Talk:Intermittent fasting

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kseses14 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Taylor O'Neil, Pinecone1500.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JaredWeiss (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nicolevlad, Emmiesoderstrom, Crb576, Atc424. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NelsonL. (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sl2763, Tcarnella, Heyitsj3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shujins. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Randy Houghtaling (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krista Georgette Holder (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vivenso. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2019 and 28 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwainryu (article contribs).

unable to improve article.

I made a few edits and they were just all reverted. Is there some reason this article can't be improved? What is with the Popular Culture section, that doesn't make sense. I'll at least try to fix that again. Volunteer1234 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be an anti-fasting editor out there. Some sentences do not reflect at all what the linked sources say (such as the limited efficacy for obese people, what the source says is that it has similar efficiency to calorie restriction, which is what was written before in this WP entry, nothing new). --Signimu (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement

@Alexbrn: Hello Alex, sorry I saw your revert while I was finishing up a major rewrite, so I committed it nevertheless to keep it in the history, but please feel free to revert it as you primarily intended (edit: reverted it myself until this issue gets resolved by discussion). Now, I would like to discuss your reason for reverting: «unreliable source» for a randomized control study, are you sure you are correct in your endeavor? Could you please clarify what would be a reliable source then, since your definition seems to be outside the boundaries of what is defined in WP:MEDRS? Thank you in advance for discussing this matter. --Signimu (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Also please note that half of my changes were about reflecting what the sources, already in the WP entry[1], says, which is in contradiction to what is written in the entry. Could you please clarify why you would like to maintain a bogus description of the sources? --Signimu (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an early-stage research project (30 subjects, 6 months), far from a WP:MEDASSESS "filtered" review. It is unusable as an encyclopedic source. --Zefr (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Quite. And I'm not sure why we're citing the "Harvard health Letter" either. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say this topic is more in the lay public eye than it is a focus of well-designed clinical research. I added the Harvard source as a trusted lay source, which was secondary and balanced based on interviews with Harvard faculty members. Not committed that it stays. --Zefr (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay so long as it's not used for any novel biomedical claims. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Zefr: and @Alexbrn:, thank you for your replies. I have to disagree:

1. yes, the sample size is small, but with now several randomized controlled studies with similar sample sizes all converging to similar findings and conclusions, it's safe to say the scientific evidence is currently in favor of a beneficial effect (here are the additional references I planned to add, I'm still reviewing them: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] -- not to mention the older references I already added). I am not asking for you to review them -- I'll do it -- but please give me some time to develop. I will start with a meta-analysis if that is more comfortable to you guys.

2. Although I agree that "small" sample size should be accounted for, I can't find where in WP:MEDRS there is a statement about what threshold should be considered too low to be accepted as a reliable source here. I agree we should use our critical thinking, but when so many controlled studies and meta-analyses are pointing in the same direction, the scientific method suggest that this is the one that is the most plausible. Writing otherwise without at least as much scientific evidence can only seem like a personal commentary.

3. The issue with the Harvard source is not so much the source (we can link to the original paper, but I think also that the Harvard article summarizes nicely and adds additional infos such as limitations and recommendations), but the issue is that it is misused in the entry. For example:

* «As of 2019, there is little high-quality clinical evidence that intermittent fasting provides any benefit for weight loss, and is described as a fad.» --> sources are one opinion paper of 2013 (outdated) and the Harvard article which says otherwise (weight loss is significant and similar to calorie restriction).

* «As of 2019, there is only limited evidence of long-term effectiveness of these fasting methods, preventing conclusions about their relative efficacy for obese people or normal-weight people trying to lose some weight.» --> backed by 2 sources I added that say otherwise + Harvard paper that also says otherwise (for positive effects see the previous point, for negative effects it only says basically that more research is needed and that the drop-out rate for obese individuals is quite high). Plus now there is a whole body of new randomized controlled studies that support the improvement of weight and biomarkers (as previous clinical cases have observed).

So I propose that I review the sources above and start off from at least one meta-analysis, and that the two sentences outlined above are rewritten/moved to adequately reflect what the sources say (as I have done in half of my edits today). Please let me know what you think of this suggestion. --Signimu (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW: I can't understand how the 2013 opinion paper [12] could have been accepted as a reliable and quality source, nonetheless in the intro (and solely there BTW), when randomized controlled trials are not? Could you guys explain? Maybe it slipped through? --Signimu (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit looked like really poor POV-pushing to me (e.g. in editorializing to try and downplay the faddish nature of IF). The Harvard Health Letter is not a strong source, so unsuitable for biomedical claims but okay for cultural stuff (like PMC 3652955). Your new source, PMID 31471173, is a weak primary source and so falls afoul of WP:MEDRS. What we have is neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Signimu: an encyclopedia is not a journal article or textbook where all possible sources might be used to support content, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That is illustrated by the left pyramid in WP:MEDASSESS where the top kinds of sources are needed (non-existent for this topic). Your sources are primary research and are unencyclopedic. You should pose here on the talk page any potential changes to be reviewed by other editors to reach consensus, WP:CON. --Zefr (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr: @Alexbrn: 1. neither of you answer why this entry is writing something contradicting the very source it uses (such as the Harvard source -- I remind you that I am not the one adding it) or why a 2013 opinion paper has any validity to be used as a source on WP MED, so please don't accuse others of POV-pushing when you don't even provide a reply and behavior coherent with WP:MEDRS recommendations; 2. as I told you guys, I am in the middle of reviewing the litterature, and it's very exciting :-D Here are some much stronger sources that I plan to use to update this entry: [13][14][15][16] -- bonus, a very interesting commentary on the mechanism, which I think lack from the article, and now that there are some investigations in humans, it would be worth creating a section about it: [17] (this is not the only one I have too :-) ).

So guys, are we going to continue playing cats and mouse or can we agree to further build knowledge by updating this entry? --Signimu (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the RCT studies I have linked above are indeed not yet included in any meta-review (this is highly likely to change soon given the coverage it had). However, I think it would be interesting to mention 2/3 RCT studies, such as this one and 2 others I have found, that all assess the effects of intermittent fasting in a longer term (6 months to 1 year), which is lacking from currently available meta-reviews. Something like «Long-term effects are currently unknown but a few randomized controlled studies on 6 months to 1 year suggest ADF might have sustained positive effects.», what do you think? --Signimu (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding editing here as a "game of cat and mouse" is not helpful. Adding weak primary sources to the article is not helpful either, and neither are personal attacks. Good edits are always welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: May I remind you that you were the one accusing me of POV-pushing (and by the way not assuming good faith as is good usage on WP) when I did nothing of the sort? Your behavior is what I qualified as a "game of cats and mouse", as you clearly did not assume good faith in my contributions. And I am not assuming anything here, you said so yourself above. Also could you please clarify how you can view as "weak primary source" the meta-analyses and systematic reviews, including one solely on randomized clinical trials, that I linked above? Finally, could you please answer why a 2013 opinion paper is in the introduction, and why the Harvard paper has been used as a source for contradictory claims? Thank you. --Signimu (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:INDENT properly as a courtesy to readers here. Your good faith is not an issue; your POV-pushing is, as is your reference to "an anti-fasting editor out there". The source you actually added to the article, PMID 31471173, is unreliable. WP:MEDRS sources are required for WP:Biomedical information; for lesser matters, such as whether this is faddish or not, lesser sources like opinion pieces are good. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)