Talk:Food combining

No citations, not NPOV?

Some citations would be really nice for this article. I'm trying to find out more information about food combining but it's hard to know fact from fiction in this article. For example: "Many of the assumptions used to justify food combining are not supported by biological and medical science, and there is currently little evidence supporting real-world success for these theories." Is there a source for this statement, or is it just someone biased against food combining making something up? Let's get some citations going. --JRavn 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

6/14: That was just a ridiculous statement, along with a couple of others. First of all, no assumptions are addressed and I'm not sure the person even realizes that they're pointing to people trying to justify the way they eat. Saying assumptions aren't supported by science is simply remedial. And then they try to say there's little evidence for success of what theories? What theories? Are the theories what they're implying will succeed? No, they're implying that the technic lacks success, so the sentence isn't even constructed correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.180.2 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

The crux of this entry is that food combining is primarily used as a weight loss tool, which is incorrect. Most people use food combining to battle indigestion, bloating, acid reflux, and other gastrointestinal disorders that society considers "normal" occurences. I have no doubt that this was penned by a member of the deeply indoctrinated medical profession, looking to counterprove something not learned in conventional medical school. 66.64.143.167 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Mark

... or maybe "indoctrinated" by titles like The Food Combining Diet: Lose Weight the Hay Way, or the dozens of other food combining weight-loss books being promoted and sold. Wikipedia generally functions on verifiability: do you have a reliable source supporting your statement that "most people" use food combining for GI discomfort, rather than weight loss? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Yes. These articles should be combined. Timneu22 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, although is Food combining a concept that goes beyond Hay, does food combining happen in other countries that were not directly influenced by Hay? I don't know, but you should be aware of a potential WP:CSB issue. Perhaps Hay should be subsumed into this article rather than vice versa? FlagSteward 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now taken some time to beef up the Hay Diet article. I might be able to stand on its own. Perhaps the Hay Diet and the William Howard Hay article can be merged. But now that I have done some preliminary research, I do think that the Hay Diet article should be kept distinct from the food combining article. Food combining may have been an invention of Hay, but others have taken it much further since Hay. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Food combining is also is the main idea behind the book Fit for life, by Harvey Diamond and Marilyn Diamond. This book goes into more detail behind the specifics of food combining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.188.188.219 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they each deserve their own article. Badagnani (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Addition

As already discussed, there are indeed other nutritonist's who are proponents of food combining for various reasons. Because many different people advocate food combining for different reasons, and on different levels of strictness, I think that it has developed into a very diversified subject on it's own, distinct from whoever may have originated it, and should thus remain its own article.

I have just added an additional paragraph that goes into a bit more detail about the idea behind food combining. I added this information because I think that the information that was already there, while a great start, was brief and only explained part of the idea. I also think that the bit about what is believed to be the ill effects of miscombining food is important because of what the user above points out: that people subscribe to this food combining idea to deal with digestive (detox) issues as much as they do for weight loss. The book that I include in the references is where I learned about food combining from. I do not quote this book at all and so therefore do not include any parenthetical documentation. I am new to editing, so I am not sure if what I have done is a violation of any kind even though I do no quote directly? The book is not in the public domain.

Mrebe (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A Tad Biased

This article cites no sources and has a decidedly biased tone against food combining. It's not a method for weight loss, but more a method for efficient digestion and ease of the ailments commonly associated with indigestion.

In all fairness, much of the literature about food combining is heavily biased for it.... if you're trying to learn about it, it's best to read from as many sources as possible and draw your own conclusions. After alot of reading and putting some things into practice, it's a pretty logical process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuMajere (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said and I agree. I removed the failed weight loss study because I too think it is biased AGAINST Food Combining. I try to think from the perspective of the readers, because if I came to wikipedia to learn about Food Combining, and only saw "failed weight loss study" and no actual encyclopedic information, I would be disappointed at lack of useful knowledge. The weight loss part is iffy because irrelevancy, but a FAILED weight loss study? Seriously? Weight loss studies in general shouldn't be used for encyclopedias because each person loses weight differently because lifestyles vary too much (people have very varied diet and exercise routines). Hopefully no one tries to add it back in or add more biasism. Qwesar (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the WP:MEDRS compliant study. Yes, it is information that casts a negative light on the "food combining" idea. That is not bias. Bias would involve prejudice: A judge evaluates evidence and finds Joe Blow guilty of robbing a bank. That is not bias. A judge decides Blow is guilty because he is black or was arrested or is a Red Sox fan or broke his niece's heart. Any one of those would show bias.

This article covers a fringe idea on biomedical topic.

Fringe: It discusses a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field. There are, of course, books and websites that discuss various diets. Each one is the only diet that is natural f.or humans. Following whichever diet is being promoted will prevent and/or cure virtually every illness and infirmity that humans are subject to. The vast majority of this coverage is simply wrong (if 3 or more theories directly contradict each other, at least 2 (a majority) are wrong). For fringe theories, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about the subject. If reliable sources from relevant academic sources say it's bunk, we say it's bunk. If such sources say it hasn't been tested, we say it hasn't been tested. If such sources do not discuss a particular aspect of the topic, we do not discuss that aspect of the topic. And so on.

Biomedical: Subjects making claims about diets must adhere to WP:MEDRS. Such articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Basis in nutrition

It has been shown that eating certain foods together reduces their absorbtion. The two that immediately come to mind are iron and calcium. I feel this article should reflect this knowledge as it provides a good basis for empirical evidence of successful food combining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.240.98 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To include this, you would need a reliable source stating this provides a "good basis of empirical evidence". You are unlikely to find such a source, though, as you are comparing apples (micro nutrients) and orangutans ("types" of foods). - SummerPhD (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am working on expanding Food Combining

initial comment withdrawn by original editor

Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is an encyclopedia. Will add information from the standard Food Combining chart. I'll foster the page in the right direction, it won't be based of me, I'll find respected nutritional scientists that talk about Food Combining. Some key concepts that really describe food combining: -Digestive speed of foods and also digestion consequences of poor food combining -Chemicals in food -Mono-meals or not combining any foods (Mono-meals also needs a wiki page) -Would also love to talk about how wild humans would only find one food at a time and consume that one food. Wild animals still eat like this. Qwesar (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Sigh. Qwesar's original comment can be found here. --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC) As it says on every edit page (article, talk, whatever): "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." You have essentially transferred your rights away, and you can not get them back. If you cannot deal with this, you should not edit on WP. As it is, they did not seem to be helpful towards improving this article, so I don't think anyone wants to see them back. Choor monster (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I've restored it as the rest of the discussion hinges on the first post. Qwesar can strike out the text if so desired. --NeilN talk to me 19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) So in order to expand the content, you... delete content? --NeilN talk to me 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC) A failed weight loss study is NOT encyclopedic information. Qwesar (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) That is the only WP:MEDRS compliant source I was able to find on this topic. Yes, it demonstrates (weakly, as it is only one study) that food combining is not effective for weight loss. That is absolutely encyclopedic. This article needs more such sources. If such sources cannot be found, this subject is not notable and this article should be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) On the contrary, scientific studies that show there is no scientific validity to the article topic's claims is encyclopedic information. What, did you think Wikipedia articles contain only uncritical content on fringe health theories? --NeilN talk to me 03:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the page should be deleted too. I'd rather see no information than disappointing information and an outdated Food Combining chart for the picture doesn't help either. Qwesar (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand. We do not delete articles based on not liking them. If, however, the topic is not notable, it might be considered for deletion.

I have not yet done much searching, as I am on a pseudo-sabbatical and do not have easy access to my usual library. I've looked a bit on Google and have been able to find reliable sources from the 1930s saying that the theory is absurd, based on basic misunderstandings of how digestion works. Anything more recent that I've found is actually about the Hay Diet (a specific food combining diet). As this topic also runs into Fit for life, I'm at a bit of loss as to what should happen here. Anyone have any sources we can use here? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a MEDRS, but perhaps a RS for historical info. [1]: "Food combining, as this theory is called, has been around a long time--at least 100 years. It was popularized in 1985 when Harvey and Marilyn Diamond published their blockbuster bestseller, Fit for Life (Warner Books). The book still sells well, now in its 21st printing." "This theory originated at a time when digestive processes were not fully understood. Now we know these enzymes work perfectly well together. When food is eaten, the digestive tract breaks it down into its individual components, which include amino acids and glucose." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add your own commentary to image captions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This artilcle is misleading and a new quick version should be added until the person working on a more in depth article is done. I am at a complete loss here...this is such big red flag finding this page in its current shape. Wow, humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.153.27 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fringe can be notable

I noticed a comment above that since only one MEDRS could be found, perhaps this topic is not notable and should be deleted, or at least merged. On the contrary, fringe medicine can be notable as fringe. I expect many readers, not just myself, look up these kinds of things on WP when they hear about them from somewhere and are interested in seeing what MEDRS has to say on the topic, however meager. Please, don't even think of deleting! Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying fringe? Food Combining is NOT extreme. What is extreme is processed foods which have 50 combined ingredients most of which are unhealthy. Eating one fruit or vegetable at a time is not extreme or "fringe" it is healthy, natural and a requirement to live. I think it is really hilarious how you guys think you should be in control of this page when you don't even understand what it is or even simple concepts about nutrition. Qwesar (talk)

Per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Qwesar: I know of no one who claims that eating processed foods is healthy, natural and a requirement to live, so you're tilting at windmills there. Choor monster (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I may have worded that funny and you misinterpreted Choor monster. I said fruits and vegetables are a requirement to live. Qwesar (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a nutritional scientist and I support some of it :) Qwesar (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Great. Get your findings published in a WP:MEDRS. The article will still be here (perhaps) when you do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fringe theories can be notable. We have articles on ancient astronauts, fruitarianism, hollow Earth theories, Holocaust denialism and lots of others. That said, there is no guarantee that it is notable. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." One article in a reliable source is not significant coverage. We need more sources. Without such sources, anything else we do with the article is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That was my point. We need RS, not necessarily MEDRS, in order to have some article. There is no guarantee that article will be this one. For example, Fletcherism is a redirect to Horace Fletcher. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Image

The present image doesn't not seem to have any sourcing behind it. As it is making claims about how food combining works, it should be derived from a reliable source or removed. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at that image too, and I agree that it should be removed. It was copied from Rah Sandara's Picasa page [2]. There are various online accounts for someone of the same name, all with the same interest in food/nutrition, so almost certainly the same person. None of those pages give any indicate that she is a reliable source. In fact, one of the pages says that she is self-educated wrt her nutrition interests. Sorry, what she actually said herewas that she studied natural hygiene by herself. I don't know that that means she is self educated or not. A self-educated food blogger is not a reliable source.

There's no guarantee that she had the right to post this image for public use, so there is a potential copyright issue also. In fact, since some of the other images on the page are clearly copyright violations (nsapshots of the content of books such as [3] for example) barring proof otherwise, we should assume that this picture is also a copyright violation. Meters (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it per the potential copyvio and sourcing issues. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Meters (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't you replace the chart instead of deleting it? The food combine article is so sad it makes me depressed :( Sometimes I curse reliable sources, copyrights and even I am afraid to help because I don't want to be accused of plagiarising my research from things I contributed to this page that would be extremely messed up. Qwesar (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We can certainly replace the chart if the new chart was derived from information published in a book or suchlike. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Qwesar, the problem is that we don't know what the original source of the chart was. If someone has access to a reliable source that can provide the information then they are welcome to recreate a similar chart. Meters (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qwesar: What is the source of the information in the chart you made? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I followed 3 different charts that had somewhat good information and I made it better because I noticed on all the other charts the creators didn't know the difference what a fruit is and what a vegetable is so I had to fix that, because I am a perfectionist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 02:04, January 8, 2015‎

Since you have not told us the original sources we have no way of verifying the information. It fails WP:VERIFY. It also sounds like a mixture of plagiarism and original research. Please read WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:OR. I'm removing the figure. Meters (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Meters: Not plagiarism. I reworded and summarized from not 1, not 2, but 3 charts. Not original research. The only thing I didn't do is cite them. How do I do that? Qwesar (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Combining the information from 3 sources without crediting them is indeed plagiarism. As the scientist you state you are [here I would think that you would recognize that. As the student concerned about plagiarism that you state you are here I would also think you would recognize that. Meters (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qwesar: Just tell us where we can find the charts and we can advise you. Perhaps not plagiarism if it's your own words and concepts but then we run into original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page he's now saying it is nothing but OR. Meters (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know can't you guys just use my chart. No copyright worries I promise. It is also up to date. Sakes I even made it printer friendly. I'm confused because wiki wizard uploader said original work is OK. Qwesar (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself gave me this whole sob story on a help page that it struggles to find images because everything is copyrighted and asks for ORIGINAL WORK, which is you want copyrighted or original work? take your pick :) Qwesar (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't use your chart. The original work referred to by the image uploader is original images, such as a picture you took of a building. ThisYou chart is original research and is not acceptable because you are not a reliable source of information. And frankly, I don't know what to believe from you now, so I still have concerns that the information on the chart is not your work but is copied without acknowledging the source. Meters (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Original illustrations based on reliable sources which may be copyrighted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Meters: I don't consider my chart "research". Food Combining charts all follow the same idea. I wouldn't copy anyone either, I know the difference between a fruit and vegetable which sadly is a major flaw in other charts :( Qwesar (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the material does not cite a reliable source. Without such a source, the material will not be accepted here. "Original research" (explained at WP:OR is a closely related problem.

Basically, before knocking yourself out trying to create a new chart, I'd suggest discussing the source you are using here first. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be very confusing, especially when your new to Wikipedia. Yes, be bold when editing, especially with small stuff. If someone reverts you, discuss it. If you're about to make a large change (or invest a lot of time), discussing it first is probably a good idea, just to save yourself the grief. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SummerPhD:. The guidelines are overwhelming. There feels like a 100 and I don't have time to read them right now. What about this chart it comes from the book Eating Alive: Prevention Thru Good Digestion Paperback – January 1, 1991 by Jonn Matsen (Author), Nelson Dewey (Author) Someone told me books are OK. Qwesar (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The book seems to be a reliable source for detailing what food combining proponents claim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Books may or may not be reliable sources. They cover a wide field, ranging from texts from widely respected academic publishers to vanity press. In the current case, I have no idea who "Crompton Books" is/was and can find nothing about them. The larger problem remains: We are dealing with a fringe topic that lacks coverage in mainstream sources. I can get a book published that says pretty much anything. That books exist saying the Moon landing was a hoax, George Bush and the British royals are human-alien hybrids, etc. does not allow us to report those claims. If no reliable sources discuss the fringe claims, the material does not belong in Wikipedia. Otherwise we are forced to report that the queen's ancestry includes lizard people from the Draco star system. "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative." What we have so far is that food combining is sometimes used to lose weight, but it doesn't seem to work. If proponents argue that the diet prevents/cures various conditions and illnesses, we need coverage from mainstream sources discussing those claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hay diet & adding content

What happen to the Hay diet sentence on the page? Qwesar (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you click the "History" tab on any page, it will bring up links to all of the past edits. MastCell removed that one, apparently adding removal of unsourced material to his copy edits. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Quackery statement

Until a more neutral tone can be used, the statement about food combining being quackery has been hidden, as it is not neutral or encyclopedic. Readers to know the reasons it is quackery without saying quackery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)