Why is it the fault of 'mainstream medical and nutritional experts' that Dr. Atkins has done 'no serious research' on the diet he advocates? Someone else 01:52 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

It isn't, most experts have assumed it was no good, so much so that applications for funding to do research were rejected. Obviously eating fat will make you fat, so there was no need for research. I'm not sure how much research Atkins has done or how successful his obesity clinic is at treating obesity. The new research is not just of the Atkin's diet but of that type of diet. User:Fredbauder

If there's 'no serious research' on ketogenic diets, why not just say so instead of coming up with 'reasons' why there is none? If you don't know that there is none, then we should get rid of the assertion in the article that there is none... Someone else

I wouldn't want to lose the link to damned knowledge. The gradual acceptance of the need for research comes from fat doctors trying it and succeeding and from the failure of law fat high carbohydrate diet research. User:Fredbauder see http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F00E13F7345A0C748CDDAE0894DA404482

The way to retain the link would be to attribute the point of view - articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view rather than as advocacy pieces. So you might say "Advocates of the Atkins diet claim that it has not been adequately researched because mainstream medical and nutritional experts labelled it as unsound. Further studies are planned." Someone else 03:02 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

But, you see, there is no opposing position. No one says that that sort of diet has been researched. They said it was not worth researching, but that position is included in the article. Applications for research grants were rejected. User:Fredbauder

Folks, I took out this graf from the article:

Scientific data shows that this is not true. One only has to look at the consequences of ketosis in an untreated Type I diabetic -- metabolic acidosis and low insulin levels are very dangerous for diabetics, as they are for anyone. The Atkins diet will cause this type of ketoacidosis.

It may be, but I think you need to attribute this. - Fuzheado 05:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

UK government has condemned Atkins -- can we get info on this?

Yes, the UK government scientist in question is Dr Susan Jebb. Her impartiality has been questioned because she has accepted funding from the Flour Advisory Bureau, a flour producers lobbying organisation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/18/natkins18.xml

It's not just the UK government, various commonwealth governments around the world, seeing the exponential rise of such diets, have widely condemned the low carb diets.. and by condemned, I mean, distance themselves in every way from advocating these diets, and openly criticising them in the memos. In my country (not the UK) the government bordered on open abuse of Dr Atkins backed up by seemingly every nutritioonal expert and medical doctor or nutitional related PhD the country had to offer. It seemed like nearly *every* medical professional in the country was queueing up to be included finally in a government level condemnation of his diet. - This is primarily because most western governments advocate the traditional tried and tested food triangle, which is nearly at perfect odds with the Dr. Atkins approach. To his diet is controversial, is an understatement.

As someone who tried the Atkins diet and lost over 33lb with it, I have to say it works. And believe me, I tried cutting on the fat and meat first. I replaced cheddar and butter with cottage cheese, started eating half the meat, to no avail. It is indeed likely part of the effect is due to the low caloric input. I had lots of fun playing with the USDA food database. You should check that out for yourself. Regarding the Japanese case noted in the article. Remember they eat rice rather than bread. They also eat fish instead of beef, which often is less caloric per lb (compare tuna vs beef for e.g.) Try this exercise, it is interesting: look up the calories of bread per lb (or other wheat flour based products like pretzels for e.g.). Then compare that with the calories of lean cuts of prime beef. You will be surprised! I sure was. Then remember you add butter to the bread. Gross! Fact is, it is easier to lose weight if you drop the highest caloric products first and beef isn't it. Bread and pretzels are worse. You might as well be eating the same weight of pure camembert cheese. Cheeseburgers or pizzas sans mozarella, delightful as they are, combine the worst of both worlds: bread and fat cheese. If there are lessons to be taken from Atkins they are: high caloric products make you fat, wheat flour based products have high caloric content and make you fat. One other thing I noticed was that I managed to eat less food (lb and volume wise) per day on Atkins because the food tastes better. No offense, but I would take a beef diet over a bread diet any day. I think I saw evidence of ketoacidosis on my urine, because it got way darker. That could have boosted the slimming effect I suppose. I started drinking more water to compensate, so the kidneys would do their work. My blood samples also came out fine, colesterol, etc. I also consider the claims about higher insulin production on high-carbon hydrate diets to be correct, given that bread has 3x the sugars of rice per lb. I sometimes wonder if we aren't over-stressing our pancreas in the process turning into diabetics at an early age.

Whether or not it works, I suspect Atkins has more to do with the trendy word "carb" (which I almost never heard just a year ago) than with actual dieting. I can't be the only one who feels this way, but I don't have enough backing on that point to put it in the article... --Furrykef 19:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the following edit:

Many find the industry which has arisen around the Atkins Diet to be unpallatable and untrustworthy. This is far from one doctor who has a controversial point of view and is trying to educate the world - it's a trademarked name with a range of merchandising behind it. Atkins is a multi-million-dollar industry which has a vested interest in pursuing its agenda and propagandising its message.

My revert was reverted in turn by Rosemaryamey with the explanation "revert censorship; corrected typo".

It wasn't "censorship". I discussed this on the #wikipedia IRC channel before making my revert, trying to find some way to salvage this edit. These three sentences are undeniably POV. The first one is NPOV only through virtue of being weasel-talk, and the other two sentences are just inflammatory.

I had four choices:

1. Do nothing and leave a POV edit in place.
2. Salvage actual factual content from the edit and restate that content in NPOV form.
3. Find sources for these opinions and attribute them, in order to remove the weasel-talk and still obtain NPOV.
4. Revert.

The first is not a choice—though it looks like Rosemaryamey disagrees. I left the edit alone for five hours, trying to decide what to do and waiting to see if someone else would have a better idea on a fix.

The second—salvage content—was the one I was predisposed to, but I couldn't find any content to salvage. Like I said, it's just plain inflammatory. But let's assume for argument that it wasn't meant to be inflammatory at all. The "facts" presented in these three sentences are:

• An industry has arisen around the Atkins Diet

This is the wrong place to mention this fact. It should be referenced, but not in "critical views". An industry arising is not a critical view, unless one takes an anti-business POV as writ so that merely mentioning industry is critical. It really should be discussed in Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. and cross-referenced here, but alas that article doesn't exist yet.

• The author of the edit finds that industry unpalatable and untrustworthy, and believes many others do as well.

Who finds it so? I'm sure there are examples—I've heard them mentioned before—but this doesn't say who they are.

• The Atkins Nutritional Approach is not a single doctor with a controversial point of view.

Atkins' date of death is given above. If Atkins still exists, then it obviously is not a single dead doctor. But I don't see what this has to do with critical views. If anything, the diet being more than just one kook seems like a laudatory view, not a critical one.

• Atkins is trademarked

Should be moved into introductory matter, or, better still, to Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.. Again, unless you accept an anti-business or anti-intellectual property POV, then noting that Atkins is trademarked in and of itself is not a criticism.

• There is a range of merchandising

Again, better suited to Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.. As I understand it, the Atkins Nutritional Approach differs from the products marketed under the Atkins name. The products are banking on the diet; it's a logical fallacy to criticize the diet on the basis of the products. But this is a very reasonable point for that other nonexistent article to make.

• Atkins is a million-dollar industry

Actually, it's not, again, Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. is. And again, simply stating this as a criticism assumes an anti-business POV.

• Atkins has a vested interest in pursuing its agenda

This is tautology. By definition, everyone has a vested interest in pursuing their agendas.

• Atkins has a vested interest in propagandising its message

From Propaganda: propaganda refers to deliberately false or misleading information that supports a political cause or the interests of those in power. I don't believe that's an established documented fact in this case.

So much for option #2. #3—find sources for these opinions—isn't really my responsibility. I'll do that sort of NPOV-izing for someone else's edits when I can, especially when the opinions are well-promulgated, but these criticisms are so vaporous (untrustworthiness, unpalatability, etc.) that it would be like adding to Vanilla, "Tom Cruise says he despises vanilla ice cream because it's white and beany." It's just a vacuous opinion and adds nothing to the NPOV content of the article.

So...option #4 it is. I'm reverting again. I encourage Rosemaryamey or anyone else who sees factual content about actual criticisms that I missed to engage in some discussion here. Please don't simply revert back; I will respond to any comments here. I'm sure we can reach a resolution. --TreyHarris 18:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I snipped the following para:

Many who practice Atkins on a regular basis are prone to a variety of unpleasant side effects such as bad breath, constipation, gas and bloating, and fatigue. It is very important to contact a doctor or nutritionist before making drastic dietary and lifestyle changes such as Atkins.

It was in the "views in favour of the diet" section, where it clearly doesn't belong. In addition it makes several unsupported generalizations and adopts an advisory tone that is at odds with the rest of the article and Wikipedia in general.

chocolateboy 17:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why was this section deleted? Rosemary Amey 19:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because it was a POV nightmare. Exploding Boy 02:08, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

As the original author of the section, I respectfully disagree. It's necessary to inform people that eating low-carb foods is different from being on a low-carb diet. I fail to see where my section was not neutral. I've put it back and cleaned it up a bit. I don't want to start an edit war here, but I would like an explanation. batkins.

It's still non-neutral. Just the very name of the section sets of alarm bells. It reads like an ad for Atkins. The information belongs, if anywhere, in the Views in favour section. Exploding Boy 06:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think the information (that following the Atkins nutritional approach means eating low-carb all the time, not just on occasion) should be included but reworded. I tried to modify the claim that the diet "works" a bit but it still needs help. Rosemary Amey 00:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. I'm personally not a supporter of the diet, so I definitely don't want to sound like an advertisement for Atkins (despite the fact that I share a last name with its creator :). I just think people need to know that simply buying trendy low-carb foods is not equivalent to going on a ketosis-inducing diet. I'll take another look at it, though. batkins

What isn't mentioned about the Atkins Diet is that most of the initial weight loss is due to water loss; one symptom of ketosis is frequent urination. Also, with such a dismal intake of carbohydrates, it is possible that you can lose lean muscle mass which will eventually slow down your metabolism and jeopardize your health. See: ketosis

As with most fad diets, the Atkins Diet lacks balance. I'm not a medical doctor or a nutritionist, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe that a good balance of reasonable caloric restriction, reduction of fat intake, and moderate exercise will probably yield better, safer results over the long haul.

And to comment on the following...

Although carbohydrate intake is increased over time, the initial 20g will result in lean muscle loss. In fact, this is another major portion of the initial weight loss, in addition to the water. There is a reason why the FDA has a 290g carb recommendation on a 2000 calorie per day diet. As another aside, if the entire goal is to partake in a healthy, balanced diet, why not just start off there? Starting out on a fast, "easy" diet only makes going back to a regular diet harder. No, the pounds might not just fly off, but at least you won't have to worry about damaging your kidneys, liver, and heart (cholesterol's a killer), and if you learn to live with it while you're losing weight, odds are you will stick with it when you finally stop.

Ok, I'll bite.

I suppose that the critics are correct when they suggest that the Atkins diet as they have presented it here it is bad for you. But, as in all things, there is another side to the story.

First of all, when I speak about the diet, I speak from the perspective of someone who has had an overwhelmingly positive experience on the diet. Over the course of the last 9 months, I've lost nearly 50 pounds. I did have carb cravings for the first month. But mostly, it's been easy for me. I've done it eating foods I enjoy, and I haven't had to count calories, measure portions, or feel like I'm starving myself.

Secondly, to the many noders here who say the diet is bad for you, I say 'Worse that what?' Let's do a quick examination of just what I've given up:

1. Bread, pastries, buns

Hmm... these products are made with white flour. Now I'm not a nutritionist, but it's my understanding that white flour is a really highly processed foodstuff with little nutritional value. Some people suggest that it's actually bad for you.

2. French fries

I think there are few people here that would argue against the idea that giving up french fries is a good idea. And, when I'm faced with french fries as a side dish, I always ask the server to substitute steamed veggies. So not only have I eliminated something that most would agree is exceedingly bad for you, but I have substituted something that is exceedingly good for you. I'm eating more broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots then I ever have in the past.

3. Candy, Desert, Sugar, Ice Cream

Foods made with processed sugar are yet another really bad for youtm thing that I've given up on the diet. 'Nuff said about that one.

What else have I done?

The diet suggests that drinking a lot of water on the diet is crucial, so I drink about 80 oz. a day now. I take a high quality vitamin supplement. I feel great, I look great, I have more energy and I've started exercising on a regular basis. As I approach my goal, I will also begin to add 'good' carbs back in, like pasta and fruit. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the changes I've made are in fact very positive, healthy choices. My diet before Atkins was just awful. I'm a health nut now, by comparison.

The Low Carbohydrate High Protein Diet also refered to as the Atkins Diet, is a diet in which the dieter cuts down carbohydrate intake. Carbohydrates being bread, pasta and rice while increasing the intake of fats and protein. The diet works because the intake of carbohydrates is cut and the body has to use other sources for engery; the other sources of energy being fats and proteins. The body notices the lack of carbohydrates and changes the energy source to fat, causing weight loss. While on the diet, one doesn't need to exercise more than normal. Although, exercise does help speed along the weight loss process. Most people notice a feeling of withdrawl when first going on the diet because of the lack of carbohydrates and sugar.

Foods that will but a damper on your diet:

Bread Rice Pasta Sugar of any kind Foods that would be helpful on your diet:

Meat Cheese Diet Soda Poultry Fish So, in other words, you can't eat much. Many people have had success with this particular diet. Personally, I myself have been on the diet and have witnessed awesome results! I have lost THIRTY-FIVE pounds in eight months. Most of my weight loss has occured in three months though. I recently went back to school after a summer of hiding and everyone had great comments about the NEW ME

Atkins dieters often talk accuse their critics of being part of a conspiracy by the sugar lobby and those with a vested interest in rival diets.

Let's look at this critically: The food industry is producer driven. Farmers produce the food that their climate, soil and subsidies allow them to produce economically.

Food processers repackage this food into a variety of products. If a particular food that the farmers produce is unwanted it often continues to be produced, and becomes a cheap bulking ingredient. Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk appeal to health conscious people, but the fat removed is not thrown away. It goes into other, cheaper processed foods. Whey is another good example, a by product of butter.

Agriculture in developed countries is heavily geared towards animal products. Grain yields are high, and profit margins are tight. Feeding surplus grain to animals increases its value, by converting it into animal protein (and fat). Subsidies encourage this. Over the last 50 years there has been a huge growth in the production of grain fed cows, pigs, chickens and the associated eggs and milk. This is not driven by the consumer. It is also possible to extract oil from soya and maize, and also glucose (corn syrup) and feed the residues to animals.

When prices are low, it is useful to be able to store foodstuffs for long periods until the market picks up. Refined cereals (white rice, white flour etc.) store well. Bugs don't eat them much (what does that tell you?). Sugar also stores almost indefinately. Millers converted their mills to producing entirely white flour in the 1920's, when white bread was an expensive luxury. Vitamins were discovered shortly after this, but the food processors did some morally dubious and flawed experiments on orphans to prove that white bread was as good as wholemeal.

Fruit and vegetables require a lot of human labour to produce and they don't keep well. This makes them expensive.

Put this together, and you get the western diet. Lots of fat and protein, far in excess of the bodies requirements (surplus protein turns to fat), served with refined carbohydrates (white bread, pasta, sugar etc.), a variety of chemical additives, so we don't notice how bland and unvarying this diet really is. Plus small amounts of fruit and vegetables, mainly the ones that can be transported and stored easily, and produced with the minimum of labour. Fresh green leafy vegetables are hard to obtain. They wilt within a day.

The food industry would love us to eat more sugar, and processed carbohydrates. They would also like us to eat more meat, eggs and dairy products. The Atkins conspiracy theory is half right and half wrong. The meat industry strongly supports the Atkins diet.

Compared to most of the world (with a few exceptions e.g. Inuits, Masai and Mongols), westerners eat lots of protein and relatively little carbohydrate.

Meat is not inherently bad, but grain fed animals produce far more saturated fat. Refined carbohydrates are inherently bad for you. The Japanese eat white rice in large quantities, and remain healthy, but their diet is very varied. Elsewhere refined carbohydrates are associated with malnutrition. It is very difficult to eat a balanced diet if you eat large amounts of carbohydrate with all the vitamins and minerals removed. On an unbalanced diet, you are more likely to eat more in an attempt to obtain the necessary nutrition, or smoke to suppress your appetite.

Protein good, carbohydrate bad and vice versa are both simplistic and wrong.

Concerning the following text, in the "views in favor" section:

Low-carbohydrate diets have been the subject of heated debate in medical circles for three decades [1] . They are still controversial and largely unproven by science - until recently, no serious research had been done on Atkins or other low carbohydrate diets. However, proponents cite anecdotal evidence which shows such diets help participants to lose weight.

Firstly, this is a view in opposition of the diet, not one in favor...so I think it belongs in the appropriate section. Secondly, recent or not, research is research. And I think two studies in the NEJM, both supporting the Atkins Diet, qualify as "serious".

I'm moving the "controvesial" part to the negative views section, and I'm deleting the rest because it's just incorrect.

I also added a few more entries to the misconceptions section. And just so nobody thinks I'm COMPLETELY biased, I even added one more entry to the negative views section.

  I have lost THIRTY-FIVE pounds in eight months. 

using personal experiences is no reason to endorse the product. Come back and talk to me when your nephrons have shut down from trying to remove all the protien in your blood. Question, is your urine always yellow? and cloudy? because then your nephrons are starting to let other things through. In general you can go into kidney failure much quicker on this diet. If you keep it up, please include instructions in your will to send a copy of the autopsy to wiki, so we can keep track of long time atkins dieters causes of death. in addition, if your body-type (if you believe in that) is away from its "normal" body-type, it becomes reletively easy to return to that original centre. I know people whom can fluctuate their body weight by upwards of 10 pounds a week as needed, but more than that, and they start to feel bad. part of it is water weight, and the other intercostial fat tissues. they just burn them off.

 Most people notice a feeling of withdrawl... lack of carbohydrates and sugar. 

well as carbs are the source of energy for the highest performances, of course you feel withdrawn, most people are not built to only eat fats and protein.

Strawman argument: nobody eats "just fats and protein". Avoid refined carbs, flour and sugar, people are not built to eat them, either.

I've removed this paragraph. Could someone please give a source (or sources) to back up this claim.

There are reports indicating that studies have shown benefits for heart/stroke as well as diabetic patients, and that many experts are already discussing a low carb nutrition for diabetic patients who may then be able to live their lives without any insulin.

AlistairMcMillan 17:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

citations of studies would be nice. However, one the face of it the statements appear true. I've been following the literature, the improvements in surogate markers, risk factors like low HDL or high triglycerides have been reported multiple times and are also an important markers of risk in diabetes. Add to that, the law of small numbers of insulin dependent diabetic, it is easy to tritrate insulin and thus control blood sugar levels when the amounts of carbs are small, because when you are wrong, even by 50%, you are wrong by less because the numbers are small, there is a book on this, but I forget the name and author. I can spot anything that doesn't fit, but don't have time to provide the references myself.--Silverback 23:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, that "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie" link, is actually a fairly good review of the current status.--Silverback 23:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ouch! I just realized the above link was too Dr. Bernstein's site, and the refreshed my memory that he was the author of the book that I had mention. The article there is by someone else however.--Silverback 23:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've taken this bit out: Also, Atkins and his supporters have claimed that America's current obesity epidemic is due to the rise of a low-fat, high-carb diet; but this is contradicted by data which show that calories from fat AND carbs to have risen over the decades ([www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm]). These data only lend support to those contending that calorie-reduction, not ketosis, is how Atkins dieters are losing weight, and that weight can be lost more safely, i.e. without ketosis. I read the link presented, and it contradicted what was being claimed. It said fat consumption has declined, and refined carbs gone up. This data supports Atkins position.

This bit doesn't seem to be true either: the lowest incidence of heart disease in the world is amongst people who have the lowest overall cholesterol levels ... Good [HDL] cholesterol is good when counter-balancing ‘bad’ [LDL] cholesterol, but low levels of both ... are better. It seems low levels of HDL are always a risk factor. I've taken it out.

Some months ago, my doctor suggested that I go on the South Beach diet. The South Beach diet could be considered "Atkins Lite." It is low-carb, but it emphasizes fats which are more generally recognized as less harmful than saturated fats, and, in some cases, of positive benefit. The South Beach diet does not attempt to induce ketosis, even though Dr. Agatston, the cardiologist who originated the diet, notes that "in otherwise healthy overweight or obese individuals, [he is] aware of no evidence that ketosis is a danger."

So I started South Beach. But my wife had enjoyed some considerable success with the Atkins diet, and she occasionally served me Atkins meals. They were much more satisfying! So I started researching Atkins. And I was rather horrified by what I found. Which was a great deal of expert opinion, from experts, in some cases, who I personally respected, that seemed to be little more than "Everyone knows that...." And then I saw that recent research seemed to be confirming much of what Dr. Atkins suspected. And that more and more experts were acknowledging the extent of our ignorance about how human nutrition really works. In particular, the research purportedly showing the harm of saturated fats apparently did not consider the effect of dietary context; i.e., such fats might be harmful in the context of a high-carb diet, the norm for Americans, but not harmful in the context of a low-carb diet, because the metabolism is functioning differently in the latter context. And my own cholesterol had gone through the roof probably precisely because I was eating high-fat foods (including Atkins meals) without limiting my own carbohydrate intake. Are saturated fats harmful when the body is either in ketosis or is borderline? I don't think anyone really knows the answer for sure.

So I tried the Atkins diet. I found it surprisingly easy. It is a lot easier to do without the sugar in coffee than the cream! I still don't know the effect on my blood lipids, we will see soon. I had a cardiac CT scan and a stress test, so I know I have some time to play with this, I'm in no apparent immediate risk of a cardiac event. However, one effect has been clear and easy to note: I lost over twenty pounds in about two months. I was not obese to begin with, but I am probably closer to an ideal weight now, given my level of exercise, which is, shall we say, less than ideal. And my own problem with the diet is really that it is very tempting to stay in at least mild ketosis, it is much easier than trying to count carbs more precisely (which is what Atkins really recommends for long-term diet, increasing carbs substantially above the ketosis-inducing level). One of the ways that Atkins seems to work is that it fats may be much more satisfying, calorie for calorie, than carbohydrates, so a high-fat diet low-carb diet can be more satisfying than a low-fat, "normal" carb diet. And thus the dieter almost automatically restricts total caloric intake. Indeed, this may be why counting carbs works more easily than counting calories. The fat calories tend to take care of themselves through natural appetite.

(And the commonly-expressed view that "a calorie is a calorie" is astonishingly unfounded in fact. Cellulose, for example, has caloric value but is indigestible by humans! We are not bomb calorimeters.)

Why am I telling this story here? Because one of the places I found when I was looking for information was the Wikipedia article. And, while much of it is good, it is also loaded with POV comments. On both sides. The section "Misconceptions about the Diet" should be limited to true misconceptions, that is, common opinions about the diet that are based on ignorance of what Atkins actually wrote and taught. There are plenty of these, and some of them are mentioned there. But there is also polemic there against Atkins critics. "That's crazy," for example, is something that will be said as an argument. The Misconceptions section, as with nearly all material in a Wikipedia article, should not be an argument, but should be informative. Arguments, if they are to be in the article at all, should be attributed, perhaps in a Views or Arguments section. And the present Views sections are full of unsubstantiated assertions. Isolating the Views sections, further, does not facilitate a real comparison between the views. The Views Critical of the Diet section contains something which is little more than a long list of references to critical opinions from prominent sources, hich is not a view critical of the diet, per se, it is rather a simple confirmation of what all sides acknowledge: the Atkins ideas challenged conventional wisdom (i.e., the views of the large majority of experts), and have been and remain highly controversial. The references belong in the references section, which could possibly be divided into Critical and Favorable sections, where a bias or general opinion/conclusion can be discerned, and Neutral sections. The Views Critical section of the article should present a summary of critical views, preferably all substantiated or sourced, such that reasonable proponents of the diet could agree, "Yes, these are the critical views." Similarly the Views in Favor.

And what a Wikipedia article can do is to distill a consensus from all this, where the participants in editing it are willing to allow the truth of what other sides say, without necessarily agreeing with the conclusions that other sides draw from the facts.

In any case, I think the article needs, in parts, some serious editing. I'd like to find the extent to which we can find consensus, perhaps by working on one issue at a time. So I intend to start that process. And, eventually, we should work on the overall structure. What think ye?

For now, I'd suggest that the introductory section is satisfactory. Agreed?