Talk:Joel Fuhrman/Archive 1

Untitled

The article "Joel Fuhrman" appears to be a self-promotional vanity piece.

Agreed. This article definitely requires a major cleanup. --Evan Brenner 05:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Artcle is a self-serving promotion of a person's sales. This person has no formal training in the field his promotionl materials are based in. This person has no notable accomplishments or research and the article should be removed as many thers have been for the same lack of notability,99.251.112.162 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

He's a medical doctor. What do you mean he has no formal training in the field in which he writes his books? MaynardClark (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see what the page was like in April 2006, but now in August 2006 it wasn't too bad. I did go through it and clean up a lot of the "opinionated" parts that were still left, in order to keep NPOV. The article is a good summary of the book contents (I have indeed read it), as well as a good summary of the concepts Fuhrman promotes. Fuhrman is indeed a known figure in health/diet circles. I did also remove a few editorial words to preserve NPOV (e.g., "disgusting but allegedly healthy recipes"... haha). (No, I haven't tried the recipes.)Migp 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)MigP

Karuna8: this article clearly lacks NPOV. People come to wikipedia in part because they want a different perspective from the one marketed to them. Dr. Fuhrman writes that he has 'hundreds of articles' including a number in scholarly journals, but he does not list them on his website. Those unfamiliar with the publishing process may incorrectly assume by his publishing with St. Martin's Press/Griffin that his work has been vetted by knowledgeable peers. I am going to replace the qualification, though in a different place. LeoTrottier 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to how this article lacks NPOV? I'm assuming you are referring to the fact that there are no criticisms of Dr. Fuhrman's work. WatchAndObserve 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The lack of criticism is not so much a problem as the lack of context. None of what is written has been qualified, and thus the page reads like a fluff piece. The Dr. is one of many diet peddlers, some of whom are legitimate, many of whom aren't. The better way of judging whether what he says is well-researched is by seeing to what extent his work has the respect of his peers -- while St. Martin's Press might prefer otherwise, it's not enough to have 'M.D.' or 'Ph.D.' after your name. At this point I'm happy with the 'not peer-reviewed' qualification on the main page, and the removal of 'foreword by' in the bibliography entries.LeoTrottier 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That phrase on the end does not sound neutral to me. The term 'Peer reviewed' is usually attributed to studies published in 'peer reviewed' journals. Dr Fuhrman's books are summaries of his recommendations based on such studies and this research is all referenced in detail in his books. I think one of the things that stands out most in his work is his meticulous reference of peer reviewed research, which is conspicuously absent in most popular 'diet peddlar' work today. Examples of peers who reviewed the actual books are the ones who wrote forwards to the books (Mehmet Oz and Neal Barnard) and clearly respect and support his work, so I'm a bit confused as to why they were removed.

I think the article as it stands is a little flimsy and does not accurately represent Dr Fuhrman's ideas i.e. what's there is mostly good but it could be expanded. I am very new to Wikipedia editing, would you mind pointing me towards articles of a similar nature that have the sort of qualifications you would like to see? I'll try base my additions along similar lines and we can work from there.

One thing that immediately jumped out at me was that someone revised the part concerning appetite inaccurately. Dr Fuhrman's appetite regulation is not simply based on feeling full from fiber, its the concept of eating nutrient dense foods and avoiding stimulating processed foods that is more important to appetite regulation. Also he frequently mentions The Pleasure Trap and the ideas presented in that book are closely related to his so should probably have a mention somewhere on the page (maybe a 'See Also'). Loren77 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is excellent that his books are well-referenced, but that in and of itself does not make them respectable -- books from scholarly publishers are considered peer-reviewed, though all too seldom they're not appropriate to a popular audience (wish it were otherwise!). It would be one thing if the bibliography cited peer-reviewed articles written by Dr. Fuhrman that confirmed the soundness of his approach (which in truth seems quite intelligent and reasonable, but who am I to say?). It would not bother me if you'd like to re-qualify the last statement by appending something like '... though Fuhrman's books have the support of respected physicians X and Y', but the 'foreword by' bits of the bibliography seem to serve only promotional purposes. LeoTrottier 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Many scholarly writers merely read and interpret the body of published scientific work (in peer reviewed journals) and interpret the results. One does not have to have personally published their own academic studies in order to do that. The way science moves forward is by the mass publishing of such research and reading (reviewing) of this research and interpretation by other scientists worldwide (so the pendulum slowly sings in one direction). Any conclusions a single scientist comes to based that body of research is clearly not written in stone, but backing up such conclusions by existing studies at least makes the interpretation respectable (though always still open to debate!). Peer reviewed refers usually to 'published in peer reviewed journals', and his book clearly cannot be (but there are several reviews of the books by his peers that are printed at the beginning of the books though I'm don't think its relevant to mention those).

So one only publishes one's own research if A. there is something one is trying to establish that has either not been researched previously or has not been repeated sufficiently B. One has funding grants for this research (usually in academic environments, not in practicing medicine). Studies that are respectable enough to be published in peer reviewed journals are stringent and the time dedicated to this is often exclusive. That is not Dr Fuhrman's occupation and I don't think that detracts from his work which summarises what he has learned and presents it for a popular audience.

But I totally agree the article needs citations. Without them it does sound a bit fanciful. I'll try see what I can find without actually republishing his work.

Still not sure if I agree about the forwards. Maybe if you have time some time you could browse through the forwards yourself? They are quite detailed introductions of the concepts in the book. Someone who is searching for Mehmet Oz's ideas on nutrition for example, will come across his own books but should also come across Eat To Live as Mehmet Oz made a significant contribution/support for it. Anyway that's just my opinion :) I think your append statement is fine as it would also serve the purpose of linking them.

On further thought, here are my criticisms of the article: the initial phrase that Fuhrman 'introduces' the notion of nutrient density makes it seem like he was the first person to come up with the idea ... this is almost certainly not the case. In a similar vein, it's not clear to what extent the ideas presented are his own or those of mainstream nutrition. This ambiguity renders the last mentioned notion of 'toxic hunger' particularly unclear -- it is counter-intuitive, making one wonder if the idea is his own conjecture or reporting on the conclusions of others. If, as you contend, Fuhrman is in the business of consolidating, synthesizing, and summarizing for a popular audience the literature on everyday nutrition, then it would be good if the article presented his ideas as such. As it stands, the article portrays his ideas as some kind of novel, counter-intuitive, divinely inspired wisdom, rather than sound, sober, readable, and well-researched advice on diet and nutrition. While the divine-authority presentation may be appropriate for the text of the books themselves (I'm not claiming that this is how their written, I'm just saying that, e.g. perhaps guru-style authority is the best way to convince people to change their dietary habits) it isn't appropriate for an article on the person who wrote them. LeoTrottier 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

China study?

Uh ... what is that? I've never heard of it. It doesn't seem to add anything, so I'm going to edit it out (though I'll retain the substance of the previous edit). LeoTrottier 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is referring to the China project, a well known nutritional study. WatchAndObserve 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, re-amend ... preferably with a link, though. LeoTrottier 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, who was PI (principal investigator) in the China–Cornell–Oxford Project, had a tiff with Fuhrman over an article in which he was a named (non-contributing) author (and then was removed from the list of authors in one of the online publications of the article. Despite 'critical micro-disagreemenhts', most of these researchers are in substantial disagreement. Citing the China–Cornell–Oxford Project makes sense for the information it brings, not because it's inherently partisan toward a POV. MaynardClark (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote Opening Paragraph and other changes

I just rewrote the opening paragraph to establish notability. I would like input on if I did it correctly. Any suggestions on how to better organize the sections would be nice too. I have some peer reviewed studies I want to reference as well and don't know if I should make another section. Also, am I allowed to add all his published works to the bibliography? Is the notable mentions section ok? I put it on there to establish more notability and will be adding to it overtime. There is at least 20 books he has been mentioned in. Dr. OZ has a section like that. Please help me do this right!--Healthyelijah (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I made "books" and "scientific publications" subsections of "Published Works." Scientific publications include either DOI or PubMed ID. Is this sufficient? --Deana.ferreri (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

I want to add redirects to this page for Dr Fuhrman, Dr Joel Fuhrman and Doctor Joel Fuhrman. Am I allowed to do this? Also can I do mispellings as well, like Furman? It is very common for people to spell his name like Furman. Thanks for the input. In the meantime i will keep reading guidelines and help sections but it really does take a ton of spare time to know all the rules. If I search for Dr. OZ he comes up but no Dr. Fuhrman. There used to be search results for Dr. Fuhrman but it seems someone has removed them. Help me!--Healthyelijah (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fasting

"For example in autoimmune diseases such as lupus, asthma or inflammatory bowel disease Fuhrman sometimes advocates fasting 2 – 4 days a month on water only. He may utilize juice fasting in appropriate settings but not in cases where maximum autoimmune suppression and complete bowel rest are more appropriate."

This sounds wrong. In Fasting - and eating - for health his says juice fasting retards the healing process and that regular short fasts shouldn't be undertaken as fasting frequently doesn't give your body enough time to regain nutrients.

-- Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.28.46 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No secondary sources can be located on the efficacy of the Fuhrman diet on the long term

Should not this article have a warning at the start that independent verification of the Fuhrman diet advocated in his books is presently lacking? That is, the diet is an experiment itself with no proven medical history over the long term. Hence the article falls into the category of "alternative medicine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2012‎

Why? The article barely mentions any diet. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here I cut and pasted the article ~65% which is solely about diet and nutrition. By the way, Fuhrman only has TWO journal articles peer-reviewed in PUBMED. I find it questionable one calls two a "a number of".

"Fuhrman is the author of five books, and a number of journal articles. The Second Edition of Eat to Live reached the New York Times Best Seller list in June, 2011. He has appeared on several radio and television shows.[3][dead link] Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian" to label people who adopt a micronutrient-rich diet style. He created the Health Equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories (abbreviated as H = N/C). This equation signals that future health can be predicted by the micronutrient per calorie density of the diet.

Joel Fuhrman is featured in the documentaries A Sacred Duty (2007), Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2009), Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead (2010) and Vegucated (2011).[4] In 2011, Fuhrman launched 3 Steps to Incredible Health!, a sixty-minute PBS pledge program that addresses the crisis of obesity and chronic disease plaguing America.

Although there is general consensus amongst doctors advocating plant-based diets, Joel Fuhrman has disagreed with T. Colin Campbell and Caldwell Esselstyn on the use of nuts and seeds.[5]"

One relatively recent panel featured a 'face off' between Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. McDougall, in which the two agreed that they agree on about 90% of what they teach others. [I see differences, don't you? Oh, they disagree! Well, what does that limited disagreement mean?]

Several comparisons:

http://www.nutrientrich.com/performance/starchivore-or-nutritarian.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaX3RmJwm0

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/aug/wars.htm - McDougall's views - TC Campbell says that Fuhrman seriously misrepresents some data

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/aug/wars.htm

http://www.lanimuelrath.com/diet-nutrition/mcdougall-vs-fuhrman-notes-for-you-from-the-great-plant-based-doctors-debate

http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-mcdougall-in-shocking-vegan-interview

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-lowfat-vegan-vs-eat-to-live.html - Fuhrman on comparison

http://soulveggie.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/05/diet_mcdougalle.html amd http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/mcdougall-furhman-duke-it-out- 13 minute video

http://lifestylepower.blogspot.com/2009/03/fuhrman-and-mcdougall-are-both-heroes.html

http://vegannaturopath.wordpress.com/tag/dr-joel-fuhrman-md/ - Omega 6s from grains and starches can be inflammatory

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/7974/686-dr-john-mcdougall-explains-why-everyone-should-be-eating-starchy-carbs/comment-page-1/ - John McDougall interviewed by a low carb advocate who is in process of losing weight (but 'not there yet').

References

MaynardClark (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Diet and micronutrients and how not to get fat seem like "Alternative medicine" given their unproven status and counter position to the FDA MACROnutrient guidelines.

This is pure "Alternative Medicine".

Maybe such studies should be designed and sponsored, OR maybe those Wikipedians who don't like such teachings aren't very effective in doing their library research. We should look at Dietary Reference Intake.

References for FDA macronutrient guidelines reference (above)?

http://ods.od.nih.gov/Health_Information/Dietary_Reference_Intakes.aspx

http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/C5CD2DD7840544979A549EC47E56A02B.ashx

MaynardClark (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Virtually everything added in this section is from non-notable sources with most also non-RS and it all amounts to original research. What are you proposing we add to the article MaynardClark?--Daffydavid (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims to cure and prevent a wide range of diseases

What I find objectionable about Joel Fuhrman is his very broad claims that his approach to eating will prevent and even cure a broad range of diseases. Consider the titles of his books which includes these phrases: "Disease Proof Your Child", "The End of Diabetes", "Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", "A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease".

In the course of a single talk on PBS to the general public he will go even further with many flat statements that he can cure this and prevent that condition or disease. To me this raises huge red flags. Where is the scientific support for curing and preventing all these diseases he mentions by diet alone?

In his many popular talks on PBS he almost never references any studies or provides any documentation that would support his broad disease preventing/curing claims. It all comes down to trust him, he as seen it work in his patients. As 'proof' he will occasionally tell the story of single patient whose life he changed. Curiously in the years I have watched him speak on PBS I have never heard him tell of patient in which his approach didn't work. Only success stories in Fuhrman's talks, another red flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donfulton (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A link to the Men's Health article you mention would be useful, all I can find is 2 paragraphs mentioning Fuhrman in relation to fasting. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP is no doubt referring to the two sentences at the bottom of the life and career section:

In Men's Journal, Mark Adams opined that Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom". Adams also reported that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".

It's true that those sentences are cherry-picked from the Adams article but their presence in the article body is an acceptable form of commentary on the subject. If you feel there are other key components of the Adam's article that should be added to give what you feel is a more balanced approach to commentary, please feel free to suggest them. In the interim, I am going to remove the recently added non-attributed lede statement that is drawn from the same source. A single cherry-picked comment from a single columnist does not qualify as a prominent controversy and thus is undue for the lede in this fahsion. It is also inaccurate, as what Adams said was "A reader who cracks [Furhman's Eat to Live diet book] open expecting WebMD-style advice about counting calories and taking the stairs more often might be surprised to learn that the author preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom." This comment about the book has been recast as "His treatments and methodology have been called something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to actual medical advice". The undue weight of putting this in the lede implies that many people hold this view. Maybe they do, but as a BLP those sources should be bulked up in the body of the article first before trying to make a summarizing statement like that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it was undue in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Per UNDUE, part of NPOV, we need to present the subject in context of academic mainstream. I think the quote quite admirably does just that- however, i am open if there any suggestions for some other content that would do the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The solution here is better material, i.e., sources which present Fuhrman's work in the context of the academic mainstream, possibly even debunking his work. The Adams column is very poor material to work with in that regard; it may pass muster in the article body, but it's clearly undue when presented in the lede that way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

while better sources are always better, if we are placing the bar such that "Men's Health" quality or less does not qualify, then we will need to remove most of the article. WP:PARITY -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Men's Health source is fine for what it is currently putting forth, it just isn't up to par for supporting the undue assertion that was previously in the lede. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

there is nothing UNDUE about the assertion that Furmans claims are on the far out freaky end of the believability scale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, but we need sources that say that if we want to specifically add that to his BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE

The removal of the Adams content from the lead leaves the article in violation of WP:UNDUE in failing to present the subjects wild claims in the context that they are seen by mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite in my opinion; adding that content is violation of WP:UNDUE for the reasons explained above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AzureCitizen. Men's Journal seems a very poor reference for establishing the viewpoint of mainstream academics. Let's find a better source, or more sources giving similar viewpoints, then we could make a case for putting something in the lede. I agree we've WP:FRINGE issues that need addressing, but we need to follow BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Furman's is MOST DEFINITELY a minority viewpoint and needs to be presented as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If this was an article on the subject of nontraditional frutarianism diets and all it did was present (fringe) views about how wonderful they are, without addressing the mainstream views, I'd agree with you. However, this is just Furhman's BLP, discussing his life and career. Is there a particular line of text you can point to inside this BLP that is advocating a fringe view like the kind we should be concerned about, without addressing the mainstream views? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no clause in NPOV that states "this does not apply in articles about living people" - in fact the lead of BLP is very clear in stating that NPOV MUST apply to articles about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(Let's pick this up below, so that we're not replying in multiple places). AzureCitizen (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind cleaning up the way you've phrased the UNDUE tag, TRPoD? It currently reads "This this article fails NPOV requirement to place the claims in context of mainstream academic views lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies," which is grammatically confusing, especially the part I've italicized for emphasis. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a little and I finished it off. Okay, the template instruction for the UNDUE tag says "This tag should be used on articles that discuss one aspect of the article in too much detail" and that "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we don't give undue weight to any particular subtopic in an article." In your opinion, what is the particular singular aspect that is being discussed in this topic in too much detail? In other words, what is the particular subtopic that the article is giving too much weight too? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

as specifically quoted from the policy above, this article is presenting excess coverage of FRINGE claims without providing appropriate context as to what the mainstream academic views are. And the fact that the subject of the article is a living person whose sole notability is promoting fringe claims does not exempt NPOV from applying here. in fact BLP states that articles about living people MUST fallow NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As I asked previously, is there a particular line of text you can point to inside this BLP that is advocating a fringe claim? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that NPOV applies to all articles, including BLPs. I just need you to identify a sentence - any sentence - in the text of this BLP where the article is advocating fringe views. If we can't identify any text that is advocating fringe views, then the article itself is not advocating fringe views. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Been 10+ days, so I will remove the tag pending identification of sentences inside the article that are advocating fringe views. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Figure Skating Career

I was trying to do things:

• document the figure skating career
• establish that Joel Fuhrman skated with his sister Gale Fuhrman (not his wife) .

One Wikipedian decided to label one as 'promotion' [this link (where the voiceover during their skating called them brother and sister (figure skating already had been mentioned in the article)] and the other 'likely spam'! I think it's important to clarify this because a quick (but wrong) assumption is that he was skating with his wife (not Gale), thinking wrongly that Gale is his wife's name. Further, I think that THAT Wikipedian's judgment is not defensible. He just didn't want that kind of link.

References

MaynardClark (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspected spam because of the text "Dr. Joel Fuhrman launches Eat Right America™" embedded in the reference (but it looks like I am mistaken!). In general linking to Youtube videos is problematic, and icenews.com is not the greatest source. But OTOH, the current source we have is not great either. Can we do even better? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• (a) I think that we should INCLUDE in the text the info that this skating partner Gale is his sister
• (b) surely we can look for reputable sources that tell this information (on this we have agreed).

MaynardClark (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Limits

It's a biography of a living individual, not a commentary on differences of opinion. However, there are some research data which tend to support the idea that, beyond a threshold of nutrition, diminishing returns are realized (not only in mortality reduction, but also in the therapeutic benefits of nutritional support from food). Many people in America are overfed and under-nourished. That some persons here are not undernourished seems, to me, not to justify attacking Dr. Fuhrman's encouragement of nutrient-dense food selections (over empty calories). PBS seems to like broadcasting him. MaynardClark (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is with the presentation of biomedical information in the encyclopedia. Per WP:MEDRS, "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." So the most accurate reflection of current medical knowledge in regards to the biomedical information contained in Fuhrman's ideas must be presented and according to due weight while ideas with little academic support or scientific study must be clearly identified as WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

PBS also broadcast Kevin Trudeau, so that's not really a point in his favor.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Family

• Joel Fuhrman
• * Sister - Gale (did figure skating with him, won awards)
• * Wife - Lisa
• * * 4 Children (three daughters and one son)

Talia, the oldest daughter - plays tennis -

2 more daughters - one daughter involved in 'athletic cheering' -

1 son, Sean

Ages TODAY would be: 26 (Talia), 23, 20, 12 (Sean) MaynardClark (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Including family information on the page is unusual at least from the random pages I checked. MaynardClark do you have a reference for this information and why is it relevant to the article? At the very least a reference needs to be added and the sentence cleaned up (lose the brackets)--Daffydavid (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let me dig it up. MaynardClark (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

References

What we would be looking for is an independent reference that considers this information relevant in reporting about Fuhrman. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we could find anything more accurate than the mother's comments about the ages of her children, with a photo of the family, as published on Dr. Fuhrman's blog. I put it here as a reference point, not necessarily as information which ought to go inside the article itself. MaynardClark (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note, more than one mother has provided less than factual information about the ages of her children and self published blogs have reported more than a few less than accurate details. But as this material is here just as a point of reference for discussion it makes little difference. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding more information about his children such as tennis and cheerleading to the talk page is pointless as the article is about Dr. Fuhrman NOT his children. If they were notable on their own such information would go on their own page, not his. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Refs failed verification

The content, "Fuhrman coined the word "nutritarian"[5][6][7]" has some problems with the references. Ref 7 http://www.clemson.edu/extension/hgic/food/nutrition/nutrition/dietary_guide/hgic4062.html has neither (the term) 'nutritarian' nor Fuhrman. Ref 6 is as primary as the come, a book by the subject. I haven't had a chance to check Ref 5 but I also suspect it contains neither reference to Fuhrman or nutritarian. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 5 failed as well, I have removed both 5 and 7. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I was looking to build a case that the concept of 'nutritarian' eating is supported as medically defensible by the Federal government. Sorry that I rushed and just added those two references after the word nutritarian. So much innuendo in this article seemed to suggest that the idea of nutrient-dense eating lacks an evidence base. Public agencies and universitty-based researchers warn us of the dangers of consuming empty calories and excessive fat, refined sugars, and salt). Have editors looked for ways to address the unconstructive attitude of the article. I agree that it reads more like a biography of a pop personality and not like a work by a set of colleagues, as might appear in an NPR 'radio magazine' panel - which would try to constructive engage the evidence as various advocates and researchers themselves engage evidence which, in their hands, appears to point to different conculsions (but upon review may not point to contrasting conclusions - as in 'starchitarian' (for weight loss) vs. 'nutritarian' (for muscle building). We have on the Internet pictures of Joel Fuhrman flexing his upper body muscles (he is a very lean athletic person); John McDougall has returned himself from an early life-threatening condition which he reversed during medical school (and developed his current medical understanding, which have, according to popular testimonials, helped many over th edecades of his sharing widely. Both agree that we ought to abandon meat and animal products (but both CONCEDE that may will use those items in their diets, so they 'are permitted' but not encouraged). MaynardClark (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref 6 is completely primary. For a claim such as coining a word a secondary source is needed as are additional sources to indicate it is considered a word for instance a dictionary or the use of the word in quality reliable sources. To support the efficacy of a particular diet quality MEDRS sources are required. Pictures of a fit advocate and anecdotes don't meet quality sourcing requirements. Synthesis of healthy eating guidelines into support for a particular diet is original research and doesn't belong on WP. If there are scientific studies of this particular diet that would be best. Quality sources that state the foundational ideas are sound would provide some opportunity for the balance you are looking for. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Different Interpretations of what Fuhrman teaches

Not that it matters to the spats going on in the Talk page ()here), but if we look around the Internet, we found countless incompetible (with one another) interpretations of Dr. Fuhrman's teachings, citing them explicitly:

• nearly-macrobiotics (grain based, but emphasizing vegetables; minimizing fruits)
• rawfooder (Fuhrman had a background of several years among such folks; IMO they didn't define him)
• vegan high carb (more like the McDougall-Esselstyn-Campbell-Novick group of medical nutritionists)
• vegan low-carb

etc.

Read into that array (i) nothing but amateurishness or idiosyncrasy OR (ii) see that there are a number of folks who walk away from reading or watching a Fuhrman presentation with something. Not everyone 'reads' Fuhrman through MHJ or through a critic's eyes, ears, and mind. Many who want to think for themselves listen to a presentation then apply that which appears to them to make sense. If he once said 'eat lots of spinach' OR 'you could eat lots of spinach' - he may at another time have said 'eat a colorful array of fresh garden vegetables' (something I've heard him say more often).

Is there not some problem in letting only critics of Fuhrman interpret what he says? He's a frequent enough public presence that the collection of his writings and appearances can be studied for clarity and integration. The standard may be validation through published 3rd party references, but these ought to be contextualized in a realistic way (by not over-prioritizing the POV of any of them), in the same way that Wikipedians ought not to try to 'read' the developing idea of nutritarianism (a catchy term, basically, which means an emphasis on nutrient-rich foods) through any one interpretation of 'Fuhrman's teachings'.

With that said, I do NOT think we need a section on different interpretations of Fuhrman's nutritarian teachings. MaynardClark (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

are there any reliable sources that discuss his teachings? i cannot find that anyone actually takes him seriously enough to discuss. see also WP:MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The controversial reversal by Alexbrn makes no sense.

Look at each one of those edits: clear, precise, and non-controversial.

I'll start with just one: who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet.

Putting "which he terms a 'nutritarian' diet" in the lead paragraph is noncontroversial because it's in the body of the acceptyed text already.

The others are similarly noncontroversial.

What is controversial is the Adam attack, a PARTIAL quote which several Wikipedians have sought to correct. MaynardClark (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So why, for example, did you delete the Lipsom commentary? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's 'Lipson' rather than 'Lipsom'. Are you reading carefully? In the cited blog article, Peter Lipson makes the broad generalization that a common theme in 'alternative medicine' is that all disease is the sufferer's fault. Here, we have an interpretation of a point of view common in medicine that the sufferer has some role in his or her pathology, often poorly-recognized relationship between behaviors (often copied from within one's social culture) and one's (eventual) suffering. That's not a claim that all suffering is entirely one's own fault, but behaviors are believed by many writers (which are known to those in the field) to have some role in contributing to illness and suffering that results from such illness. Here, I'm showing that Peter Lipson's blog commentary is not really an objective citation, the standard to which other citations are supposedly held. MaynardClark (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be (in the current version) an over-reliance on one commentary, the "Men's Health Journal" article (MHJ). More than one comment draws from it (though it may not, and I believe that it is not, representative of what Dr. Fuhrman teaches. Editors ought to understand the subject of the article, not merely one critic's view of the subject of the article. MaynardClark (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We base our coverage not on what Fuhrman wants to be known for but what the reliably published third parties find of note about him WP:GEVAL. The heavy basis of content from the Men's Health Journal is based in part on the almost complete lack of interest and coverage that reliable sources devote to him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when is Men's Health Journal a reliable 3rd party journal of informed scholarship? What's quoted is one author. MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think that we should delete the whole article for lack of Notability and coverage by reliable sources, that would be fine by me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? Feeling 'vindictive'? He's a well-known figure in Public-TV-dom and widely recognized by the upper middle class in America. Who reads Wikipedia in America? MaynardClark (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's requirements for "notability" - ie having a stand alone article about a subject. They do not include "well-known figure in Public-TV-dom and widely recognized by the gullible class in America" - its coverage in third party reliable sources which in this case is extremely lacking. And so we use what we got - the MHJ.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We could remove articles about such media personalities as Anna Nicole Smith and other celebrities. Their 'talent' (as celebrities?) may have been established outside the print media. MaynardClark (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not based on "talent", they are based upon "coverage" of which Anna Nicole has in spades and Joel does not. We also have alternate criteria for academics who really do have an impact on the world and the world of the mind, but Joel is a washout for our criteria there too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

But he's a physician and a lecturer. He is recruited to provide instruction for CME (continuing medical education). Typically, those are in medical schools (who else could offer CME credits)? MaynardClark (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh , sorry, where did you see anything about "lecturing" or "CME" establishing notability? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, it's more like 'shadows in a cave' (as in Plato's 'analogy of the cave') if we're looking at 3rd party comments about a doctor, or any other expert advisor, when what we need to know is the evidence for any of these claims, or teachings. That search for evidence is lacking in this article. I suggest that sorting through the critical issues in the 'starchivore' vs. 'nutritarian' online debate would or could be more edifying for Wikipedia readers. A section on critical debates on nutritional teachings *involving Fuhrman's teachings as one pole of the discussion* might be a more intelligent (and less 'belligerent' or bellicose) path for Wikipedia editors to take here. MaynardClark (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In essence, yes. We as Wikipedia editors merely find what the published experts have said about the subject of the article and from there do our best to represent the mainstream academics perception of the subject. We are creating an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not cutting edge research or a platform for "the debate". We may cover "the debate" if "the debate" is getting coverage in reliable sources, but we dont host or present "the debate" itself.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please watch your spelling and punctuation when writing for an online publication, even if it is the talk page? MaynardClark (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why not reorganize the article itself, the article on Joel Fuhrman (not his ANDI heuristic, which is an analytical tool for education - for teaching general audiences), with a clear, coherent statement of the core nutritional doctrines which he presents, a historical analysis of those nutritional doctrines, and scholarly and/or scientific (research) on one side or both sides of that position, so that impartial readers could look at the data and determine whether or not his position is overstated, understated, or mis-stated. In logic, we call 'appeal to authority' a logical fallacy, so what we're trying to find here is the facts, not merely correlation with the appearance of 'mainstream opinion' (which is fluid and constantly renegotiated by the avalanche or tsunami of research data relevant to the topic - though not always fast, andnot always slow, either). MaynardClark (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

See , the thing that you dont seem to be getting is that Fuhrman's claims are fringe wingnut claims that have no standing or following in the medical community and we will not present them as if they do. If his claims begin to be actually clinically tested and shown to have validity then we can begin to present them as such. But in the medical community he is ignored. In the study of cultural influences he is ignored. The only place he isnt, is in the Well-off Worried Well and the PBS fundraising schemes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We need to call for a referee here. MaynardClark (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A referee to do what? You keep trying to do things and I keep showing you how they are not appropriate per our policies. the only thing a referee is going to do is say "Did you read the policies?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What more objective reference is needed that a book was written and is being sold than the large, aggregating online bookstore, Amazon.com, that there are nine (9) published books by Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Isn't this evidence that would be acceptable in a US court of law? I argue that to require a noncommercial source for this is unreasonable (though not impossible to satisfy). MaynardClark (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

For "proof that a book is written" we do not need a link. And most certainly do NOT need a link to funnel people to the store to buy his products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Lipson commentary, Lipson is distorts the meaning and intention of “H = N/C.” H=N/C simply states that for optimal health one should attempt to follow a diet with a sufficient amount of micronutrients per calorie. Obviously “health” cannot be quantified; the equation is meant to provide a conceptual guideline for healthful eating. The criticism here is based on Lipson’s incorrect interpretation. Also, it is unclear why this particular physician’s criticism (but no positive commentary) has been deemed worthy of mention here. For example, a balancing positive commentary that could be added to maintain NPOV: Referenced with an article in the Denver Post, Jairam Vanamala, a professor in the department of food science and human nutrition at Colorado State University has supported the "nutritarian" eating style recommended by Fuhrman, saying that eating foods rich in phytonutrients is “a step on the path toward good health.”--Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

VIAF (Virtual International Authority File)

The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) lists several of Joel Fuhrman's books. This is already in the article. MaynardClark (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge: Aggregate Nutrient Density Index

• support the merge (although there is precious little reliably sourced content to merge.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in negative action some time ago. MaynardClark (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. Between the two articles there may be enough to make an actual article with some merit, although the key word is MAY. MaynardClark, care to point out where this negative action is located?--Daffydavid (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• oppose the merge Let me think about it. MaynardClark (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• merge anything worth covering to here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: I took the one usable source and used it as the basis for some content about ANDI into this article. If someone is feeling BOLD they can redirect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect the factual content from ANDI has been put here. That article does not have the substance for a stand alone article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Organize the Criticisms

The criticisms of Fuhrman's teachings could be aggregated and put in one place.

One additional criticism which the deletionists have not yet allowed is a recent study that criticisms the nutritarian position (shows that micronutrient-rich diets are important if Harvard studies them critically) as being helpful up to the point after which there may be 'diminishing returns' from additional nutrients.

So, such a 'Criticisms' section could have:

• MHJ comment (though cited only selectively, not the entire comment by the MHJ interviewer)
• Question about place in 'alternative medicine' (amidst the array of different nuances in all clinical practices by private physicians; some have several clinics; others teach and practice private medicine; etc.
• Critical issue of 'diminishing returns' on nutrient-dense diets (what are the points when 'diminishing benefits' is seen in a patient, after which the nutritional benefit "ROI" is lower?) MaynardClark (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope we dont do "criticism sections" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this point. The way the article is currently structured is biased. It does not allow a) the space for the authors position to be made without repudiating it in the next sentence and it b) gives the impression that he claims there is something called "micronutrients" in what he suggests to eat.

Concerning b) the basis of the nutrients are sourced from the USDA Standard Reference database, so he is not "claiming" here. This is misleading. The selection of the nutrients he has selected might be debatable but not the values themselves. Concerning a) by separating the two points, both sides of the discussion become clearer instead of giving that section such a biased outlook

Ebralph (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Concept of Nutrient Density

The concept of nutrient density is widely-discussed in the scientific literature.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 recommend the consumption of a variety of “nutrient-dense” foods and beverages within and among the basic food groups. So what is nutrient density? According to definitions, nutrient density is a measure of nutrients provided per calorie of food, or the “ratio of the amount of a nutrient in foods to the energy provided by these same foods.

National nutrition guidelines emphasize consumption of powerhouse fruits and vegetables (PFV), foods most strongly associated with reduced chronic disease risk; yet efforts to define PFV are lacking. This study developed and validated a classification scheme defining PFV as foods providing, on average, 10% or more daily value per 100 kcal of 17 qualifying nutrients. Of 47 foods studied, 41 satisfied the powerhouse criterion and were more nutrient-dense than were non-PFV, providing preliminary evidence of the validity of the classification scheme. The proposed classification scheme is offered as a tool for nutrition education and dietary guidance. [NOTE: PEER REVIEWED]

References

The point here is that the nutritional concept of nutrient density is not without scientific evidence, scientific justification.

MaynardClark (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the purpose is? Neither one mentions Fuhrman or his work as far as I can see. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Referee? The point was (per earlier discussion) to sort out the foundational concepts which are presented in this nutritionally-oriented MD's presentations in prevention-oriented clinical practice. One of those well-documented, evidence-based concepts is nutrient density, as discussed in these applicable papers of the American Dietetic Association (a position paper), the US Centers for Disease Control, and Nestle Research. MaynardClark (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR, not going to fly.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We can only use what the reliable sources have written about Fuhrman, and the dearth of coverage of content about Fuhrman means that any "content organization strategies" will be limited to the content about Fuhrman that we can source - ie that he opposes vaccines, that you need a LOT of veggies , that he created a marketing scheme for whole foods, that he pulls in money for PBS. Theres not a lot of "organizaition" that can be done around that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion statement

The statement in the Life and Career section describing Fuhrman's PBS pledge programs as "infomercials" is an opinion. The author of the Men's Journal article describes the programs as infomercials, but shouldn't this be quoted or at least made clear that this is that his opinion rather than fact? --Deana.ferreri (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any serious dispute over this terminology? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It not a difference in terminology, it is inaccurate. An infomercial is a paid advertisement. The PBS programs aired during pledge drives raise money for PBS. The statement is inaccurate and negatively biased. --Deana.ferreri (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It is what the source says, not a WP editors opinion that determines content. See the source cited. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What the cited source (a magazine article) says is the opinion of the author of that article. These programs are by definition not infomercials. "Pledge programs" would be accurate. --Deana.ferreri (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Call it a PBS pledge program or a PBS pledge drive. but what's IN the pledge drive programming is not the end of the scientific questions. My understanding is that oel Fuhrman is a clinician who writes SOME articles in peer-reviewed journals (but that he does not define himself as a 'clinical researcher'). What ought to be the standard for an article about such a person? MaynardClark (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You may do that on your own time, but in Wikipedia articles we follow the sources , not put our own interpretation to spin the material.

There is no evidence that any of his peer reviewed stuff is in any way notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What is published in reliable sources is what content on WP is based on, not the interpretation and definitions devised by WP editors. If a reliable source has published a description of Fuhrman's programs as infomercials that is the description WP uses. The source of the description is made clear through the citation. Other descriptions or definitions published in reliable sources can be included as due. That is policy on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had three top-rated television health shows on PBS (Three Steps to Incredible Health, Immunity Solution, End Dieting Forever). Collectively they have raised over $30 million for PBS, and have been among the top fund-raising shows for PBS of the last five years. These three pledge shows were not mentioned, and my PBS programs were referred to as “infomercials,” which is inaccurate; they are informational pledge programs. There is a huge difference between an infomercial which sells a commercial product and a PBS pledge show, which gives information and asks for a donation to the station in return for a gift package of music, informational videos, and/or books. In this case, the materials are manufactured by and for PBS, and they utilize the funds collected to support their general programing. PBS does not air infomercials and strongly objects to this terminology.--Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive this talk page

This talk page is getting long and dated enough for auto archiving. When I get a chance I will do so, or someone else can. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This page records some discussion between dissenters of Fuhrman and non-dissenters. You can tell by who is calling JF names and who is making sure negative comments appear in the main page. Calling a person names means he does not hold a neutral point of view and may not be thinking clearly.Kristinwt (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Nutrient Density

A quick 'history' of some published discusson of nutrient density seems to have preceded PUBLISHED work on this topic by Fuhrman, as documented on the ANDI site (now merged with this one).

I propose that we include at least the historical discussion of that topic in the talk page in this article, since RedPenOfDoom decided to move/redirect the ANDI article into the Fuhrman topic.

The topic, again, may be original with Joel Fuhrman, BUT currently available evidence (as cited in that redirected article's talk page) seems to show that it was discussed in the refereed literature apart from involvement by Joel Fuhrman. MaynardClark (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You will need to provide sources that talk about the history of prior "nutrient density" discussions in the context of Fuhrman, otherwise it is analysis and commentary of the type that is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(And note that it wasnt I who "decided" to merge. It was the consensus of the discussion on this page, with you as the sole dissenter with no rationale behind your dissent.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources should be used

Fuhrman on Fuhrman is only acceptable for Fuhrman's opinions and statements, factual content requires secondary reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding material based on Men's Journal article (MHJ) for NPOV

Much of the negatively biased content on this page is derived from one magazine article in particular (Men’s Journal), and it appears that negatively-biased quotations from the article were preferentially chosen. Suggested additions with quotes from the MHJ reference to maintain a neutral point of view: 1) Fuhrman holds that micronutrients are “one of the unacknowledged keys to understanding the American obesity epidemic” and “the fuel that turns on our body’s anticancer defenses.” 2) According to Adams, Fuhrman “isn't a crunchy holistic thinker. He's a data-analysis guy.” --Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a well presented argument based on policy and supported by the source. Content should not be cherry picked. I look forward to comments from other editors leading to a consensus for improving the balance and neutral tone. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do see only some of the quote from MHJ being chosen per Alexbrn "cherry picked". If author from MHJ is quoted then the positive as well as the negative should be included. If the MHJ article was all negative then a few quotes would work, but he had positive and negative to say. So be balanced if you claim to represent NPOV. Including the quote about the vaccines has nothing to do with the food. It is meant to disparage Fuhrman. Ad hominem attack, like "and his mama wears army boots."Kristinwt (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with you. But Fuhrman should merely continue, since he has so many stations for educating (including PBS). MaynardClark (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

MHJ is used for to support many items in this article. It is not however a reliable source for statements about "anticancer defenses" &c. as these require WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Request to remove “fruitarianism” and “Christian science” references

The assertion that I preach “something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom” is inaccurate and negatively biased. Encouraging people to eat more natural produce and an overall more healthful diet does not equate to fruitarianism or to the radical religious and anti-medical viewpoint of Christian Science. I am a board certified family physician, having spent a good portion of my career admitting and treating patients in clinical practice, nursing homes and hospitals. I work with nutritional scientists at leading research institutes across the country, including researchers at NIH (National Institutes of Health). Criticisms of the views I do hold would be reasonable on this page, however this is a criticism based on views I am not associated with, and has no place on an accurate biography page. Although Wikipedia relies on third-party sources, accuracy should be most important. --Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an attributed statement of an assessment made by an author and published in a relatively reliable source. If reliable sources provide a different assessment that can be included as due. Likewise the subjects professional activities bear mention if discussed in reliable sources. It is unfortunate at times that WP reflects what is published in reliable sources and that sometimes seems less than accurate. I think other reliable sources can be found and a discussion of due weight and the reliability of each source could yield a more balanced article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove flu vaccine statement

The assertion that I believe the flu vaccine “isn't effective at all” is not true. I have never expressed such an opinion. I discussed the scientific research on the efficacy of the flu vaccine in my book, Super Immunity, but do not hold such an opinion, or have any “beliefs” on the matter. I can only report what researchers and authorities in this field report.--Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The assertion seems well sourced. A question could be raised as to the due weight of that source on this issue. If other sources are found that present Fuhrman's statements regarding vaccines the question of weight would be considered. Similarly to the statement above WP can only report what is published in reliable sources. Serious consideration must be made based on the BLP policy if WP is misrepresenting the position of the living subject of a biography. In the case of the position of the subject statements published in reliable sources by the subject are valid sources. In other words Fuhrman can be cited for Fuhrman's position and statements of his opinion. As it stands we have an attributed quote published in a fairly reliable source, it is quite possible there are more reliable or weighty sources. I'm not an expert on BLP policy. I do know this concern could be raised at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where more experienced editors might be of assistance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

New York Times best sellers

The page mentions only Eat to Live as a New York Times best seller, however I have 5 New York Times best selling books: 1. Eat To Live 2. The End of Dieting 3. The Eat To Live Cookbook 4. The End of Diabetes 5. Super Immunity--Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source (quite possibly the NYT bestseller lists) can be provided as a reference this is notable content that should be included. A single source that notes all five titles as best sellers would suffice, but the listing in the NYT would allow for consideration of mentioning each books peak, time on, section of etc. As I understand policy this is all notable content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional information and suggested references

I am a founding member of the American College of Lifestyle medicine, served on the board with a demonstrative longtime effort to develop this specialty within the medical profession. I am a member of the Dr. Oz Show Medical Advisory Board (http://www.doctoroz.com/medical-advisory-board). The following are a few articles that could be referenced by Wikipedia editors to include more information in the biography page, either positive or negative, based on accurate representations of my work:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/interviews/article/59411-nutritarian-living-pw-talks-with-joel-fuhrman.html
http://thechalkboardmag.com/get-dense-why-you-should-be-eating-foods-with-high-andi-scores
http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/what-is-nutritarianism-and-how-can-it-help-the-athlete
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15235103
http://patch.com/new-york/sachem/whole-foods-explores-becoming-a-nutritarian
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/articles/mm-interviewwith-dr-joel-fuhrman/
http://spoonuniversity.com/2014/07/nutritarian-diet-changes-food-pyramid/
http://www.gmtoday.com/content/m_magazine/2014/July/m_072014_36.asp
http://theepochtimes.com/n3/813324-survival-on-the-road-dr-fuhrmans-nutritarian-tips-for-healthy-summer-travel/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vitamix-brings-doctor-and-best-selling-author-dr-joel-fuhrman-to-cleveland-for-free-lecture-aimed-at-inspiring-clevelanders-to-eat-healthier-202361231.html
First For Women 6/10/13 and 6/23/14: http://www.firstforwomen.com/
GGMG Magazine July/Aug 2013: http://www.ggmg.org/narchive2013.html
Positive Impact Magazine, Fall 2012: http://positiveimpactmagazine.com/
--Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the list of potential references. I hope interested editors will evaluate them for reliability and relevance and appropriate additions or changes to content can be proposed or made. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nutritarian"

Wiktionary contains an entry for the word “nutritarian,” coined by me to define the diet-style I recommend, so it would be appropriate that wikipedia used this term in my biography page. For example, a suggested addition: “Fuhrman calls his recommended eating style “nutritarian,” to describe the focus on whole plant foods rich in vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.” --Joel.Fuhrman (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A good source for this would be useful in supporting including content similar to what has been proposed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Non notable publication list doesn't belong

A list of articles whether published in peer reviewed journals or not does not belong in the article. It is undue (per the policy WP:NPOV) and smacks of puffery (see the essay WP:LARD). If these articles are considered notable in reliable sources, when such references are provided they can be added back in. See the policy WP:NOT. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ipgeni ref

This ref only indicates that Fuhrman registered for the website, not that he set up the organization. In all likelihood he did indeed set it up. If we can find a ref verifying he founded it then the sentence would be appropriate. Who registered for a web address is almost never listed anywhere on Wikipedia and since this does not validate the content I have removed it and the ref.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, either the sentence needs to be changed or we need a different ref. We could write, "Fuhrman registered the web address for this organization." This would make the ref appropriate but I think we will be hard pressed to find any other articles that provide this as content. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Should reference to flu vaccine be included in diet section.

In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal Adams reports that Fuhrman believes that the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all".[3][non sequitur]

I added a [non sequitur] template to this statement as I believe that this statement should not be included in the diet section of this article As it has nothing to do with the diet that Joel Fuhrman prescribes? The statement should be deleted or moved to a new section? Also as per section 24 "Request to remove flu vaccine statement" Joel Fuhrman himself requested that the statement be removed. I would appreciate a more experienced editors input as regarding these issues as i do not know what wikipedia policy is regarding this is??? BTW if you could Ping me when adding your input i would appreciate it so i can learn more about the wikipedia thanks Sassmouth (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

{@Sassmouth: this is easily solved by a simple re-titling. Now done. I have also reverted some non-neutral deletions than have gone by un-noticed in recent weeks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Junky books"

The list of books written by Joel Fuhrman was deleted, with a comment stating "list of junky books." Regardless of that editor's opinion of the quality of those books, they were indeed written by the subject of the biography and several were on the NYT best seller list. This subject of this biography page became well-known because of a book on nutrition (Eat to Live, as noted in the intro paragraph of the page). A list of his books is relevant biographical information. What part of the biographies of living persons policies forbids a list of books written by the subject of the biography? --Deana.ferreri (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

None, but we should be reflecting accepted knowledge about this topic rather than picking up primary stuff ourselves. And as an editor with a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we should be an online encyclopedia, and the notability of the books is that "several were on the NYT best seller list." We have the article, and teh article ought to be adequate. To savage articles selectively (typically by subject matter), even if there are ongoing discussions of the research consensus on what is discussed, is unprofessional (and itself 'smells of COI'). The list of publications should be returned. MaynardClark (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a general consensus on what to list in a bibliography for authors like Fuhrman. If there is, please link the discussions. Meanwhile, does anyone have a proposal for inclusion criteria for what we should list? --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah - if it's mentioned in the article body (because of some secondary coverage), have it in the list. Alexbrn (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic edits from Psychologist Guy

• Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly deleting edits to this page. Regarding the first sentence, "celebrity doctor" is a relative term and should not be used when there are far more accurate and well cited sources to state otherwise. Danielinnov8 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits from Danielinnov8

• Danielinnov8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly adding spam to amazon.com. Before that this user was removing reliable sources that criticized Fuhrman's ideas. This kind of whitewashing is inappropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Danielinnov8: [1] linking to amazon.com 15 times is not appropriate and the publications you are adding are excessive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: [2] The amazon links have been removed, previous deletions were of misquoted, inaccurate and potentially libelous information. How are scientific publications excessive? Isn't this Wikipedia after all? Danielinnov8 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting a peer review and changes to the article. I do not believe it to be correct or objective. For example the first sentence "is an American celebrity doctor who advocates what he calls a micronutrient-rich diet" is a subjective statement and is mis-quoted from the original reference which states "...and his nutrient density program..." page 41. Regardless this subcategory idea is not appropriate for the introduction of the subject. I propose a more accurate and fair introduction: "...is a Board Certified physician and author based in New Jersey."

The entire Diet and health section is essentially controversial material from one perspective (against) the subject. I propose renaming this heading to "Diet Controversy..." where all of the controversial material can go instead of being scattered throughout the entire article. Thank you. Danielinnov8 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• (This is a malformed RfC). But to offer an opinion: Fuhrman is explicitly referred to as a celebrity doctor in the source cited. It hardly seems a controversial label. It is generally poor practice to gather all criticism together, but instead it should be integrated into the text: see WP:CRITS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: Apologies, I am new to wiki. Can you please explain to me how his "celebrity" status is the most important part of his biography? Seems as though the original editor is trying to discredit everything this guy has done in the last 30-40 years by defining him as a mere celebrity. Danielinnov8 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to make a change it is be to be concrete, proposing precisely what the desired change is, and the source(s) to be used. I'm not seeing any concrete proposal. I merely explained that the current text is well-sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you are primarily requesting a peer review, an RfC is not an appropriate process, see WP:PR and WP:PRG, and so the {{rfc}} should be removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Gorski on Simply Raw

Fuhrman appeared on the raw food documentary Simply Raw in which he promoted a vitalistic view of food and the pseudoscientific idea of detoxification.

References

While there's certainly the possibility that Gorski was incorrect, the reference was removed erroneously [3]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the source, Gorski isn't saying Fuhrman made these claims during the documentary, but using the documentary as a hook to go into Fuhrman's wider pronouncements. The source should not have been removed, as it's a strong one in a sparse field. Propose restoring it with a correct/fuller description. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Gorski either hasn't watched the documentary Simply Raw or has mistaken one of the other people who appear in the film as Fuhrman. And Gorski most definitely is saying Fuhrman made the claims in the documentary...

This is a direct quote from the source... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”

The problem with this source is it's completely inaccurate. Fuhrman's 15 second quote in the documentary Simply Raw is at 58 seconds in youtu.be/nBJZnakkoss?t=58 and I've also included the quote. He makes no other appearance in the documentary.

This is the exact quote from Fuhrman in the documentary..."We have an unbelievable epidemic of diabetes in this country. The rates of diabetes are skyrocketing and it parallels the epidemic of obesity. We have the most overweight population ever in the history of the human race and it's still growing fatter." Nowhere in the documentary does Fuhrman talk about his diet, or about detoxification or anything else.

The information being used in the Wikipedia article comes directly from this false information. It's the source that's the problem not the information.

Linking to a source that is obviously false and can be clearly demonstrated as false hurts the credibility of the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Glad we can at least agree now that the reference does mention Fuhrman.

Maybe you're viewing a different video? Gorski has written about it in detail... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No the link I gave you is the documentary. It's simple enough for you to cross check that which I did. In most cases Gorski would seem to be a reliable source but on the topic of this documentary he is simply wrong. Furhman only appeared for 15 seconds and the quote above is word for word what he said. The documentary was filmed very cheaply and my guess is the film makers used the short interview of Furhman as a way to increase interest in their movie. He says nothing in his appearance about his diet recommendations or diet at all. He is not a narrator, and he also doesn't seem to have had any role at all as an advisor etc. There's simply nothing anywhere that supports Gorski's statements about what Furhman said in the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong, and Gorski is saying Fuhrman said this during the film. Looking at Gorski's companion piece[4] on his blog, it seems there he is considering Simply Raw as a video series (it seems to have come in multiple parts originally and is/was somehow linked to something called "Raw for 30 days", which Gorski links to) but unfortunately all the links are now dead. From skipping through various bits I could find on Youtube of the Simply Raw companion pieces and Raw for 30 Days there are certainly lots of Fuhrman doing stuff to camera. Unlike AndrewCeditor I'm not sure I have the stamina to watch hours of this material to find the quotation. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I think Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else. Fuhrman is not a raw food proponent. I have seen the Simply Raw documentary...and I watched it again after seeing your link because I couldn't remember Fuhrman being in it (lol thanks a lot of that...it's not a very good documentary). Fuhruman recommends both cooked and raw vegetables and beans (cooked) as a main source of carbohydrates, mushrooms (cooked) and broccoli (cooked). That makes this being a quote from him highly unlikely. He does recommend eating berries raw because cooking them removes some nutrients. In case you're wondering how I know I was a health writer for many years, I'm a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association and appeared as a regular guest on 40 radio stations across Australia. I'm familiar with a lot of diets. Furhman's is just a really extreme version of what most nutritionists recommend.

Again I don't mind what's in the Wikipedia page now I just want it to be from an accurate source...it's accurate enough factually in terms of some of what Fuhrman promotes...vitalism and detoxification...a huge percentage of qualified nutritionists promote something similar including one who's quoted further down in the same section and it's not really saying anything important...but what he's saying is not accurate in terms of saying it in the documentary Simply Raw. I also think you're actually quoting something Gorski says that's outside his field of expertise. If you found a quote based on him criticizing Fuhrman on his recommendations for cancer that would be brilliant and would add value to the article.

I couldn't find any other videos. If you share some links with me I'm happy to check them to see if I can find the quote.

I found this for example, which seems to have a fair bit of Fuhrman, and some well-known figures alongside too. I sampled one bit in which Fuhrman was talking about a "full symphony of discovered and undiscovered chemicals" or something. However since these primary/fringe sources are unusable here I don't think it's worth pursuing these videos. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I went through all the parts with Fuhrman speaking. There's nothing vaguely like Gorski talks about in his blog post. In fact if Fuhrman was trying to stick to mainstream nutrition advice he's awfully close with almost everything he says. The closest to what Gorski is talking about is this direct quote that apart from the words "acid forming" you'd expect to hear from any responsible nutritionist around the world "To be in good health we want to eat a diet that's higher in nutrients and lower in calories. That means you have to eat foods that are largely high nutrient low calorie foods. Well the foods that are highest in nutrients are green vegetables, tomatoes, berries, oranges you know, carrots and you're gonna get a diet higher in fiber, higher in high nutrients, higher in phytochemicals...it's automatically not gonna be acid forming, it's gonna take all those features that each fad diet looks at are all put together when you eat a diet that's very nutrient dense."

It's not even vaguely close to his quote and there's no mention of eating raw which is what I'd expect because Furhman is not a raw food exponent as I mentioned before.

The quote you're referring to is not worded the way the average nutritionist would put it but it's not out there and again bears no relations to what Gorski was saying..."There's also a fact of nutrient, nutritional imbalances and deficiencies that makes the pancreas not responsive. So there's a certain loss of function to the pancreas due to the lack of phytonutrients and the variety and symphony of nutrients we need for normal tissue function. In other words the cells don't function at full efficiency when you just supply them with some macronutrients. They need a full symphony of, the full complement of, you know the artistry of thousands of different discovered and undiscovered chemicals to maximize cellular function."

Some important points. It's not what Gorski was talking about and it's not in the documentary Simply Raw (it's in Raw For Life).Can we just agree that Gorski is in error saying Fuhrman said these things in Simply Raw and find some other quality content to put in this article.

The statement you have based on Gorski's comments is not really adding anything anyway. There are far more important topics to cover like his promotion of super immunity instead of promoting social distancing as protection against covid-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to say if a reliable source is wrong or not. We just quote what reliable sources say. Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source so the reference should not be removed. Fuhrman is not promoting mainstream nutritional research. Check the [5] back cover for Simply Raw. You will see it has a photograph of Joel Fuhrman and other pseudoscientific promoters of diet including David Wolfe, Michael Beckwith and Gabriel Cousens that appear in the documentary. The documentary itself is indeed promoting a vitalistic view of food and the pseudoscientific idea of detoxification. It is irrelevant what camera-time the documentary gave Fuhrman because at the end of the day it all boils down to the fact he was featured in this crackpot documentary and his name is associated with it, so he supports the pseudoscience of raw food detoxification. The source is accurate by connecting his name to those ideas and should not be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is simply not acceptable. Accuracy is important. What you're saying is it doesn't matter that this whole quote is completely untrue and he that he never said any of these things or promoted them... For example, Fuhrman appeared in a pro-raw food diet movie, Simply Raw, in which he took a vitalistic view of food in which cooking somehow destroys living antioxidants, phytochemicals, and a variety of other compounds, without which the body can’t be healthy and “must break down.” He describes processed food as “foods whose life has been taken out of them” and makes the claim that, without these micronutrients, cells accumulate “toxins” that need to be “detoxified,” while touting broccoli and various vegetables as having “incredible medicinal power.”

Having a commitment to the truth and accuracy is at the foundation of quality writing. There are plenty of other sources that quote Fuhrman accurately. This is just lazy writing with no commitment to the truth.

Actually Furhman did say all those things, it was in a personal interview for the documentary that was posted on the documentary's home website in 2010 but has not been uploaded to YouTube in the main documentary, it seems the personal interviews were included on a different disc called "Raw for Life", whilst the documentary itself is called "Simply Raw", both DVDs are sold together and come in the same pack and were featured on the same website. Gorski links to a video by Furhman but the link has been deleted. It is on archive.org and the comments are very revealing. The video was uploaded to a website called rawfor30days in 2010 [6], this is the same website that was selling the Raw for Life / Simply Raw documentary. The documentary itself was uploaded to YouTube but the personal interviews were not uploaded. Have a look at the product description on Amazon, there is another disc that features these interviews with the title "special chapters". We can see that Gorski's comments were entirely accurate, Fuhrman was personally interviewed. Furhman is promoting both a vitalistic view of (raw) food and pseudoscientific detoxification and other conspiracy theories. Fuhrman is not doing science, nor promoting mainstream nutritional research. Please stop pretending otherwise. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fuhrman appears in Raw for Life - uploaded in full on this blog [7], he appears with various pseudoscience promoters including Brian Clement, Bruce Lipton, David Wolfe etc. The Gorski criticisms are entirely accurate. This is dangerous quackery. Fuhrman also promoted a Big Pharma conspiracy theory. I don't think we need to discuss this anymore. Maybe you should watch that documentary and see how insane it really is. Fuhrman is not representing mainstream dieting advice. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I did watch the documentary and if you look at my comments above I posted the comments Fuhrman made. None of them were even close to what Gorski reported and the documentary you're linking to is not Simply Raw it's Raw For Life. I posted a link to Simply Raw which is the documentary that Gorski says he watched in his blog post. What you're saying simply isn't accurate. I am fairly certain Gorski has mistaken Fuhrman for someone else in Simply Raw. Accuracy is important. I also provided the link to the documentary and copied and pasted the 15 second statement Fuhrman made.

I established the source was incorrect. If the source is incorrect by definition it's not a reliable source. As I've said before I have no particular problem with anything Gorski is saying but the source is incorrect for whatever reason. We should not be using an incorrect source.

Accuracy matters. This type of sloppy, lazy research and writing is why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Gorski listened to an interview by Fuhrman and he directly links to that interview which leads to a website rawfor30days. The link is no longer live, but you can see it on archive.org [8]. The interview is obviously the Raw For Life one, not the other as you say. The website rawfor30days was selling both documentaries and they are sold together in the same pack. Gorski has confused Raw For Life for Simply Raw, its easily done because both are being advertised on the same website. But Gorski has not misrepresented Fuhrman as he did say those things in the other documentary. So the source is still accurate in regard to Fuhrman's pseudoscientific beliefs about detoxification and raw food. The source should not be removed as it is a reliable source. We have summarized the source without mentioning which documentary Fuhrman appeared in, so there is no issue here. Time to move on. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Adams in Mens Journal

• Adams, Mark (Oct 2012). "Joel Fuhrman: The doctor is out there". Men's Journal. Retrieved 23 March 2014.

It's a poor source for a BLP. I don't think it's a problem for statements of fact, but Adams writes that "Fuhrman isn’t a crunchy holistic thinker. He’s a data-analysis guy. Fuhrman says he has reviewed 20,000 journal articles on nutrition, culling the most important information from each."? [9] Fuhrman says a lot of things to promote himself, but we don't have to repeat them, let alone cherry-pick for "balance". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with the article being quoted in the diet and health section. First an overwhelmingly positive article has obviously been cherry picked to find two negative things to say about Joel Fuhrman and the first is out of context. Second Mark Adams in not a health writer and has no special qualifications or expertise on health. The statement Mark Adams made that Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom"

This is misleading because the diet Fuhrman recommends is in no way similar to fruitarianism (eating a pound of cooked vegetables and a pound of raw vegetables along with beans, nuts etc is not fruitarianism). This really just highlights that Adams has not qualifications writing about health which is fair enough...he's a feature writer...not a health writer.

Second it really doesn't have a place in a factual article. A Men's Journal magazine writer's opinion of how Furhman acts doesn't belong in a Wikipedia description of his diet and health recommendations.

Perhaps you could just leave out the opinion statement "Fuhrman "preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom" and expand on the anti vaxxer view which is alarming and a direct quote...

“it isn’t effective at all – it doesn’t work!” He’s also skeptical about the number of vaccines the average American child receives. “There’s no chance of anyone getting polio in this country,” he says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, it's probably fine for statements of fact. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case then this should be removed because it's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion which is both misleading and inaccurate(Nutritarianism is in no way similar to fruitarianism)). Fuhrman's approach to diet is also mostly based on scientific evidence that is reasonably sound. He has obvious biases and makes some leaps but his approach is not belief based like Christian Science. Accuracy is important. Inaccurate information is why people don't see Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. "Fuhrman preaches something closer to fruitarianism or Christian Science than to conventional medical wisdom"

If you search for them you'll find much more accurate criticisms of Furhman's approach. Anti vaccination, teaching super immunity instead of social distancing as the first line of defense against covid-19, the fact his diet plan is extremely difficult to comply to long term etc.

This particular quote from the Men's Journal has no real significance or relevance, it's an opinion from someone unqualified in the field and it's both inaccurate and misleading.

How about this instead: In the October 2012 edition of Men's Journal, Mark Adams stated that Fuhrman believes the flu vaccine "isn't effective at all." He’s also skeptical about the number of vaccines the average American child receives. Fuhrman says “There’s no chance of anyone getting polio in this country.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fuhrman's approach to diet is also mostly based on scientific evidence that is reasonably sound". Untrue and not supported by any reliable sources. You might want to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. We do not give equal weight to fringe or pseudoscientific dieting views. We have no reason to censor criticisms of fringe views or quackery. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind I am a health writer and a member of the Australasian Medical Writers Association with over a decade's experience including being internationally syndicated and being a regular guest on a show that fed to over 40 radio stations across Australia. I do know what is fringe and what is mainstream. There is nothing fringe about recommending eating vegetables, berries, nuts, or beans. You can find those recommendations on any government health website in the world in various forms. You could argue that the extremes he takes his diet to are fringe and that would certainly be reasonable but the actual base recommendations and science he shares are mostly mainstream studies that any nutritionist would know and share.

I actually know what his recommendations are because I've watched several of his presentations...something I do with most major health figures to stay up to date. And I'm familiar with the mainstream studies because I've written about many often pointing out their flaws or their good points.

When you criticize any information or diet "guru" you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.

There are multiple reliable sources who say most of the science he shares is sound including all three sources cited in this Wikipedia article (credible qualified nutritionists and dieticians). That's completely unsurprising because he shares quite common, well known studies...especially larger scale epidemiological studies on diet.

The thing most are calling into question is not the research but his tendency to take good research and use it to justify a relatively extreme approach to diet.

So again you have to be accurate and specific for your criticism to be valuable.

It would be nice if you stopped assuming I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm somehow biased. I just want accurate information shared here so that people can have confidence this site is a source of reliable information.

The sentence I"m referring to is not a criticism. It's an article from a non health writer talking about what he thinks of the way Fuhrman behaves. If you go read the article it's not critical at all. The writer tries the diet himself.

So if you're looking for accurate criticism this article isn't it. And the quote is out of context with the rest of the article.

Most importantly it's inaccurate and misleading. Fuhrman does not promote fruitarianism and he's not like a Christian Scientist either. When he speaks the vast majority of what he says is repeating well known studies and he comes across as angry.

It would be more accurate to say he's a diet extremist. There are plenty of good accurate sources of criticism about Fuhrman from people who are actually qualified to give it. This particular quote just makes the article look amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You advertise yourself as a "health writer" but you criticize another writer for being an unqualified writer. Tell me what qualifications does a "health writer" need? You are not a qualified dietician, so what qualifications do you have to be talking about dieting? I do not believe you are here in good faith, you appear to be pushing for fringe content with an agenda to remove anything critical about Fuhrman. I noticed many of your first edits (24th July) on this article were to white-wash anything negative about Fuhrman's diet. Joel Fuhrman appeared in a pseudoscientific raw food documentary that also featured Gary Null, Mike Adams of (Natural News), Bruce Lipton, Brian Clement. This is the very definition of pseudoscience or what others would term "quackery". You admit Fuhrman is a "diet extremist", he does not reflect mainstream nutritional advice. You say there are plenty of reliable sources that contain criticism of Fuhrman, if that is the case then you should be able to improve the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be good to WP:AGF here. Okay, this article has a history of problems but that shouldn't unduly sensitize regular editors to the point where we end up missing improvements that could be made - it's not as if this is a great article. On the face of it, there seems to be a problem with the Gorski source (I'm still not entirely clear whether it's a simple title mix-up we can ignore, or something more). SBM is an established good source, and Gorksi is established as a reputable sceptic on a wide range of topics - not just for cancer quackery - but if there is an obvious screw-up over something, we should avoid it in that particular case. So what are the WP:BESTSOURCES bearing in mind our need to follow WP:FRINGE guidance? From what I've seen Furhman - yes - is criticized for his pronouncements but we are not as far off-the-scale as with Null. I would be interested in some fresh high-quality sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically there were two raw food documentaries featured on the same website rawfor30days which hosted video content. Gorski linked to Fuhrman's interview for one of them. He does indeed make the various pseudoscientific claims that Gorski described. But Gorski seems to have confused the documentary title. We do not mention the documentary title on Wikipedia, just his belief in detoxification. I don't see a big issue with it but yes there was a title mix-up. I don't think we should remove a source just for that though but we could do if other users consider it a problem. Joel Fuhrman used to be associated with the raw food circuit around 2005-2011, he was a big name in the field but these-days seems to have distanced himself from that field. He was promoted by David Wolfe and Gabriel Cousens etc. He has supported raw food dieting in 2010 interviews but I cannot see anything recent. I think he has shifted some of his ideas since but his diet is very restrictive and dieticians have advised against it. Reliable sources are lacking, I don't think this will ever be a developed article. There are a lot of RS for David Wolfe (raw food advocate) but Fuhrman has never attracted as much attention so the sources are just not there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel Fuhrman does eat some cooked vegetables, he says here what he eats [10]. It's basically a starvation diet. He only eats vegetables, limited fruit, grains, nuts and seeds. It's impossible to maintain this diet whilst working on a hard-working manual-labour job. Most dieticians won't spend their time reviewing unsafe diets like this, only if they have media coverage which explains why so many sources exist for someone like David Wolfe or Pete Evans. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record I did add a citation that included a negative review of the diet in regard to compliance and it's stretch on some of the science (although the article didn't go into any detail) and I suggested adding more about Furhman's finge stance on vaccinations which is a real concern. I really am just looking for accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No offense but I did tell you I was familiar with his diet as I am with many diets. This statement is not accurate "It's basically a starvation diet". Fuhrman eats 2,000 calories a day which is right on the low end of recommended calories a day from the US government, exactly the recommended calorie intake from the Australian government. You might adjust up for activity, down for age (he's in his 60s...basal metabolic rate drops as you age meaning you require less calories) etc but it's in the ballpark. A labourer could eat more nuts and beans and easily get the calories and protein needed in exactly the same way a labourer would increase intake on any other kind of diet. That potential adustment is included in his diet calorie ranges for different food types. Sorry to get off topic about the editing but you did bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

AndrewCeditor adding original research

AndrewCeditor added to the article "He also recommends eating at least one cup of beans a day as a protein and carbohydrate source and to increase resistant starch passing through the stomach to be fermented in the large intestine by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids." The source cited [11] says "Fuhrman suggests eating 1 cup daily to benefit fully from the fiber and resistant starch, which helps you feel full and passes through the intestine without being digested." The added line "by colonic bacteria creating healthy short chain fatty acids" is not in the cited source, nor does he suggest "at least one cup", the source says "eating 1 cup daily". This is just one sentence containing original research I have gone through so far which AndrewCeditor has added. I believe there are more. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

And soapboxing. The editor feels the pov of the article is biased, and is working to change the pov regardless of our policies and the references. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. On the "at least one cup" I misread sited reference 15 which actually says at least 1/2 cup. I misread it as at least one cup. On the topic of the cited references is The Nutrition Health Review citation (number 11) considered a reliable source? I'm not sure how it got there and I'm not sure it should be there.

I really am just trying to increase the quality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCeditor (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.