shall bow to their superior knowledge. Yours, Cardamom 11:26, 3 August 2005

I agree with Cardamon. It has been documented by Dr Uffe Ravnskov that Keys deliberately selected his data to support his hypothesis. There is no correlation in the data sets available to him at the time. This probably set back finding any true relationship between heart disease and diet by 50 years. I disagree with Warrenward. The incidence of heart disease is not falling, but the number of interventions carried out such as bypass and angioplasty has increased phenomenally which tends to reduce the number of deaths from CVD. Another thing which correlates with latitude is sunshine and hence vitamin D status.

I'd certainly like to see a reference to Keys' bad science. This would not be popular with all the other bad scientists out there who adhere to his much disproved hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwbeal (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Keys' science is specifically criticized in Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" which is meticulously researched, footnoted, and written by a fine science writer who spent seven years at the task. Karpinski (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I reformuated some of the critisism. Ancel Keys referred to six countries in his landmark speech and the paper that followed in 1953. That was based on the data compiled by the FAO. The 7CS study was initiated at the end of the 1950s and came out in 1970s. The 7CS was prospective cohort study and had nothing to do with the paper Yerushalmy and Hilleboe was addressing, though. The authors Y & H simply pointed that Keys had overlooked the role animal protein which had whopping 0,756 correlation to deaths from atherosclerosis (see Yerushalmy and Hillboe paper 1958, figure 15 with correlation co-efficients from various dietary components to death rates) compared to 0,684 for animal fats to deaths from atherosclerosis. The critisism towards Ancel Keys is mainly done in low-carb layman books which often have their Ancel Keys story 100% factually flawed. These are not peer-reviwed works and should be dealt with high level of skepticismPodomi (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor grammar

"Keys attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he received a B.A. in economics and political science (1925), an M.S. in biology (1929), and is a '30 University of California, San Diego Alumus receiving a Ph.D. in oceanography and biology from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

Does that mean that Keys received two degrees from Berkeley and one from both UCSD and Scripps? Whatever it means, the grammar is flawed by faulty parallelism, and "Alumus" is misspelled and wrongly capitalized. Unfree (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fleshing out the story (and criticisms) of Ancel Keys

Hello, I have been working on building this article and will continue to do so over the next few weeks. I was especially motivated to do this after reading Gary Taubes' Big Fat Lie and Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth and Robert Lustig's interesting video Sugar: The Bitter Truth. In each, they hang up Ancel Keys to dry over his studies and of the three, Lustig is perhaps the one who is least harsh. I decided to do some research at my university and from firsthand sources and journals regarding Ancel Keys and though there is some truth to what has been said about him, it appears that the average reader of such works is receiving a one-sided report of a man who by all accounts deserves far more credit for the good that he did than for all the villifications. The point of Wikipedia, if i'm not mistaken, is to report on notable individuals' accomplishments, in particular from their peers and from the relative environment in which they occurred. The article, as i saw it, lacked any such substantiations and instead was a big hodgepodge of copy-paste that only obscured the article rather than made it easy to understand. Some points that i feel need clarification:

1. His educational and research background: Rather than being a careless and dogmatic ideologue, we see that as early as his childhood, he was an unconventional thinker and believed in the value of extensive research. A student who works and still completes two doctorates in the time most average college students would complete a single degree--OK, maybe it took fewer years in the past--is damn impressive.
2. Building on research: From his early work in comparing fish size to weight to his development of protein extraction techniques, the guy built on previous research long before he became an opinion maker in regards to nutrition. Throughout his early career, we see that it is his ideas in an organism's regular and predictable physiological responses to its environment becomes a theme, but only after extensive research proves this to be the case. This is often overlooked today, as most of us would not dispute that eating too much can make you fat or that you can affect your blood pressure. The fact that in his time, the general immutability of the body (affected only by aging and genetics) such that diet and environment were considered unimportant, must be considered when recalling that he helped dispel this idea. Finally, few folks ever respect the awesome amount of work that he put into his research, bordering on what we'd today consider as OCD given the excruciating detail he went to understand his findings. Even today, such detail is rare in scientific journals.
3. Academic dishonesty: The section on criticisms by Uffe Ravnskov and Gary Taubes are unsourced and unsubstantiated. We need to remember that anyone on the Internet and IRL can criticize someone, but to accuse someone of falsifying conclusions and cherry-picking data is a libelous calumny without the source of the claim and the evidence that the claimant has to back up his claim. This is not to deny that such things happened, but to insure that negative information is well-sourced and justified if put under peer-review. We must also properly contextualize such criticism as to WHEN it happened and the environment in which it happened because this lets us know if the criticism was by a single or a few dissenters or by the majority of the academic establishment. We know that in the early days of the 1950s and 1960s, most physicians were critical of the lipid hypothesis, but not primarily because they thought Keys was a fraud. Most folks were simply as resistant to the idea of environmentally (e.g., diet and exercise) induced changes in human physiology (e.g., blood pressure, serum lipid profiles, lung capacity) in the same way that mainstream science was resistant to the idea of a low carbohydrate diet in the 1970s to 2000s. While some such resistance can be chalked up to idiocy (someone told me), traditionalism (stick with what was known), ideological agendas (some vegetarians), and business (e.g., the grain industries), it would be unfair to dismiss honest scientists who had genuine reservations to a scientific proposal that under close scrutiny had some holes in it. In this same way, many of Keys' early retractors were not people who were merely idiots, food industrialists, or other intellectually lazy folks; many scientists had problems with the hypothesis from the get-go and felt that more research was needed (e.g., the AHA in the early 50s). We should properly characterize such criticism and source it before simply calling Keys out as a fibber, that is, unless we can prove he fibbed. (nb. any academic scholar can fudge some data for reasons of rounding or other non-malicious needs, and when you produce as much data as Keys did in his nearly 1400 page book, its likely you will find some such fudging, but let's not paint this guy out to be another Jan Hendrik Schön or Andrew Wakefield just because we feel we don't like him). the point of this bullet (for those who don't want to read) is source, justify, and contextualize all criticism to avoid biasing Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
4. The Lipid Hypothesis: I too disagree with much of it it and generally agree that there is much misinformation that is being spewed out there, but i do not want to contribute to the misinformation on this side of the argument either. I feel that dishonesty and bias on any side hurts the cause of intellectual advancement so that we should rightly criticize those who want to bias information against someone they don't like. If the opinion of Keys resulted in a shift, we source that. If the opinion of Keys was wrong at the time, we should source that. If it caused an information cascade, we should again source a peer-reviewed source that properly argues and provides evidence for that.

Thank you, I hope I have both explained my motivations for correcting this article, and convinced a few of you to dig deeper than what you see in an article and contribute to its accuracy.Skaaii (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed on almost every point! But more importantly is to keep in mind that AT THE TIME his research was breakthrough. The fact that much later research has added a greater understanding shouldn't be a part of a person's biography in WIKI. Maybe a link to a separate page debating the modern controversy in light of new research? This way the lipid hypothesis can be discussed without creating bias on a person's biography page? 68.12.189.233 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"Great Man Theory" and neutral tone

The opening section has the following line

In the midst of arguing against his work in her book The Big Fat Surprise (2014), journalist Nina Teicholz writes that if there is a Great Man theory of history, "In the history of nutrition, Ancel Keys was, by far, the Greatest Man."

This is perfectly accurate, and even links inline to "Great Man theory" for further explanation. However, I can't help thinking it mis-represents Teicholz's intent by taking her words out of context. Even clicking through to the "Great Man theory" wikipedia article and reading its opening section (which describes it in quite positive terms), anyone not familiar with the theory would still very much see the above line as complimentary. For context, the preceding lines from Teicholz imply he had undue, not benign, influence on the course of history:

the story of nutritional science is not, as we would expect, the story of sober-minded researchers moving with judicious steps. It falls, instead, under the "Great Man" theory of history, whereby strong personalities steer events using their own personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom or wits. In the history of nutrition, Ancel Keys was, by far. the Greatest Man.

Ian Lesly article

Having read "the sugar conspiracy" by Ian Lesly in the Guardian (open access article) Keys comes across as a fraud. Is this article having problems? V8rik (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If multiple WP:MEDRS call him a "fraud," we would say that. If multiple WP:MEDRS defend him against those charges, we would say that too. That's standard Wikipedia WP:NPOV treatment of controversy. I'm not sure how we handle sources that are WP:RS but not WP:MEDRS. I would accept editorials or news stories in Science, Nature or BMJ as WP:MEDRS. ~~----

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancel Keys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208042157/http://www.qmfound.com:80/history_of_rations.htm to http://qmfound.com/history_of_rations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Death

What did he die from? Wythy (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Old age: he was nearly 101.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Old age is not a disease. What specifically killed Keys?Wythy (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that it is extraordinarily uncommon for a person of advanced age to be subjected to autopsy, unless they arrange it and pay for it in advance. Your best bet is to contact his family, who likely have no clear answer.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ancel Keys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://qmfound.com/history_of_rations.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927031550/http://www.the-aps.org/membership/obituaries/ancel_keys.htm to http://www.the-aps.org/membership/obituaries/ancel_keys.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

What did Keys die from, specifically?

Old age obviously is not the answer.

Was it stroke, cancer?

What was the cause of his death?

No "old age" answers, please.Wythy (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems very one-sided in its evaluation of Keys’ discoveries (and the controversy surrounding it). 140.180.240.10 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Falsified information

Falsified information. 2600:100A:B120:A6F4:B1CF:9593:23A4:C132 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota Study Discussion Confusing

The article states: The study shows no positive effects of the altered dietary intake. Cardiovascular mortality of patients over 65 years of age increased by the replacement of saturated fats. Yet the quote from Ramsden says: lower[ed] serum cholesterol ... does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. The article should say: Cardiovascular mortality of patients over 65 years of age increased by the replacement of saturated fats with linoleic acid (an unsaturated fat). Andyberks (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion from JustANameInUse

This IP [1] is the blocked user JustANameInUse. This user who uses the IP range 93.141 has confessed to evading his block in the past "I was banned with no proof of sockpuppeting on the word of a editor with a COI" [2]

There are previous ANI discussions about his block evasion [3] and [4]. The consensus by the admins has been to block this user per WP:EVADE. This user always uses the IP range 93.141 and is blocked for a few months then returns again. He was last blocked in July on this IP [5]. When his range block expires he turns up again either on the Atkins diet, carnivore diet, saturated fat and now Ancel Keys. It is the same thing every time to push a low-carb POV. The user has been doing it for a year now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

World Heart Federation Report

This source that was added does not mention Keys, diet or fatty acids but it does mention LDL. It is original research to cite it [6] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

The version as I found it read "has received criticism from the low-carbohydrate diet community" which, besides being a ridiculous phrase, is inaccurate. Keys has received criticism (to put it mildly) from many sane people who are not remotely "low-carb". Did the person who wrote that imagine that anyone who is not 'low-fat' must be 'low-carb'?

Anyway the whole section needs considerable expansion. It doesn't even scratch the surface of the relevant criticisms. 67.243.220.61 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You have not listed any reliable sources. The low-carb claim is accurate. The source listed for that claim, cites Gary Taubes and two other low-carb authors. I am not aware of any criticisms of Keys saturated fat research outside of the low-carb community, a community which is definitely WP:Fringe. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Strong Consensus"

@Psychologist Guy - you reverted my changes regarding with the edit message claiming: "lying about sources. The is a strong consensus that saturated fat increases risk of heart disease." I wanted us to discuss this here so we can deep dive into this further.

I noticed that you're particularly active in this article about reverting edits containing any criticism of the subject, for example reverting edits which link to the Seven Countries Study, etc. - so I wanted to outline in a bit more detail what is in the sources.

When you claim "lying about sources"; firstly, I'm not sure if you've read the cited work by Dr Andrew Jenkinson, "Why We Eat (Too Much): The New Science of Appetite" which certainly supports the claim there is not consensus on the topic, with Jenkinson going as far as to say that Keys "knew very well that it was not the whole truth" and his work caused harm - you can read so here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QfimDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Hamley systematic review could not be more clear: "Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations."

The systematic review by Clifton and Keogh states in the conclusion: "Reducing saturated fat and replacing it with carbohydrate will not lower CHD events ..." The BMJ systematic review states that RCT evidence "does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes." Etc, etc with other sources.

I'll revert your reversion for now in the event you've gained more understanding through reading the sources - but if this isn't sufficient to achieve consensus, why don't we remove any comment in the header about there being consensus for the research? E.g. We don't have on articles about gravity or even the COVID-19 vaccine a statement that there is consensus to support them. DrJoHeiter (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You are citing unreliable low-carb/keto diet sources and conspiracy theories. One of your sources is Aseem Malhotra, the other James DiNcolantio a pseudoscientist. The other Steven Hamley a paleo diet advocate. The other is Uffe Ravnskov. Let's not pretend this is mainstream science.

Sorry but I have discussed all these sources many times already going back 5 years on Wikipedia. Your view is directly against scientific consensus. We have had extensive discussion about Hamley (he is a paleo diet advocate) and why this is an unreliable source for Wikipedia. Let's not be silly and cite Aseem Malhotra. The other references you mention have been discussed before on Wikipedia many times. Check the archives on the saturated fat talk-page. Let's not waste time going over the same old nonsense. Not one of your sources is reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Science is done by empirically proving or disproving a hypothesis, not ad hominem attacks - these are systematic reviews in notable published peer-reviewed journals which are not retracted. Likewise, Dr Jenkinson (who I note you've not criticised in your comments) is a regulated medical professional, regulated by the General Medical Council, so if he was spreading conspiracy theories in his work - you could refer him to the UK regulator.

However, in any event - we can find even more examples which aren't cited in the original sources (these are literally the top results on Google Scholar for "saturated fat heart disease"):

- First argues SFA's are actually beneficial: "The metabolic aspects of SFAs are complex and non-uniform but existing evidence suggests that certain SFAs may confer measurable benefits for lipid profiles and CHD risk. For instance, several SFAs enhance the metabolism of high-density lipoprotein (HDL)" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062015300256

- "Evidence for the effects of SFA consumption on vascular function, insulin resistance, diabetes, and stroke is mixed, with many studies showing no clear effects, highlighting a need for further investigation of these endpoints." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4

- "The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation." https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770

Are all these studies also created by conspiracy theorists and misinformation? Why haven't they been retracted in that case? Your argument seems to be that a majority of the scientific community is espousing misinformation, which in that case undermines your argument that there is consensus.

In any event - instead of adding new language, I'll remove any comment in the header about there being consensus for the research as I mentioned in my last message which I don't think you disagreed with in your reply and refer the matter to Wikipedia:Third opinion to we can achieve a consensus. DrJoHeiter (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Language in article made neutral for now to avoid language one way or another being used until consensus is reached.

Listed matter to: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements DrJoHeiter (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

James DiNcolantio, Steven Hamley, Aseem Malhotra and Uffe Ravnskov are all low-carb/paleo advocates and at least 2 of them promote vaccine misinformation and have received funds from the beef industry. The sources you are citing are highly biased and do not reflect evidence-based medicine. Just because a handful of fringe figures from the low-carb community challenge mainstream science does not mean their material is valid. Your sources do not represent the scientific consensus. If you read the saturated fat article there are many references that show the consensus. All medical organizations and dietary guidelines around the world advise limiting saturated fat consumption to reduce disease risk. Several reviews between 2022 and 2023 were published on this. You cite a book by Andrew Jenkinson, this fails WP:MEDRS. Jenkinson is a surgeon, there is no evidence he specializes in nutrition. Just because someone has written a book does not automatically make it a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy - with your repeated reverts of any attempt to reach consensus, I would ask that this does not become an edit war.

However, I note that Harvard University has issued criticism of the saturated fat guidance on these same grounds - going as far as to issue a press release on the matter quoting Dr. Walter Willett, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2023/07/17/who-updated-guidelines-healthy-diets-total-fat/

I've provided you multiple systematic reviews which contradict the finding you're claiming there is strong consensus for - but here's another review: "Findings from the studies reviewed in this paper indicate that the consumption of SFA is not significantly associated with CVD risk, events, or mortality. Based on the scientific evidence, there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet." https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article/29/18/2312/6691821

As far back as 1984, research has attributed 2,289 deaths in 15 years from the flawed research in the Seven Countries study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6739443/

You're attempting to claim strong consensus in the introduction of an article whilst removing any dissenting opinion, despite universities like Harvard putting out press releases contradicting this and a majority of systematic reviews contradicting the evidence.

This isn't about just putting evidence one way or another in the article, you want to make a claim that there is strong consensus to back one view without dissenting opinion, which there is no secondary source to back. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for why secondary sources should be used. DrJoHeiter (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, just with regards to your comment "have received funds from the beef industry" - you do understand that Ancel Keys himself received funding from the sugar industry, right? As the New York Times puts it: "The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show."

- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

- https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099084/ DrJoHeiter (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You mentioned the Harvard article (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2023/07/17/who-updated-guidelines-healthy-diets-total-fat/) as contradicting the WHO guideline's recommendation on saturated fat intake. I suspect that you may have misread that Harvard article, as it and Dr. Willett's criticism targeted WHO's recommendation on total fat intake.

In the Harvard article, Dr. Willett agreed with WHO's recommendation to emphasize unsaturated fat sources over saturated sources, explicitly even mentioning Ancel Keys' Mediterranean diet as healthy.

This Wiki article's intro text, for which references are being discussed, is about Ancel Keys' hypothesis. Per the current refs [1][2], that hypothesis does not seem to make claims about total fat intake.

Regardless, that Harvard article probably classifies as Expert opinion under WP:MEDASSESS, which would be inappropriate to use for countering its top-tier levels of evidence. Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any good academic or historical sources showing that Ancel Keys was funded by the sugar industry? Having spoke to historians about this I do not believe he was. None of the sources you cite make that claim, so that is WP:OR. There were very few nutritionists funded by the sugar industry in the 1960s. The most notable example is D. Mark Hegsted but it was a one off payment of $6,500 to publish a review. His critics forget to mention he also received funding from the dairy industry. Either way, that is all off topic here. There isn't any good evidence Keys was funded by the sugar industry. I am not sure why you have made that claim. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

With regards to "world advise limiting saturated fat consumption to reduce disease risk" - note that this is not the claim that is being asserted as universally true. The actual claim from the article is "that replacing dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduced cardiovascular heart disease". Also see public health advice in countries like Greece. DrJoHeiter (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• The reviews you are citing have all been cited before on the saturated fat talk-page, they are all low-carb authors. There was a strong consensus not the include these sources on Wikipedia they do not reflect the mainstream scientific consensus and are heavily biased. Many of these reviews you are citing are funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. We do not cite industry funded research on Wikipedia. We have discussed your sources going back 5 years, nothing you have added is new, I have literally spent hours in the past discussing these sources. You are now citing Robert Lustig, Nina Teicholz, Jeff Volek of Atkins diet fame, Ronald Krauss, Zoë Harcombe and James DiNicolantonio. All are low-carb high fat influencers, heavily industry funded. You are unable to show a neutral review.
• This review you cited [7] is not a reliable source. It was funded by Nina Teicholz's Nutrition Coalition organization. It was also funded by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/North Dakota Beef Council.
• You are destroying this article with entirely unreliable content from low-carb conspiracy theorists and other unreliable sources that fail WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm disengaging with this discussion here until a third-opinion is obtained as you aren't keen to engage in good faith discussion (by attacking the numerous sources which disagree with you with ad hominem attacks) and seem keen to have an edit war. I've listed the edit war on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. DrJoHeiter (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources you are citing are all low-carb authors and conspiracy theorists, at least 4 of your reviews were heavily industry funded by the beef industry, obviously you never read the disclosure section. You have not given a single reliable neutral source. Let me ask you something do you actually believe Aseem Malhotra and James DiNicolantonio are reliable sources to be citing on Wikipedia? You are greatly damaging this article with misinformation, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to keep content accurate and reliable. This biography of Ancel Keys isn't a place for you to promote your fringe views about nutrition in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

attacking the numerous sources which disagree with you with ad hominem attacks voicing one's concerns about the quality of the sources is not an ad hominem attack, it's what we're supposed to do if we have reason to believe that they are not reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that DrJoHeiter is trying to say that reliability is a property of the source, not of the author of the source. The sources in the recent edits are here, with one easy dismissal:

• The Nutrition Source
• Amazon - obviously not a RS, it is a page that tries to sell you something
• Journal of the American College of Cardiology
• Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases
• Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
• Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Those should be the target of any criticism, not the authors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources that DrJoHeiter is citing have been discussed on Wikipedia heavily going back 4 years, I have spent many hours commenting about these papers and had many discussions about them. Every 6 months a new or sleeper account will turn up on the saturated fat talk-page and related articles like this claiming that the scientific consensus on saturated fat has shifted. This is not the case and it is always the same sources being cited. An example regarding all of the same sources DrJoHeiter mentions were put onto the WikiProject Medicine talk-page by another user here making the same arguments in 2021 [8]. There was a good consensus from experienced medical users not to include these studies written by the low-carb community. They cite the same papers every time.

Just a note about 32562735 (full paper on sciencedirect) [9] this study is heavily industry funded by the beef industry, this was mentioned on WikiProject Medicine. As @shibbolethink noted per WP:MEDRS#Sponsored_supplements we would not cite this source on Wikipedia. The paper was based on a workshop held by Nina Teicholz. DrJoHeiter says above "Ancel Keys himself received funding from the sugar industry", this is misinformation and no historian who has looked at the records would claim this. DrJoHeiter's own sources he links to do not even say this. Very few scientists involved in cholesterol research were funded by the sugar industry in the 1960s or 1970s, the only example his sources mention is D. Mark Hegsted (this was a one-off payment in 1965) but this is off-topic here. I don't think we should be using these talk-pages for cholesterol wars. I understand the low-carb community dislike Keys but there is no reason to add all these sources in the lead that are a minority view. The medical guidelines are very clear about this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

3OR request declined. There are already more than two opinions. Polyamorph (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Saw this mentioned at WP:FT/N. In my view we do need to say something about the common medical org view on this (which broadly, yes, does seem to be that high saturated fat intake is bad for CVD risk). There may be room for workshopping wording. We might also say that more recent research has raised concerns about the quality of the underlying research and the magnitude of effect, maybe citing PMID:37777760, although this is getting off topic maybe for a biography. The key (hah!) point is, whether we like it or not, per that 2023 source:

  Reducing dietary fat intake, often targeted specifically to SFA, has been the orthodox position in the nutrition community since the 1950s following the Seven Country Study and the 'diet-heart hypothesis'.

  That is precisely what is so notable about Keys. This is not the place to argue about the subsequent science. Bon courage (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)