Talk:Lectin-free diet

Dietary Lectin exclusion could be a better as it covers this topic in a broader sense, appears to be more accurate, and is more WP:NPOV.

Even Gundry's page says "Now, not all lectins are toxic. But many are". I don't see any cititations that supports a "Lectin-free" claim anywhere. As well the page says "there are several foods you might want to ditch (or at least consume in moderation) if you discover you’re indeed sensitive to lectins." ^[1] There is one citation that calls it "lectin free" from an author Toby Amidor, who is a dietitian, but they don't have any citations to support their claim of a "lectin free" moniker.

Also, his published abstract calls it a "lectin limited diet".^[2] Tonytopper (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if you are trolling or just that misinformed. 5 reliable secondary sources on the article use the term "lectin-free", it's even in two titles of those references. We don't cite primary sources so we wouldn't cite that abstract nor would we cite Gundry's website but Gundry uses the term "lectin-free diet" many times, he built his diet around that terminology. It's all over his website, on his own food list [1], on his articles including his "about" page [2], on his adverts "Subscribe for Dr. G’s health tips and lectin-free cooking demos" (!) and on his podcast [3]. Lectin-free is used about 2000 times on Gundry's website. Its' even used in the sub-title of his book "The Plant Paradox Quick and Easy: The 30-Day Plan to Lose Weight, Feel Great, and Live Lectin-Free" [4]. So much for never using the term "lectin-free". Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Above you cited Gundry's website [5], here is some text from that page "Thankfully, there are ways to help your body protect itself from lectins. For instance, there’s Lectin Shield, developed by Dr. Steven Gundry, author of “The Plant Paradox” and leading expert in the lectin-free lifestyle." Even the sources you are citing disagree with you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please be polite. Those are fair points.

"Lectin-free" does seem more like a brand and less like a literal representation of what the diet expresses. There is confusion amongst dietitions, critics, and myself apparently regarding this. So it's less about being "misinformed", which isn't a polite way to say it here, and more about clarity being evoked around this trend.

I came here skeptically looking for details on the science behind the claims made in The Longevity Paradox, and regardless of my inadequate explaination up to this point, find that the article still and doesn't seem to reflect the more current claims accruately or with a genuine WP:NPOV.

As an aside, I beleive you can site primary sources when sourcing what something claims. Tonytopper (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Steven Gundry has been promoting the lectin-free diet for years, well before his interest in the gut microbiome. I understand his book The Longevity Paradox is about the gut microbiome but this article is not about Gundry's books so your comments about that are off-topic here, we don't need to mention it on the article. There is a negative review of The Longevity Paradox here [6]. That's the only journal that reviewed the book. It's not necessary for this article but might be suitable for Gundry's article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Steven Gundry has been promoting the lectin-free diet for years, well before his interest in the gut microbiome." Source? I don't think that is completely accurate. I learned about Gundry from Doctor Perlmutter in Perlmutter's book Brainmaker in 2015, if I'm not mistaken. So it seems his interest in the gut microbiome predates The Plant Paradox. Tonytopper (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. Seems pretty fair and a good source. Though it does throw too much of the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Which was my argument with you over on Gundry's page about "some of". And I find that common when consumming knowledge on nutrition. And that's where Wikipedia should help. Suse out the good insights from the junk because too much nutritional content gives you a mix. Editors need to be mindful of that if they want WP:NPOV

As an aside, the negative review still reflects WP:FRINGE/QS not psuedoscience to me. Tonytopper (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Once, again you would likely need to raise that at WP:FT/N if you want to change consensus. Bon courage (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but from what I am reading I think the correct action per policy seems to be to file a RfC first. Looking for an example on that. We don't have consensus as there aren't too many editors weighing in. Again, thanks, sorry for being a bit of a pain but I am still figuring the the greater details around how WP buckets and handles these types of things. However, I also don't want to get pushed over by people with anchored notions on the subject, and I still know this page is disengenious and has WP:BLPBALANCE issues and missing information issues. Tonytopper (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This needs flagged ASAP. It's missing foundational information to the claims of this topic Tonytopper (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You appear you be a Steven Gundry fringe pusher, I have raised this issue at WP:FTN. Your editing is problematic because you are adding original research and unsourced content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not true, sorry. Not trying to push. Just trying to do my own research and I find these articles to not be NPOV. Just trying clarify things for future readers. Please recind or I will counter-claim. Tonytopper (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, still learning. Please be welcoming. Definitely not trying to add original content, just trying to add things that were omitted in a seemingly egregious way. Tonytopper (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you labeling me as a "pusher" because of such moderate edits one has to wonder how polite that is being. Again, follow the Wikipedia rules be polite and welcoming. I welcome a review of these sections because the NPOV is not being followed and you are clearing pushing cherry-picked view with your own edits. Again, recind or I will escalate as well. Tonytopper (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a place to do your own personal research. I see over on Steven Gundry's talk-page you have accused editors of activist editing just because criticisms of the lectin-free diet have been cited on the article. I don't think you will last long on this website if you continue down this route. The lectin-free diet is widely considered quackery and we have many reliable references that show that. No dietitian takes it seriously. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not trying to promote this diet. Just trying to make sure it is accurately represented. Removing my addition of mentions to gut microbiota is incorrect from a representation of this diet standpoint. You are promoting incompleteness. Tonytopper (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You added the claim that a lectin-free diet will improve gut microbiota. This claim is unsourced and that would be original research see WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those statements from him are available in the existing sources IINM. It's a claim he is clearly making and clearly central to his entire set of claims, if you actually have any understanding of his claims, yet it's missing from this article. If you really wanted to improve this page you'd help me get those claims included or at least help me flag this page as missing information, instead of edit warring with me, but you seem to be the source of the soapbox that is clearly present in these articles. Am I wrong? Tonytopper (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are promoting misinformation unfortunately. The existing sources on the article do not mention improvements of gut microbiota from a lectin-free diet so you are breaking policy by adding original research. You have not cited any references either. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, we cannot add claims that are not supported by sourcing. If you have a reliable source then add it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not promoting misinformation. Please refrain from miscategorizing my edits. Gundry clearly makes these claims and they are aviable all over the place. Anyone who has actually studied the topic knows it is core to these claims and it's directly related to this diet and it's an egregious ommission that it wasn't included in the original publication of this page. Tonytopper (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter what Gundry has claimed in person or has said on his website, it matters what reliable sources say, i.e. reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). You clearly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. We don't rely on primary sources. You haven't cited any reliable secondary sources so all your edits will be reverted, they are against policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Trying not to misunderstand. It's clearly in at least two of his books and clearly a main part of his and many other's claims on this diet. And it's also in the minds of many many scientists researching this topic, not just Gundry. I understand you propped up the article and are trying to defend but it's clearly misrepresenting the topic and not WP:NPOV. And the sources he aren't great. They aren't medical journals for the most part and are largely superficial analysis done by journalists.

If you're comment was something like hey, we need a source for that even if it's something we obviously missed, then I'd take a different tacted. But you seem to be clearly misrepresenting what science is actually saying on this topic and what Gundry, and other's are saying by omission. And you seem to have some weird bone to pick with Gundry.

But I'd suggest we do a little bit of a reset on this and try to get this back to someplace contructive that will make the article more accurate and complete. Tonytopper (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes Psychologist Guy is correct, this article must be based on secondary sources. We are interested in what such sources (which should also reliable and WP:FRIND) have to say. The recent WP:SBM source is ideal for this (see below). Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added a secondary source linking this diet trend with gut microbiota which you removed. Certainly you can see how I am getting really frustrated with the way my edits are just being stonewalled in a way that shows clear lack of [WP:NPOV]] Both other editors involved here have clearly stated existing preferenced beliefs on this topic and there seems to be stonewalling occuring on expanding the article to included any legitimate changes to the contrary.

Maybe I'm wrong with that analysis and perhaps there are several elements of confusion here. But I can tell I am being fought on this because the edits are personally not what the editors have believed up to this point. Tonytopper (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're wrong in assuming that. Wikipedia comes under frequent attack from WP:SPA editors pushing a fad diet and experienced editors resist it by properly applying the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I imagine that is true, and I understand the skepticism. However, this lectin-free diet article here is still inaccurate. I hope that you really do just want a good page here. Your previous comment though, "Bottom line: this diet is a scam." makes your motives dubious and your openness to allowing edits to the contrary suspect.

Hopefully, I will be able to add citations in the future that will not carry this level of confrontation. I actually came here as a partial skeptic of this diet and noticed it's actually so inaccurately portraying it as to be egregious. This is what motivated me to make the edits.

Anyone that's reads The Longevity Paradox, even as a skeptic, won't trust the information here as it gets what he actually writes and says so completely wrong and excludes such key components as to be suspicious to have motivation besides just purely creating accurate knowledge. Tonytopper (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Bottom line: this diet is a scam" was a summary of the source being discussed. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link to WP:FINGE. Very relavent and not being applied here correctly IMO, specially where this trend fits. A WaPo article does call this psuedoscience but I dispute this trend fits there reasonably. This initial framing arguably has been put here by vegetarian activists as the The Plant Paradox was not well received amougnst vegetarian/vegan community.

WP:FRINGE/QS seems more appropriate as "a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists" across nutrition science in general, especially things that relate to gut microbiota. Tonytopper (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is no debate, this is a scam per the sources. But if in doubt raise a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks I may. Something seems to have you missing or ignoring the sources I tried adding that show that there is profound academic interest in the topic of dietary lectins. You seem more interested in shutting me down then helping me go about this correctly, or helping someone who hasn't done a lot of WP editing.

Your motives are justifiably questionable based on your whole approach here, but maybe that's just the way you operate. I mean that sincerely, not trying to be impolite. I will certainly take all I've learned here onto any future editing I do for WP; I've learned a lot. Thank you.

With that said, I imagine there is room to find a way to incorporate the profound interest in dietary lections into the right places here on Wikipedia and make sure the right biographies, and trends, get credit for raising awareness on the topic. Tonytopper (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a profound academic interest in dietary lectins. And despite my inadequacies as a WP editor and in explaining the issues of this page, it remains that you've created a disengious, one-sided, article here. Tonytopper (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Interest in lectins would be dealt with a Lectin. There is next to no interest in this fad diet, which is the topic of this article. Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"There is next to no interest in this fad diet", how is that guaged? Tonytopper (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

volume[7] of reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is pretty narrow. Again the best scientific source related to this topic is one that I provided and it doesn't use those terms. Tonytopper (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Information is missing around the connection of lectin restriction to gut microbiota.

The scientist behind this diet clearly talks about gut microbioata being a part of this. Which you can see here: ^[1]

It's also largely present in his book The Longevity Paradox. Trying to figure out the best way to make sure this connection is added to the page.

I did find a more NPOV source that I am looking to incorporate. Author is NTDR and article is medically reviewed.

The article seems to be a way to incorporate my one of my complaints here as it states, "poor digestion from a disrupted microbiome"^[2]

--Tonytopper (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not reliable for anything biomedical, would need WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, there are sources already congruent with it that are already sourced. Aka, https://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/1017p10.shtml to name one. Makes it seem like there is picking or choosing based on what confirms or doesn't confirm preferred narratives. Tonytopper (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The page says "An 2019 article in the World Journal of Gastroenterology said that lectin-restricted dieting was set to become a "big food trend" but very little was known about whether dietary lectin had any effects – either positive or negative – on human health."

No where is the source can I find something that corelates to "very little was known about whether dietary lectin had any effects – either positive or negative – on human health".

I provided this source in an attempt to add the gut microbiota connection that is clearly missing from this article but it was summerized differently and moved.

--Tonytopper (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stuff like

their potential to cause harm in humans has received surprisingly little scientific attention

and

There is also evidence that some lectins may affect the gut microbiota as well as having systemic effects such as the modulation of inflammation and immune function[17,18]. It should be noted that these latter properties may not necessarily always be negative indicating that the therapeutic potential of some of these proteins might also be worth exploring.

(my emphases)

The gist of the article is that FRIN because physicians are likely to get people showing up who've bought into the fad. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, FRIN is correct. Linking out to Quackery is not FRIN. Tonytopper (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article previously accused of being low quality: "This article seems less focused on the diet itself and more interested in attacking the diets initial author. Most of the verbiage puts Wikipedia in a first person stance against the author of the diet rather than using a third person to cite others criticisms of the diet and author. I have no stakes in this so im not touching anything but this is a very poor article. "

The comment of this Talk page edit justifying removing this stated the author didn't suggest improvements.

So, I suggest the article be labeled as

Or potentially a

Or some Disputed or Dubious markup detailed at WP:DISPUTED

But I'd prefer to at least try improve the qaulity first in a way that is NPOV to participating editors.

--Tonytopper (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The is an excellent WP:SBM recent source:

• Hall H (25 October 2022). "The Plant Paradox: Steven Gundry's War on Lectins". Science-Based Medicine.

I have added it to the article and its content may be further used for improvement. Bottom line: this diet is a scam. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The current article is clearly straw-maning the claims Gundry makes and I am attempting to fix that. Your reversion of my edits removes the context about gut microbiota completely. And removes articles that are clearly relevant and well-sourced. This article continues to lack primary information on the claims made by this diet. Even though I attempt to add it, you remove it.

The reactions here have not been welcoming or polite. Tonytopper (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bon courage is edit warring and should stop. The Talk page here clearly lays out issues with this article that need to be improved. Good faith edits attempting to make improvements continue to be reverted even after taking feedback into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytopper (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your edits broke the page referencing and introduced off-topic content. This article is about a fad diet. General comments on dietary lectin belong at Lectin#Dietary lectin, but you'll need better sources than editorials from the last century! Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This information was not off-topic, and the issue I was fixing is clearly mentioned at the top of this page. And is clearly from respected publications and the information is pertinent regardless of age. Tonytopper (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Medical information needs to be up-to-date. The content you added about gut microbiata was not WP:Verifible from the source, which is a serious problem. Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The page has other WP:V issues; I tried to fix the incorrect 'lectin-free' claim and you reverted it. A relationship with the claims of the lectin restricted diet and gut microbiota was clearly verifiable in WJOG citation.

Also, some science doesn't change, so I think you need to make a better case than that. Tonytopper (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You made Wikipedia say:

Lectin-restriction diets claims [sic] that avoiding, or restricting, foods that contain lectins will improve the gut microbiota.^[3] And then can therefor [sic] prevent or reverse deseases [sic] associated with inflammation.

But the sources did not say these things.

Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article says, "There is also evidence that some lectins may affect the gut microbiota as well as having systemic effects such as the modulation of inflammation and immune function". Tonytopper (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it does. I read it. This is nothing like what you wrote, and makes no mention of a "lectin-free diet" or its "claims". The article also says lectins may be beneficial to "gut microbiota". Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article absolutely makes mentions of this trend, the title of the article is "Dietary Lectin exclusion". There is a clear connection between "gut microbiota" and "lection exclusion" that the lectin-free diet article has completely ignored, egregiously.

Combine that with the fact that this article and some of it's sources misidetify what the source claims actually are. And it also misidentifies biographical information about a living person. The Toby Amidor article is, in part, a strawman for instance. Tonytopper (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Making such connections and combinations is forbidden. See WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:Synth is helpful, thanks. My goal was make sure the article gives adequate representation to gut microbiota as a core tenent of the claims of this diet, which it still doesn't.

People who've studied the science around dietary lectins may write this page off as disingenuous. Please, don't let my inadequacies as an editor blind you from the fact that this article has a disingenous nature to it. It seems like anti-qauckery content as that's mostly what it seems to cover, and purposely leaves out the science around dietary lectins and gut microbiota which is important for WP:NPOV.

I propose a missing information banner get placed on this page, as I'm not a good enough editor yet. Tonytopper (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support this proposal with the fact there is clearly a first-party source that shows this connection here: ^[1] Tonytopper (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have mentioned this above but the lectin-free diet that was originally proposed was not making all those claims about gut microbiota. That only came when Gundry published his book The Longevity Paradox. This article is not specifically about Gundry or his books. We do not need to mention his book The Longevity Paradox on this article or views about gut microbiota. We just mention the diet here. All the critiques and reviews of the lectin-free diet from reliable sources do not mention gut microbiota or do not go into any detail about that. You seem to be wanting to insert a false balance with the gut microbiota being cited in the lead of the article. It's not supported by reliable references, so we wouldn't include it. Original research is not allowed, we do not try and make our own connections. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have cited this source quite a few times, it is not reliable [8]. Firstly it is a primary source as Gundry wrote it but more importantly it is scientifically worthless, doesn't offer any evidence. It's basically a poster presentation, you know that right? The abstract to the presentation contains a funny typo (The Pant Paradox Protocol). They didn't even bother to check the abstract properly. It's laughable and has no place on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not trying to win an argument here about the science. Because I don't have a POV agenda here. You get that, right? It's about making what the diet claims clear. I am not even suggesting the abstract gets used as a source. I am saying it shows that the page is missing information about what the diet actually claims and how it supports, or doesn't, those claims.

Judging from your edits you seem to have a biography related to vegetarians POV, which could be a conflict of interest here. Combine that with the fact this page is clearly promoting a POV in it's tone makes it clear someone needs to keep working here to get this article cleaned up. Tonytopper (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nope, the article is actually quite good because it is well sourced. You are the only user going on and on about it. This is clearly a non-issue and these discussions with you are not productive, you are wasting other editors time. It's unlikely any of your edits will make their way onto the article because you ignore scientific consensus and have no reliable sources for your claims. If you have reliable sources you may improve the article but you have chosen not to do this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not the only user. You deleted a previous users commentary without discussion, which I had to bring back. Tonytopper (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a clear connection in the abstract, so not original research. You just missed it because of an over focus on negative reactions. It blatantly clear that this article is overly focused on being anti-quackery, and painting the quackery view, and is not WP:NPOV. You are using your WP editing experience combined with your personal views to stonewall both edits and the discovery process that will enhance this page. Tonytopper (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The scientific consensus view is that "lectin free" diets are quackery, pseudoscience and nonsense, we have many references on the article that reflect that. All the dietitians and experts in the reliable sources have dismissed the diet. Nobody takes it seriously apart from Gundry and his followers. An abstract to a presentation using the words "Pant Paradox" is not a reliable source for anything. Stop wasting our time, you have not suggested a single reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course you have source, that's my point. And you keep working to keep those as the only sources. There is clear evidence that more work needs to be done on this page.

There is a vast array of sources and interest in dietary lectins and their relationship to the gut. I've already admited I currently lack the skill to make the edits but I have also provided several valid sources during previous edits. You are just ignoring them blantantly because you oppose discovery of content to the contrary of the POV you've established for this page. One source clearly sources dozens of reseach papers on the topic of gut microbiota and dietary lectins and is a valid scientific review but you clearly have an anchoring problem here that you just won't budge on. Tonytopper (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

"There is a vast array of sources and interest in dietary lectins and their relationship to the gut" - off-topic and not related to this article! This is lectin-free diet, not gut microbiota or lectin. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is crux then of our dispute perhaps.

I have shown what the primary advocate, Gundry, of the lectin-free diet states. And he clearly states a relationship to his diet and the microbiome, over and over again. Hence why my proposal is not to edit the article but flag it as missing information, which is how I started the whole other thread.

If I need to do more, what is the criteria for getting a missing information banner? It certainly needs to be less than providing second and third party sources. Tonytopper (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia deals in knowledge, not "information". Gundry's own fringe views are of no interest except as covered by reliable sources. Which say they're bogus. We report that. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The WJOE article is arguably the best source, which I provided to you. And shows clearly what a WP:NPOV should look like. Now compare that tone with the tone of this article. It should be obvious why I still have a gripe here.

I have clearly shown through first-party references that this article is missing key knowledge on what this diet actually claims.

I'd like to add a missing information banner to this page and I think it's validated. If not please, can you please explain to me the requirements of a missing information banner? Tonytopper (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's an irrelevant source because it doesn't mention lectin-free diets. It does however mention that lectin-restricted dieting was set to become a "big food trend", and this is already included in the article. Bon courage (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's the best scientific review on this topic. It is the most relevant source and the gold standard source. Tonytopper (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Insofar as it's relevant, it is already cited. Bon courage (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Above, there is discussion on the fact that "lectin-free" is branding and just an alias for lectin-restricted dieting. Tonytopper (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lightpinkpear (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply