Talk:Nutrisystem

Untitled

Please add to this page, as this is just a stub article. Thefinalprophecy 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm not sure I trust the neutrality of this article. It reads a bit like a company written history piece, & as someone else ask down below, where the critics point of view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I aggree that some work needs to be done here. It does sort of read like an advertisement piece. There is a whole section on the cost which was clearly chosen as a metric which was defined to make them look good. If you count the registragion fees of weightwatchers as the "first week" but are allowed to distrubte the food costs of nutrisystem (despite the fact they have a 2 month contract) then it makes them look good for a "first week cost". Also, they clearly counted the food cost without counting the groceries you have to supliment the delivered food with. While cost is an important detail, citing numbers like this doesn't seem very NPOV. Cavebear42 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for Speedy Delete

I was searching for information about the Nutrisystems Diet program and found no information here on Wikipedia. It is a very popular diet with lots of customers. I added the basic information that I new on this website. I don't understand why you are tagging it for deletion so quickly. It is a worth wile topic. I just don't know enough about it to create an entire article. I created a stub article and figured that someone else could add on if they knew more. It is reasons like this that I wonder how any articles are ever created on this site. It may be about a company, but Nike has an article. I just don't understand why you delete stuff so quickly. I wanted to learn about the subject, didn't find any information about it here, and then tried to create an article for people to add on to. Delete it if you want, but this is incredibly frustrating. Thefinalprophecy 10:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and yes the process can be a bit confusing. We actually don't aim to cover everything. Generally, what we ask is that things are covered in reliable secondary sources to establish their notability. Has this been covered in, for example, a magazine or newspaper? If so, I can certainly help you cite the source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll say that having Dan Marino speak for them at least probably makes that likely, so I'm going to withdraw the speedy and treat that as an assertion of notability. Some secondary sources still would be quite helpful though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found 128 sources on ProQuest. but most are just about the huge stock increase and fast growing sales. I added several which talk more about the product and the company. I have had some of it that someone ordered and many of the items were quite tasty. The real benefit according to some sources cited is re-educating people that the 2500 calorie portions now common in restaruants are inappropriate, and that they will not starve to death if they consume a dietician-selected portion. The sources also note that they eliminated the expensive weight loss centers and basically just ship the monthly box of food and have website or phone counseling. It is a huge company with a fast growing share of the "delivered diet food" market. Since none of the food requires refrigeration, it competes well with frozen diet food like Weight Watchers or Lean Cuisine. and the customer does not get the giant portions of unspecified carbs and fat that restaurants provide. Edison 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree that this deserves an article. It is a legetimate buisness which has been in nationwide operation for a while. Cavebear42 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Subject (not the Article)

So does this work or not? Or is this the sort where you have to eat this 'with an exercise program'? PolarisSLBM 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it... all the commericals say "results not typical" and "weight lost prior to nutrisystem", which kind of defeats the purpose. Seems like a scam to me. --128.61.41.45 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those sorts of claims are common with any similar system. We try to keep the discussions here to the article, not the subject. That being said, if you can find any sort of objective source which has clinically tested it and shown results, it would be great to be able to refernce it. Cavebear42 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism? Complaints?

Maybe there should be a section containing the serious number of complaints and criticism that the nutrisystem diet receives from various consumer rights sites such as consumeraffairs.com

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/nutrisystem_problems.html

http://www.infomercialscams.com/scams/nutrisystem

-Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.178.253 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I toyed with that one for a bit but couldn't seem to find a NPOV way to put it in. It sounds like legetimate data, especially if we can show their metric as compaired to similar companies. Please feel free to work that in if you know how. Cavebear42 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why plural?

The name of the company is "NutriSystem, Inc.", singular. Why is this Nutrisystems? I suggest moving the article to "NutriSystem, Inc.", with interior u.c. "S", and making the article about the company.--BillFlis (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The title of the page is incorrect. It should be "Nutrisystem". The previous person about is right and that it did used to have an interior capital "S", but I just checked the website and it seems the company has switched to an interior lower-case "s". Itsamystery2me 13 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Kate

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Company History?

I know someone who worked for this company in the 1990s. In ended badly. Something like the company declared bankruptcy on short notice, went out of business, the employees got screw over, the company came back, but the former employees remained screwed over. It's a touchy subject, and I don't want to delve into it with them, because I don't want to work them up. However, it would be good if some non-PR company history was included here. From what I have heard, it certainly seems notable.--Bark (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here to say this as well. It seems like a few big edits in 2011 or so stripped of a lot of the company history sections (mergers and stuff) along with insignificant information. Nutrisystem is still a notable business. I live on the other side of the country and remember ads and stuff for it. I can't see why the whole article was scrubbed just because someone wants the future to know that it clinically isn't effective for weight loss. It is also just a food company from the "direct to consumer" era in the 80's and 90's. Jawz101 (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

...It's like revisionist history has happened. The 80's kid in me remembers cheesy ads with sports celebrities. That's America baby.

Either delete the whole page or include the history. I don't associate Nutrisystem with actually losing weight. I do vividly recall cheesy commercials of football players holding up huge pairs of pants. That showmanship is classic. Either delete this article or give me Dan Marino back. Jawz101 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

...nobody came here to read a doctor's note Jawz101 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nutrisystem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jvFvx_CyQ5UJ:www.law360.com/articles/553644/nutrisystem-accused-of-stealing-rival-s-diet-mobile-app+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20150522013910/http://www.law360.com/articles/553644/nutrisystem-accused-of-stealing-rival-s-diet-mobile-app on http://www.law360.com/articles/553644/nutrisystem-accused-of-stealing-rival-s-diet-mobile-app

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding efficacy

The two studies cited do not conclude what the language in the article suggest. An attempt to reflect the true conclusions of the citations was reverted on a neutrality argument. In fact, the current language is neither neutral nor accurate. Fitnessmd (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. We don't say things like "More research is needed" either per MOS:MED. Do you have a WP:COI? Alexbrn (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Which looks fine? The edits I made or the original language? If the latter, I'm not sure how you can say that when it does not accurately reflect the cited work. I concede the "more research" point, but that is in fact what the study says. Fitnessmd (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The original wording is fine. WebMD is not really WP:MEDRS so shouldn't be stretched to cover medical claims. On pricing it's okay though. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a "Wikipedia" scholar, but I have to say that I feel the language in the sentence "Reviews of the Nutrisystem program criticize the company’s approach as being not conducive to long-term weight control and expensive.[2]" is misleading because I read the referenced article, and nowhere in the article does it mention "long-term weight control" nor does the article characterize Nutrisystem as "expensive"; but rather, that it's not for those on a "tight food budget" - the word "expensive" is relative. and what might be expensive for someone else, may not seem expensive to me. https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/nutrisystem-diet - Tony from Yorkshire, NY 98.4.16.15 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there's an ongoing issue with any attempted addition to the article that isn't critical. My last edit was reverted in less than a minute, and it seemed as innocuous and non-controversial as could be. I don't see the same effort to discredit other diet plans on the Wikipecia, either, so I'm a little baffled. I'm wondering if I could get some feedback and some effort to achieve consensus rather than the constant and near-instant reverts. Rray (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. Health claims need to be complaint with that guideline. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversions

LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 keeps reverting [1] to a less faithful summary of the source, in particular omitting the weak nature of the evidence. What gives? Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say the evidence for long term effectiveness is "not strong"? The source says there is no long term evidence. Your version implies there is some evidence (which is not strong), whereas the source says there is no evidencde. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to stop edit-warring and get a better understanding of the whole source. It doesn't say the long-term effectiveness evidence is not strong; there is no good evidence about long-term effectiveness at all. The "tentative" evidence is for the 3.8% figure, per the extensive discussion of limitation on the evidence base in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at this and can't say that the proposed rewording drastically misrepresents the source. On the other hand, the last sentence, the conclusion, is important: "We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions." Basically, we can't tell, if the hypothetical, promising/hopeful, small weight loss in short trials was an accurate trend, and if so, if it would have been offset by other factors in better studies. —PaleoNeonate – 19:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers, etc

Despite being told and apparently agreeing that the comparisons to Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers constitute synthesis, and how his language about the lack of any "good evidence" (when in fact there is no long term evidence, good or bad) is biased, User:Alexbrn continues to edit-war his version of this article in. I have explained in the foregoing threads why this amounts to synthesis and OR; the same conclusion was drawn by an uninvolved Third Opinion solicited at the Dispute resolution noticeboard.LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe Robert McClenon "told" me any such thing. He observed that the second sentence was a slight stretch, and I fixed it with a more precise wording. You have now removed that sentence entirely as part of a continuation of your previous edit-warring. Robert suggested an RfC or talk page discussion, not a resumption of edit warring, and certainly not a version of the text where we suppress things in the source. So I think the "tendentious editing" accusation here may be projection. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The "slight stretch" language Robert used was in reference to the second sentence, i.e. your comparison between Nutrisystem and Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig. Robert said: " They didn't compare [Jenny Criag and Weight Watchers] to Nutrisystem. They were very careful in what they did and didn't say, and we should be also." Your addition of the Jenny Craig/WW thing is blatant synthesis. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No but it did compare all of them to a baseline, and then stated the comparative results for the two best diets, as opposed to Nutrisystem, meant they had sufficient evidence to recommend, and we can mirror that finding. If you really insist we could have a direct quotation. As I mentioned before, this outcome was picked up by secondary news sources at the time. We can add that to expand on the point. Anyway, it seems clear you are not going to follow the recommended course of a RfC, but prefer edit warring. You have been warned about that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What you continue to fail to understand is that there is no evidence one way or another regarding Nutrisystem's long-term benefits, because there are no long-term studies. All that the systematic review said is that Nutrisystem "shows promise" but that conclusions about its long term effectiveness cannot be drawn. We have no idea whether Nutrisystem is the "best" or "worst" diet in the long term because there are no studies. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and medical stuff promoted without supporting evidence is: quackery. You need to remember the default assumption is that things don't work. Positive evidence is needed to disprove that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That assertion is 100% your OR. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a fundamental principle of evidence-based medicine. We need to translate EBM-speak into lay language for a lay encyclopedia. It's one of the requirements of competent editing on medical topics. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

More heat than light. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's great. You can go ahead and write an article or blog post about how Nutrisystem is quackery. But you cannot use this page as a forum for your OR. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) The point is when "there is no evidence one way or another" the default assumption in science/medicine is "untrue", unlike in lay-land. Otherwise the jury would be out on whether Russell's teapot exists right? Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Dude, enough with the OR. If you want to find negative reviews of Nutrisystem from RS (as you just did), that is fine. All I care about is policy. Your OR is not acceptable. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I just read two sources and the summary appears to correspond, there's even one direct quote from one of the conclusions. The title of the thread is also inappropriate on this talk page, see WP:FOC and WP:ASPERSIONS. —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

More edit warring

Being discussed at edit-warring noticeboard. Not really about improving the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Having reverted as above, LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 is seemingly now reverting all legitimate fresh additions to the article with erroneous edit summaries (e.g.[2]). How is it possible to improve the article if everything gets reverted? Since the DR seems to have been abortive, I have raised a query at WP:FT/N hoping for fresh eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I haven't reverted everything you added. The Mayo Clinic thing and the comment from the dietary expert you added have been retained, though I had to fix a bunch of typos. The problem with this latest quote is that it is not supported by a reliable source. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC) It is: The Gale Encyclopedia of Diets is right on point. But even if it wasn't, that is a point for discussion rather than a reason to go to 5RR. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC) How did you find this source? Do you have a hard copy of the encyclopedia? Which edition is it? LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Can you quote the full passage in which this quotation appears? It sounds as if you are taking it out of context, especially given your record. However if it is presented as you claim then sure, we can add it. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I think I'm going to ignore baiting. The source and quote is obviously good, and your removal for WP:V without apparently even consulting the source is obviously problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Okay I've found the source. It is reliable and the quote is in there, and can be presented in the article. However, as I expected, you have taken it out of context and added OR about "reports" (as if to make it seem that the Nutrisystem guy was put on the spot and had to respond). I have tried to rectify the problems while maintaining the quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 has now gone to 6RR with another revert. This edit[3] is problematic as while the Gale Encyclopedia is reliable for non-biomedical claims, it is not reliable to report on biomedical outcomes like weight loss. Alexbrn (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Omg dude what do you have against this stupid company? Just chill. Or grind your axe in a productive way: by finding reliable sources and putting them in the article, not engaging in outrageous OR and TE. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Also, if the encyclopedia is not reliable for describing how people lost weight on Nutrisystem, how can we use it to make your claim about how most of them regain weight when they leave Nutrisystem, which is what you want to do? Your bias is preposterously obvious. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1. This article is about Nutrisystem. It is not about diet firms in general. When reporting on an article discusssing several firms, only the part on this one is relevant. The effectiveness of other systems, even if discussed in the same article, belongs in articles about them. The question of the comparative value belongs in a more general article.

2. Gale encyclopedia of diet systems is not a MEDRS quality source for contentious issues. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Good edit

• I Approve of this edit [4] by User:Rray. I think they got it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)