Talk:Feingold diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Construction work

This page contains the material from the Benjamin Feingold article on the Feingold Diet. This was partly an attempt to separate the contentious material out, so that there could be a non-disputed biographical article on Dr. Feingold. The article as it stands is in pretty bad shape, but User:Shulae and I are slowly working on a more neutral version. More info and links to follow shortly. --Slashme 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the project page to Feingold diet/Objections, and added in a typical first paragraph, after stripping out the biographical section that is covered under Benjamin Feingold. Now we can start thrashing out a neutral article :-] I will probably not get a chance to work on it for the next week or so (unless I succumb to the the siren call of the Wiki, which I hope won't happen). Shulae, it's all yours in the meantime. --Slashme 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we really need to go into great detail on the whole history of the science -- the good, the bad, and the ugly? I can, but I don't know if this is the place, or if it is right for Wikipedia. I have already linked to the collections of studies, several times. I can also link to a critical review of studies .... and there are lots of other good reviews so I don't know if this is the place for me to do another one, just because Quackwatch brought it up.

When I get the chance, maybe this weekend, I'll check your review articles, and if they're good, we can basically quote their findings and cite them, and maybe cite the most important studies reviewed by them.

Also, MUST we address the "victimized by the Feingold diet" letter? It is a bogus letter, anonymous, written in the style of Stephen Barrett, and I am sure he wrote it himself. Besides, it is really stupid. If you want letters about how hard somebody thought the Feingold diet is, or how it didn't work for somebody, I have better ones than that (after all, it doesn't work for everybody of course) My goodness, we even have a members kids bulletin board where the kids can write and tell each other what they think - and they are not all sweetness and light, believe me.

I also think it's a case of "victimized by a weird family" rather than "victimized by the diet". I think though, that fingering Barrett as the author, without direct evidence is going a bit far. I don't think it's really that worthwile to keep it there myself. Feel free to purge it.

I put some other questions (in red) on the page .... don't know if that is appropriate, but that was as far as I got on the page so far and had to stop for a bit. This stuff is HARD -- you all do an amazing job. ---Shulae 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll check them out sometime this week. You're right, it's not easy to write an encyclopedia. But when you're done doing your bit, you really are the hero. How many users of the Enc. Brit. can say "I helped to write this"? Also, you learn a lot about balance and writing skills here. --Slashme 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbering

I am having some trouble with the numbering; it just isn't working right

I'll take a look at it. --Slashme 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How to Cite Sources?

When I quote a critic, should I give his source? Maybe in a footnote? I can give the quackwatch.org website or Barrett's name ..... or does that make it too specific? -- Shulae 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

When you cite a source, you're citing a document, not a person, so you give a reference to the document. --Slashme 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions in red

When you want something in red, do it like this, not with links to nonexistent pages, otherwise your text shows up in the "requested articles" list. --Slashme 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

delay

Hi Slashme - I am leaving in a couple of days for California for 2 weeks. Hopefully I will be on line there so I can continue to work on this page. I am anxious to finish it of course and get the Quackwatch junk off here, but I want it to be good and everything to be documented, too. So if you don't see me much on here for a few weeks I haven't given up -- I am just in Mexico getting my teeth fixed.Shulae 20:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shulae! I'm actually relieved to see this, as I have been working very hard lately, and have slacked off a bit on Wikiedia. Please mail me if you need an opinion, as I might not be checking my messages very closely. --Slashme 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How to "prove" a diet doesn't work

This whole section needs a re-think; the tone is completely unencyclopedic. Maybe the issues here could be addressed with reference to individual negative studies? --Slashme 05:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I too will add my voice to the chorus that this 'article' is more a carefully designed rebuke to the diet's effectiveness than an objective account of what the Feingold diet has tried to acheive with children and adults who suffer from ADD and ADHD. An edit is more than needed. If someone has not already started a rewrite, then I will have to do it myself. --(unsigned comment by 70.38.131.130)

Hi! Please check Feingold diet/Objections, the current project page. User:Shulae and I were working on it, but both got distracted by "real" work. Feel free to hack away at it, and if you think you have something that either needs attention or is ready for prime-time, please leave a message on my talk page. --Slashme 06:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Great detail

Do we really need to go into great detail on the whole history of the science -- the good, the bad, and the ugly? I can, but I don't know if this is the place, or if it is right for Wikipedia. I have already linked to the collections of studies, several times. I can also link to a critical review of studies .... and there are lots of other good reviews so I don't know if this is the place for me to do another one, just because Quackwatch brought it up.

I would suggest that a brief summary of the points be made, with links to valid support or criticism. Not everything needs to be rewritten in the article. -- Tmassey 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Critique of Article Tone

There are a ton of unsupported statements throughout the article. I've tried flagging them with citeneeded tags. Feel free to add more, where necessary. Better yet, feel free to add relevant cites! -- Tmassey 03:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Article after July, 2006

(Note: this comment was made before this section was divided. I was unaware of the edits made in the interim -- Tmassey 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Oddly enough, I had the opposite opinion: little balance to the article in a *positive* way, particularly the part where "critics say" a single sentence, and then *paragraphs* of information in response, all with *minimal* cites anywhere. It's not the worst example of NPOV out there, but the article could use a more detached tone, rather than the tone of being written by someone with a definite POV they're trying to express. Tmassey 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In your comment, you are referring to a different page from the one (the old one) referred to in the paragraphs above yours, back in April. In between, the entire article was re-written.

There are 48 citations in the new page - hardly "minimal." However, if you could please point out where you would like to see citations, or where you think that they are missing, I will see what I can do. As you say, it is always easy to criticize in a short sentence - and critics of the Feingold diet hardly ever bother to cite their sources; when they do, those sources are 30 years old anyhow. It is the explanation of why a criticism is incorrect that takes longer, if one doesn't want to get into a "he says / she says" kind of argument. But please give me any ideas you may have on how to balance them better.Shulae 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's simple. I belive that my thoughts above (primariliy too POV) fit the tone of the entire article. However, as noted above, my primary objection is related to the section entitled "Pros and Cons". This makes up approximately half of the text in the entire article. Yet, in that entire section, there are five cites.

In any typical subpoint in that section there is a single sentence that says "Critics Say". Then there is multiple paragraphs, with bulleted lists, that describe, in great detail, why this is incorrect. This is pretty much the definition of non-NPOV.

I am not saying that the information is inaccurate. It could be the solid-gold truth. However, this is an encyclopedia article, not a marketing brochure (or a polemic). The entire article reads as if it were. This is not the place to, point by point, dispute with critics. This is where you present accurate, verified, cited information, with links to first-source material that can refute whatever you want.

 I agree.  I will look at it all again with that in mind.Shulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm also not saying that the "critics say" part has to be the same volume as the refutation. My problem is not with a misguided idea of "equal time". My point is that such a significant point-by-point debate does not belong in a reference work of any kind. A brief discussion where the critics' points are described in a paragraph or two, and the proponents' points are summaraized in a similar way would be excellent. What we have now just begs for "retaliation" on the part of anti-Feingold people.

 Yes, true.  I think I got side-tracked by their propensity to use multiple 
 criticisms ... what Alfredo Terrazas (the Deputy Attorney General prosecuting
 a doctor for using the Feingold diet) called "death of a thousand cuts."  It 
 would be simple if they just said "It doesn't work" because I can cite lots
 of studies that say yes it does.  But when they say things like, "it causes
 changes in family dynamics," and "it makes children feel fragile" -- well
 these criticisms themselves are based on not a shred of research pro or con
 so it is hard to respond with anything more scientific than "stop being 
 stupid" yet these criticisms scare parents.Shulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A brief word on my perspective on this issue: I am a parent of a non-ADD child. I had never heard of the Feingold diet before a relatively random tour through Wikipedia led me to it (in a link from an article on an artificial color). I have zero opinion (or significant personal interest) about its validitiy. However, as a very frequent Wikipedia reader, I have significant issues with the tone of the entire article.

Tmassey 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on the tone of that section. Unfortunately, our only expert on the case is the research librarian and webmaster of the Feingold Association. Shula is a very reasonable person who has put a huge effort into improving this article, but her point of view is basically pro-Feingold; not being an expert myself, I have basically gone along with her content, and just helped on style, process and formatting. We need some medical expertise on this one, so I have made a few random invitations to wikipedian doctors. In the meantime, be bold. If you think you can improve things, go ahead. --Slashme 07:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 Thank you for the term "reasonable" - I do try.  As a parent of an ADD
 child with Tourette and asthma too -- all of which is totally controlled
 by the Feingold diet -- but who spent years trying various medications
 because my doctors told me diet was bunk .... well, it cuts to the quick
 to see all the same tired old excuses for reasons for not doing the diet
 still out there.  I, too, have difficulty with the "tone" of the article,
 and would welcome an improvement.Shulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that I can improve it. But the way I would improve it would by *major* editing. That means out-and-out deleting *lots* of non-encyclopedic content. Not wrong content. Not bad content. Just content that is in the wrong venue. Before I slash-and-burn, is there a way to coordinate it, so that the article isn't left in tatters (and maybe avoid an edit war)? -- Tmassey 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To emphasize my point: this material is not bad. In fact, it seems to me that it should be on a pro-Feingold website (even better: the official website). In that case, Wikipedia could (and should) link to it. However, in that case, it's in its proper context: a first-source website that is acknowledged to have a slant. Just not in an encyclopeida article itself! :) If Shula is in such a position, that would work out very well. -- Tmassey 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 A website exists - it is www.feingold.org ... the material is
 not there in that format, however.  Do you think it should be?Shulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you were to cut and paste this entire article exactly as written and put it on the fiengold.org website somewhere, it would be perfectly at home, and, while I *still* think that it could be improved even in that context, most of my issues go away. feingold.org does not have to have the same NPOV standards as Wikipedia!  :)

Introduction

In the introduction, it states: "claim that it is effective in the management of ADHD as well as a number of other conditions". What are those other conditions? Are they only behavioral? Could we accurately say "claim that it is effective in the management of ADHD as well as other behavioral conditions"? Or is there another way that this sentence could be made more specific? It's not the end of the world, but generic "as well as other things" type sentences bother me... -- Tmassey 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, such sentences bother me too. But no, they are not only behavioral conditions -- and the problem is that when you read the list of symptoms that can be helped, they sound like too much. My first impression when I saw the symptom list myself was "what is this? snake oil???" Yet, there is a "profile" and you would not believe how many parents write us that their child has ALL the symptoms on the list ... and ALL the symptoms improve on the diet. The only conclusion I can draw (minus any research at all on the subject) is that the diet acts at a level (the gut?) where neurotransmitters are actually made, where the source of the symptoms resides. Anyhow, you can see the whole list at www.feingold.org/symptom-pg.html but in general I would say that the major areas would be (1) Behavioral problems, (2) Physical problems such as Asthma, chronic ear aches, bedwetting, and stomach/head aches (3) Learning/neurological problems such as Tourettes, dyslexia, memory problems.

For example, my own son had hyperactivity and mood swings; but what was ignored pretty much (because the behavior was the squeaky wheel) is that he had an asthmatic chronic cough & mild wheezing ... frequent ear infections and strep throats ... headaches ... difficulty sleeping .... dysgraphia ... Tourette syndrome ... bedwetting ... and periods of jaw stiffness during which he could hardly talk (this is not even listed in the symptoms) and on the diet alone, he has none of these symptoms.

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.

So -- what can one say at this point and still be brief?Shulae 12:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I think a cut-down version of your brief description works well:

"claim that it is effective in the management of ADHD as well as a number of other behavioral, physical and neurological conditions[1]." But with the cite properly formatted.

Tmassey 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds fine.Shulae 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the ADHD Epidemic

I have a real problem with both this and the next section: "What changed in the (dietary) environment?". My issue is correlation does not mean causation [2]. Neither of these two paragraphs make complete sense. They state what seem like perfectly acceptable facts, but there is no factual evidence (in the two paragraphs, anyway) that connect these facts together. The connection between the facts is left as an exercise to the reader. You can't do that.

Without those connections, the information is not valuable. In fact, I think it might be appropriate to just eliminate both of these paragraphs. The information contained in them is not directly relevant to the diet itself, and the flow is even improved: from 'first case' to 'early use'. Leave the abstract historical information out.

 OK.  I think I'll stop here and read what you've done.Shulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, without hard facts converting the statements made into these paragraphs into a *proven* cause-effect relationship, I think both paragraphs should be deleted. Period. There just is not enough cited evidence in those two paragraphs to draw the *conclusions* you are drawing. I will leave them alone until November 1. After that, I will delete them. If you *have* such evidence, by all means lets get it in there!  :) -- Tmassey 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed these sections completely. They in no way contribute to the article. I've read them dozens of times: they just don't go. So, they're gone. -- Tmassey 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Shoot: I just now realized that I said I'd leave it until the 1st! Sorry about that. If you come up with some way of making this coherently related to the diet itself, we can re-add it. However, I *really* do not think it's even the least bit necessary. -- Tmassey 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Initial Controversy (Was: AMA Presentation and Followup)

So, I moved on to the next section. More issues to discuss. There are a *number* of significant allegations made: the AMA removing significant support, medical studies engineered to prove a preselected conclusion, promises made and broken. You can't put such statements in without citation of a source. I've added in the areas that cause me the most concern. -- Tmassey 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the timing in this paragraph doesn't make much sense. The AMA presentations were to be in 1973, right? The article then states that within a few months the Nutrition Foundation was putting out statements and studies. Yet there are no cites of this. The only cite of a study is in 1983, a full decade later. It would be nice to have a more concrete idea of time in this section. Or, distill the entire paragraph or two into a more general description. -- Tmassey 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 Yes ... looks like I missed that citation, and some of the time line,
 but this is an important factor not much known. I will be out of town for  
 a week, leaving in a couple of hours.  Will have my computer but no access 
 to my library, so this is one that have to wait till I get back. 
 Please don't cut down that paragraph yet; but a  sign on
 it would probably be appropriateShulae 05:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. However, we will need detailed cites to back up these allegations. Again, the other thing to keep in mind: how much does this have to do with the *diet*? Is it really necessary, even with the cites? That's where links to material in the feingold.org site comes in... -- Tmassey 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to re-stress this. Without substantial material that back this material up in detail, you cannot put it in an encyclopedic reference. (Note the sentence that follows the edit box when you make a change for support of this.) Again, it's not about the diet: it's about the politics that surround it. *Perfect* material for a page on the FA website. Not here. Again, I'm gonnat (try) to give this a few days, but I really think this should be killed. Wikipedia is not a first source: WP:NOR.

This is, to me, the last section in need of attention. I'm of the mind that the entire section should be flat-out removed. I would like to see it replaced by a section that simply states what changes in direction the diet experienced from 1973 through today. That might be able to be put into a single section, or it might take a couple (if there were significant changes in the diet between 1973 and today). Leave the controversy somewhere else: stick with simple, well-founded facts. Again, put all of this material on the FA website. But stick to simple facts here.

I've started trimming this section. I've rolled the two sections into one, and I'm removing the uncited information. It's been renamed Initial controversy in the process. -- Tmassey 14:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

It has been a long time with no further input or complaint. The chart stands on its merits without making claims but allowing the reader to make his own conclusions. Since the only final comments seem to be agreeing with me, but nobody taking the responsibility for removing this tag over the past year, I guess I am supposed to remove it myself. I will therefore do so now.Shulae (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. WP:MEDRS needs to be applied to this entire article, especially this section. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Later Research

More slash-and-burn. I've cut the opening sentence down to this: "Recent studies show that between 50% to 85% of children placed on an additive-restricted diet show improvement." Improvement in what? Behavior? Or something else? This is an area where we *really* need to be clear what is being improved... -- Tmassey 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

I have started to work on this section, the one that originally drew my criticism. It's bothering me too much to leave it alone!  :) I have started a rough process of converting this section into prose (as opposed to endless bulleted lists) but I ran out of time to complete it. Even the part that has been converted into prose needs to be trimmed down substantially. This should *not* be more than a few paragraphs. Anything more just does not belong here.

In addition, there are too many criticisms, and too much rebuttal. We either need to break this out into its own page, OR (my preferred solution), trim these down to the top 3 criticisms. I'm not qualified to know what those are. Some of them sound incredibly ignorant to me: why would feeding a kid natural, healthy food *ever* make them more likely to have a *less* nutritious diet? If someone hangs their hat on *that* as a criticism, you're never going to convince them, anyway: so why waste your time with that defense?

I would appreciate some guidance here.

I also flat-out removed the sick building stuff. It has *nothing* to do with the diet *whatsoever*, so it goes. If you wanted to create a page for the Feingold Association, it *might* belong there, but even then, not really. Don't lose focus: this article is about a diet, not about an association, no matter how closely those are linked together...

I'm out of time right now, but the multiple symptoms discussion might deserve to get axed, too. It's not relevant to the diet itself, and we haven't talked at *all* about the diet addressing more than hyperactivity. Stick to the issue at hand.

Tmassey 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point that people who actually think that removing additives could result in a less nutritious diet will never be convinced by facts or anything else. This actually was a published objection to the diet .... in particular that removing orange juice would cause scurvy (as though that were the only fruit in the universe to contain vitamin C)... and this objection rears its head from time to time in spite of the two studies that did indeed show that kids on the diet had a MORE nutritious diet and were MORE likely to get appropriate amounts of vitamins, minerals, etc. You can see the list of objections I used at the Quackbusters website (this is where I got them from) at www.quackwatch.org. It is an organization that claims to be nonprofit but has lots of money and they really really hate anything labeled "alternative." You are probably right to cut the objections down to size.Shulae 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Symptoms

I have modified this section. It ends like this: "While the underlying physiological reason is not understood, when a patient eliminates the additives to which they are sensitive, many or even most of the symptoms contained within the profile are improved. Research supports dietary intervention for each of the symptoms in turn.". I've removed the link to the FA website. What we VERY MUCH need here is a nice, substantial series of cites to different articles NOT on the FA website that back this statement up. -- Tmassey 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 oh gee - I just noticed this. okay, I can do it that way.Shulae (talk) 12:22, 5 April 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)

Risk Benefit Analysis

This is another section that does not belong. I woud suggest taking whatever is valuable in it and working it into the rest of the article. Frankly, I think that points have already been made, for the most part. The rest of it should be removed. This is a page about the diet, not why you should choose the diet. Again, links to a similar page on the Feingold website would be perfect: you don't have to rehash it all again in the article itself. -- Tmassey 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... I feel better. The section has been deleted. I've read it over a bunch of times, and there really wasn't a single sentence that wasn't uncited, speculative or redundant. And none of it was about the diet itself, but rather why it might be better or worse than other treatments. And none of it cited authoritative citations. -- Tmassey 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Feingold Association != Feingold Program

There's too much Feingold Association material sprinkled throughout the article. A single section talking about the association would be good, but it needs to be minimal. If you want, start a FA article, but it doesn't belong here. That's what the FA website is for!  :) I think that a FA-related section is probably not overly necessary. It *is* the first external link...

Well, I've somewhat changed my mind. I've created a FA section. I'm not sure it will stay, but I've carved out material from other sections and put it in a more properly labelled place. -- Tmassey 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted more FA information from throughout the article. I like the fact that the support info is now in a properly-labelled section, easy to find, and not distracting throughout the entire article. -- Tmassey 20:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

question re name

Dr. Feingold preferred his name as "Ben F. Feingold" but then it doesn't connect to the bio of him. What is best way to deal with this? (name is now in red because it is disconnected) Shulae 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

oh -- never mind. When I added the "." after the "F" it was okay Shulae 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

explanation of science

When you added: "If such a "challenge" could not produce deterioration, there would still be support for the hypothesis that the improvement was due to a combination of lifestyle changes (e.g. more attention given to the child leading to a general improvement in parenting) and the placebo effect (the well-known effect that any medical intervention can improve symptoms due to purely psychological reasons). " .... well, no improvement on the Feingold diet has nothing to do with placebo effect or lifestyle change -- both of which have actually been shown NOT to be involved. I'd rather not get into such a discussion, though I do mention it in the criticism section.

Think of it this way: you remove 5,000 or 6,000 chemicals from your diet, and whatever your symptoms were, they go away. Then you add ONE CHEMICAL back. If you get a return of your symptoms, you know that THAT chemical is the bad guy, or one of them. If nothing happens, it doesn't mean you don't feel better, or that your effort was only a placebo effect ... it means you haven't tested the other 4,999 chemicals!! It means that your CHALLENGE doesn't work, maybe it is the wrong chemical, or only produces symptoms when in combination with some other chemical or some food ..... the whole idea of using a single challenge chemical (a coloring, usually) is actually scientifically stupid -- but it became the "classic" way to do these diet studies and so we are stuck with them. Nevertheless, there is a clear dose-response to coloring, so we know that the colorings DO have an effect, but 1 mg isn't gonna do it. 1 mg of cocaine probably would not do anything either .... thus, we could "prove" that cocaine is safe to put in the kids' lunch in uncontrolled amounts, couldn't we? See what I am getting at? Of course, you are right that my sentence was not very encyclopedic, but I haven't started working on the studies section yet. I will take the placebo stuff off, now, which I hope you don't mind, and this is the section I will start on next.Shulae 18:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

fruits/foods

Originally, I had used the words "foods" which shlashme changed to "fruits" which was fine except I didn't want to give the impression everything was a fruit, so I added a nut, which had to bring it back to "food" ... also pineapple is a little problematic because it actually is sometimes acting like a salicylate when fresh, although is generally fine when canned (go figure), so I didn't want to use that as the example here. Somewhere, maybe I should have a better explanation of why we only eliminate some of the "salicylates" - not all - and why our list does not match the Swain list at all. Shulae 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Food list / Foodlist

I know that normal people talk about a list of foods as a Food List. For reasons nobody remembers, years ago our Food List became a book and it was named the FOODLIST & SHOPPING GUIDE .... Foodlist is one word here. Shulae 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

New version goes live!!

Shula and I have thrashed out a new version of the article, incorporating information from the Feingold Association and a wealth of new references. All you wise and well-informed wikipedians, here is your chance to get informed about the issues involved and hack away. Maybe this article could go for featured status at some time in the near future. --Slashme 12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting doctors

I have placed the "expert-medicine" tag at the top of the article. I think the quality of the article is generally good, but it could do with some fresh input from medical experts. Please don't take this as criticism of the work done so far: It's just an attempt to recruit more well-informed editors, and can be taken down in a couple of weeks. --Slashme 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. As long as the efforts are aimed at improving the article, by use of facts, history, science, and experience, I look forward to input from experts in any related field.Shulae 04:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

(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)

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)

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 believe 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 we live in a world where you cannot trust anyone and we all know how man is ready to hurt another man for money. And then we even refuse to believe someone who is warning us of such inhumanity in his research, and instead trust companies that produce these cheap synthetic additives, reaping huge profits at the cost of our health. This wikipedia article is an eye opener.

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)

Correction: Both apples and oranges(both containing salycilates) are eliminated during a Feingold diet, see http://www.feingold.org/diet/ShoppingGuide.pdf for a clear listing. This listing still contains items with low amounts of salicylates but eliminates the most important ones. If parents do not consult a dietist to form a healthy diet for their child then that's a)their fault, b)their doctor's fault; and c) the fault of this shopping guide for not mentioning it in the introduction and instead expecting stupid people miraculously think of it by themselves. Conclussion: the items allowed by the Feingold diet are more than rich enough to form a healthy varied diet, parents need to consult a specialist to form a healthy diet with them though. If your dietist is an idiot show him this http://salicylatesensitivity.com/recipes/.--77.109.124.241 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

first paragraph

Someone has added "Feingold Association" to the first paragraph. It is red, so it is referring to .... nothing, I guess. While it could be made into a link to the Feingold Association website, it is listed later as a relevant link, and I don't really think it belongs in this first paragraph, which is about the diet, not the support group. However, I do not see an "edit" link on this paragraph. I would suggest to whoever is in charge of this to just remove the reference if you agree.Shulae (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Never mind -- I found the edit and removed the reference.  
  If whoever is in charge prefers to keep it, by all means put 
  it back in; but if so, connect it to the source at http://feingold.org okay? Shulae (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutral Point of view

While this may be true, I really don't think "Over the next few years, the Nutrition Foundation funded and designed several small studies carefully crafted to show that the diet produced little effect" violates the NPOV principle but I am not sure how to recast that. It's an accusation of deliberate bias, rather than something really proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.41.200 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Upon perusing the NPOV rules and finding the problem sentence pointed out in this talk page, in which it is assumed that the Nutrition Foundation purposely biased their studies (in spite of citing two other sources who published articles claiming the same thing, this could be considered a one-sided statement), so I changed the statement to simply indicate that they funded and designed studies which concluded there was little support for the diet. I have therefore removed the NPOV notice and hope that this resolves this problem.Shulae (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I find that the NPOV is obviously unmet; albeit, (probably) inadvertently. see e.g. "Adding to the confusion is the assumption that the National Advisory Committee is a governmental agency rather than an arm of industry." This sentence, and many others like it, is poorly constructed and confusing. I think the bulk of this entry needs to be revised. Or, maybe entirely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilcarbarca420 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the need for a rewrite. It seems to have attempted to solve the NPOV by flip-flopping between points of view, and reading the more scientific statements the use of citations seems overboard. For example, "Treating multiple symptoms" actually fails to address the question effectively at all, but has a massive number of citations at its end. Certainly one of the studies has proposed a mechanism or two for how it works, if it did find it isn't the placebo effect? Since it's an elimination diet, certainly somebody must have tested the 'kitchen sink' theory (lack of selectivity), rate of comorbidity (which certainly would justify a kitchen sink approach to elimination), no less the possibility that one or more of the things eliminated from the diet is flat-out toxic to children. One hopes that the possibility of the effects being due to improved nutrition has been checked, as well, since that certainly would be an important thing to check. This is a persistent problem, too; certainly somebody supporting the diet would have wanted to know the evidence for the pattern of exclusions, yet there seems rather little explanation to be had. Perhaps one of the cited articles in the history section would supply the answer, but it ought to be in the article itself. 24.167.165.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Most of this article rather blatantly violates NPOV. Every argument against the diet is accompanied by a litany of weasel-words/phrases in order to marginalize it, a fair amount of supporting evidence is under-cited (or not at all), and in general it all sounds more or less like an infomercial. And that's not counting the last section, which is arguably advertisement, and definitely un-encyclopedic. Needs a full rewrite. Drake144 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Shulae is the "Webmaster" for the Feingold Association and a major contributor to this article. Fairly cut-and-dry case of COI. Drake144 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually, it is a cut-and-dry case of my being a person who knows the subject. And no, I did not get paid for any of this. Shulae (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • That seems a bit euphemistic, does it not? I believe you're acting in good faith (i.e. not suggesting you're doing this for pay), but the page now reads more like a promotional pamphlet. You do say you've been closely related to the subject of this article, including as a staff member of the Foundation solely dedicated to its promotion, and that throws up all kinds of red flags. From the Wikipedia COI guidelines:

"1. Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with Why we recommend this: When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world. Their closeness might cause them to see the subject in a more (or less) flattering light than the independent, reliable sources do. Wikipedia wants to reflect the sources' views, not the personal views of individual editors."

The reason they use "recommend" is because, yes, the entire ethos of Wikipedia is that "anyone can edit" it. But if someone close to the subject absolutely must be involved, they've got to be painstakingly careful to remain neutral and encyclopedic.

Needs a very, very thorough revision, if not a complete rewrite. Drake144 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

External Links

I noticed that the NIH link was broken, so I have replaced it with one that works. The Arnold link was restricted, which I don't understand. I am, however, familiar with the study. It is about "alternative" treatments for adults with ADHD, and in it he says, "Oligoantigenic (few-foods) diets . . . do not appear promising for adults." He explained to me in a personal communication that this conclusion was based, not on a study showing lack of effect, but on the lack of any study on the effect of diet on adults. Considering this explanation, the article is not relevant. I am replacing it with his article on children and alternative treatments, which he prepared under contract with the NIH for their 1998 Consensus Development Conference, and it was later published on its own as well.Shulae (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

>>>"Oligoantigenic (few-foods) diets . . . do not appear promising for adults." He explained to me in a personal communication that this conclusion was based, not on a study showing lack of effect, but on the lack of any study on the effect of diet on adults. Considering this explanation, the article is not relevant.<<<

Would this qualify as "original research", since this conversation is not verifiable from published sources and is at odds with a published source?