Jump to content

Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

History

I intend to delete the section that reads: Roger MacDougall was diagnosed with MS in 1953 and later began to follow a paleolithic style diet. By 1975 he made a recovery from the symptoms and a neurologist pronounced his reflexes among other body functions to be normal after many years of not even being able to stand. [32] [33]

This lone anecdote contributes little if anything to the article, and the only working citation is the person's own writing on his experience. If someone thinks this one person's experience is relevant to the article, then they need to find an independent reference, not just the individual's own interpretation of their experience. Worm12ga (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Energy Density section

None of the articles cited to support the statement "There is substantial evidence that people consuming high energy-density diets are prone to overeating and they are at a greater risk of weight gain. Conversely, low caloric density diets tend to provide a greater satiety feeling at the same energy intake, and they have been shown effective at achieving weight loss in overweight individuals without explicit caloric restrictions." actually provide "substantial evidence," - the first and third article assess changing the composition of carbohydrates in the diet (without altering the fat or calorie content), with the first not actually measuring weight change (as it was only a 3-day study period) and the third study showing no statistically significant difference in weight at 1 yr between the group consuming more of their carbohydrate calories as fruits and vegetables and the group consuming less fruits and vegetables. The second article only deals with relative costs of different items in the diet and has nothing to do with the statement in the wikipedia article. Jeffhall318 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

sodium-potassium ratio

I want to dispute the notion that the paleo diet eliminates added salt. Loren Cordain seems to be the only paleo author who makes this claim. Perhaps it could be modified to "refined salt"? I sincerely doubt that many people actually following the paleo diet are drinking significant quantities of blood such that they have no need for added salt. It may be on average lower in sodium than SAD, and based around the use of unrefined salt rather than pure sodium chloride, but to say there is no added salt is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another.is.i (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Paleolithic Hunting Ability

This sentence"..and early humans' hunting abilities were relatively limited[dubious – discuss], compared to modern hunter-gatherers, as well..." needs a source. Also, it may imply something different than it actually states in context. Not having bows and arrows could be considered "more limited" than having bows and arrows technically, but it would seem to imply that they were much less effective hunters as well, which may not be the case. For instance, find a cliff, charge at buffalo while holding a stick with fire from direction opposite cliff, cause a stampede sending many buffalo to their death over said cliff, climb down and eat dead buffalo has been claimed to be a primary hunting method - and while not very complex, it could be quite effective. So all in all, this statement needs reevaluationg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.15.173 (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That was, in fact, the primary method of hunting employed by humans before they learned how to use bows and arrows. According to Jared Diamond in 'The Third Chimpanzee', it worked on elands, but it did not work on buffalos. As to having "limited hunting abilities", here's a direct quote from current reference 87 (Marlowe et al): "Even though game may have been more plentiful in the Pleistocene, without nets or the bow and arrow, iron points and poison, it is difficult to see how earlier hominins could have matched the hunting success of contemporary foragers. The bow was such a technological leap forward that it could have led to an increase in meat consumption and population growth rates, eventually reducing game populations in certain areas and hastening the adoption of agriculture."--Itinerant1 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
They could have run game to death. There are still some hunters in Australia capable of doing this, and they have been the subject of various papers, for example Liebenberg, L.W. (1990) The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science. Cape Town and David Philip. Liebenberg, L.W. (2006) Persistence hunting by modern hunter-gatherers. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 1017-1025. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
"it is difficult to see how" is an argument from ignorance. Just because he can't imagine it, does not mean it is false. Here is a good analogy. The gun at its introduction to warfare was far less lethal individuality. A trained bowman could out kill a trained gunner, but the ease of use of the gun made the less trained more effective. This could be the case with the addition of the bow to hunting. It butt have opened the gates to the less skilled with less training time allowing such time to be use elsewhere. Keeping game available stable, while providing a net benefit in other areas. In summary, i agree this statement needs changing or sourcing. As this issue was brought up a year ago, and no such source is provided i'll make the edit Narmical (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That's an incredibly specious claim (if it taken to mean "the hunting abilities of early humans" – which is so imprecisely worded as to be useless – "were too limited to allow them to consume high proportions of animal products as part of their diet"), and needs to be sourced (does Jared Diamond say or imply exactly this?). Hunting does not begin with the invention of the bow and arrow. How about darts, spears and spearthrowers? Effective long-distance projectile weapons long predate the bow and arrow (compare Spearthrower#History). Worse, the implicit assumption in the paragraph that tools are necessary for big game hunting is incorrect: persistence hunting is known from modern foragers, as mentioned above. Even more primitive seeming methods such as scavenging and confrontational scavenging are described elsewhere. There could be loads of hunting strategies that haven't been mentioned yet. Don't underestimate human ingenuity. There may be other crucial points that have been missed. The balance of hunting success, human and game population was certainly important – high effectivity can be counterproductive, and the invention of the bow may not have had that much effect on diet. Also, in the most recent glacial period, especially at the Last Glacial Maximum, the whole world was colder and more arid and had a considerably harsher climate, and polar or near-polar climates much more extensive, reaching much further south, which could mean that plant-based diets were impractical over wide areas anyway. Lots of aspects to consider. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Jared Diamond reference

I just deleted a reference to a claim by Jared Diamond who claimed that since some hunter-gatherer tribe in New Guinea ate small amounts of animal foods, that this also applied in the Palaeolithic era. Given that the density of wildlife populations was far greater in Palaeo times, his conclusions are meaningless. Same goes for the other comparisons between eras thousands of years apart. Will have to delete further dodgy claims, soon. Loki0115

That is original research on your part. We should not be deleting references just because we disagree with them. If it is a good reference (I think Jared Diamond qualifies) and relevant to the subject matter, it should stay.--Rhombus (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would the density of wildlife populations be greater in Paleo times than in contemporary New Guinea, and can you come up with a reference to back that? --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Paleolithic middens from Europe and Africa are dominated by large bodied game - red deer in Europe, antelope and hippopotamus (!) in Africa. Basically there was more wildlife because humans hadn't wiped it out yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.223.247 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


The above poster is quite correct. Here is a wikipedia reference indicating the mass extinction of many species in the last part of the palaeolithic era:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

I should add that my deletion of jared diamond's claim was NOT original research at all. Simply put, Jared Diamond made a false conclusion based on modern hunter gatherers in New Guinea - the latter did not have the same wildlife density as found in palaeo times, so it was incorrect for Diamond to make such a statement.

As for Jared Diamond being considered "solid", there are causes for concern, given accusations of fraud re another article on new guinea etc.:-

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/05/jared_diamond_hides_behind_the.php

Loki0115 (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, New Guinea has been agricultural for millennia. I loathe when Papuan groups are used as examples for hunter-gatherers (as in War Before Civilization), because they are not representative of the foraging lifestyle, as they do not primarily live by foraging. Very few areas in the world escaped the introduction of agriculture or hosted remaining hunting-gathering tribes as late as the 20th (much less 21st) century: a few small regions of Africa, large parts of Australia, parts of South America, a few isolated groups in South and Southeast Asia and perhaps Siberia and that's pretty much it. That is, these are groups in rainforest, Arctic tundra, Siberian taiga and desert areas where agriculture and other forms of subsistence are impossible, impractical or at least difficult. If you use Papuans, Austronesians, or indigenous North or Central Americans as evidence for foragers, you could equally use medieval Europeans. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Plant to animal ratio

I think this section is complete crap. There is a citation of Diamond out of context, as if modern new guinea with its density was representative of anything approahing paleolithic. The only "good" modern example would be that of isolated amazonian tribes and Kung !. The claim that human was mainly frugivore in early paleolithic goes against all archeological evidence. Homo erectus and habilis were eating meat, even their tooth changed accordingly... Apparently some people would like to rewrite evolution and human history... Tomorrow we will probably be told that in fact human were first eating Tofu... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kervennic (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I also scream at the utter crap in this section. "Despite the general shortage of evidence for extensive fishing, thought to require relatively sophisticated tools which have become available only in the last 30–50 thousand years" - what, do we need fishing equipment to forage for seafood? Generally the article sounds like a war between paleo-supporters and paleo-skeptics. We really need to round up the two camps and have them fight to the death, winner gets to fix this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the reference to the University of Hanover (in Germany) under the Opposition in the US section?

I recommend that this be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.25.7 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think a better title for the section would simply be "Opposing Views". There seems to be no need for "in the US"108.173.132.11 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, non-corroborating research citation - DISPUTE

Checking, at random, one of the references cited for the statement in the article that: "Some researchers have also taken issue with the accuracy of the diet's underlying evolutionary logic or suggested that the diet could potentially pose health risks", I found the reference not only did NOT confirm or justify the statement but actually contradicted it. The reference source given in the article is unobtainable without a subscription to Elsevier, however the document is freely available here, at the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health site. The study itself concerns: "High-carbohydrate diets, particularly in the form of high-glycemic index carbohydrate", and from what I understand, the paleo diet is not such a diet. This reference is also used to justify the statement that: "there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype", a statement that seems, at least from wiki article on [Genotype], to be incorrect. I have not checked the other references in the section but have flagged the article. IMO it needs to be overhauled by someone with sufficient expertise and time to do so. IMO this task would be made easier if the article were organised to consolidate the different issues eg: 1) Intro (what the paleo is), 2) history, 3) evidence + criticism. At the moment imo the article reads more like a war zone than an encyclopedic article, with critisism, evidence, theory, history, etc all addressed in all the sections, rendering the wiki structure inoperative and the article almost unreadable. LookingGlass (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article reads like an advertisement

The repeated references to Loren Cordain, and the emphasis of a diet high in animal protein, makes this read like advocacy. Cordain has made a business out of his research and his published work is mostly opinion and analysis (as opposed to independent research). Paleolithic diets, as opposed to "The Paleo Diet", may well be high in carbohydrates, for example if they consist largely of fruits and root vegetables. Schiefenvogel and Lindeberg have demonstrated disease profiles for model populations eating diets high in carbohydrate, and in some cases with very little animal protein intake.--Rhombus (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The above is irrelevant. By "palaeo diet", people are referring to diets relatively high in animal protein. This page is not about the ancestral diet of humans, merely an attempt to copy it. That said, the ancestral diet of humans does indeed appear to have been high in animal protein anyway, judging from studies.Loki0115 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not good enough to make claims like that -- you have to back them up with references. By "paleo diet" you are referring to a diet relatively high in animal protein. One of Wikipedia's missions is to collect the available information on a subject. Information from quality sources should not be removed, and the breadth of interpretations merit attention, if the secondary sources exist. Anyone who wants to present a counterpoint is free to do so, provided it is referenced in the same manner. --Rhombus (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


The paleolithic diet page is already suffused by a mass of references. Hardly necessary to add more. The simple fact is that, throughout the Web, when people use the term "palaeolithic diet" it is commonly referred to as a "low carb diet" meaning one relatively low in fruits(and frowning on tuber consumption). Diets high in fruits and root vegetables would more commonly be referred to as "high-carb" diets or "vegetarian-leaning" diets etc.

As for Loren Cordain, Wikipedia appears to have a policy of only including noteworthy data. In the case of Loren Cordain, he is THE most popular/most talked about palaeolithic diet guru and scientist, so needs to be mentioned frequently. In any online mentions of the term "palaeolithic diet", I have hardly ever come across a reference to a palaeolithic diet being "high-carb". The US news ref in this article being the only one I can even recall. Loki0115 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


Several of the citations are misrepresented to present the Paleo diet in an unduely kind light. Note 7, for example. Homo Habilis are not Homo Sapiens, but this inference is kept for the length of the article. It is not a description of facts so much as a presentation of an arguments in favor of the diet with little to no dispute. -- TK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.7.20 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Advocates claim...

The article states "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo_diet Food groups that advocates claim were rarely or never consumed by humans before the Neolithic (agricultural) revolution are excluded from the diet, mainly grains, legumes (e.g. beans and peanuts), dairy products, salt, refined sugar and processed oils". Does it really need the "advocates claim" bit? Obviously humans rarely or never ate agricultural foods in the period before agriculture was discovered. "Advocates claim" makes it sound questionable when it isn't. It's like stating "advocates claim that historical people wore less modern clothing than modern people" or something. (The only item that might not belong on the list is salt - it can be mined or harvested from the sea with no need for agriculture.--Irrevenant [ talk ] 03:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the point is disputed, as is written in the 'opposing views section- "Evidence suggests the diet of Stone Age humans did include, in some form, the refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleolithic diet. There is evidence that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000[84][85] or 30,000 years ago,[86] and possibly as early as 105,000[87] or 200,000 years ago.[88]"Worm12ga (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Try to hunt by yourselves bare hands and see how easy is to get a consistent source of calories versus calories spent without any real physical adaptation or tools for hunting. It is almost trivial. Humans need tools for hunting, as well for farming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.209.79.242 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, see previous section. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Introduction Too Long

The introduction to this article says far more than necessary to provide a thorough overview of the subject. The first two paragraphs ("The paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet paleodiet)..." and "Centered on commonly available modern foods...") seem like enough information to summarize the diet. The following six paragraphs, while they give interesting and cited info, don't seem central enough to demand the immediate attention of the reader. I would recommend integrating these paragraphs with the rest of the article, making new sections if necessary. Milotoor (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the lede is way too long and includes details that would fit well under some of the sub-headings farther down. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tubers are considered paleo

This statement:

> Centered on commonly available modern foods, the contemporary "Paleolithic diet" consists mainly of fish, grass-fed pasture raised meats, eggs, vegetables, fruit, fungi, roots, and nuts, and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, potatoes, refined salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[2][3][4]

this

> The Paleolithic diet consists of foods that can be hunted and fished, such as meat, offal and seafood, and can be gathered, such as eggs, insects, fruit, nuts, seeds, vegetables, mushrooms, herbs and spices

and finally, this

> Furthermore, preagricultural hunter-gatherers may have generally consumed large quantities of carbohydrates in the form of carbohydrate-rich tubers (plant underground storage organs).[19][1][23]

imply or state that tubers such as potatoes or sweet potatoes are not part of the "paleo diet". However, Robb Wolf

> Meat and potatoes is probably the most Paleo of all meals. While the men were out hunting the women were gathering. What were they gathering? More often than not, tubers. For the most part, fruits, nuts, and seeds are targets of seasonal opportunity. Because it’s a plant’s long term storage organ, tubers are always around. They can and did form the backbone of many hunter/gatherer diets.

http://robbwolf.com/2011/11/03/meat-potatoes-back-on-the-menu/

and Mark Sisson, both major advocates of paleo, recommend eating potatoes. Dr. Loren Cordain does not. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-shopping-list/#axzz2b3OxcgzO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.66.111 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede unbalanced

The final paragraphs of the lead contain a short summary of the proponents argument, but do not have sufficient information on criticism. Given that due weight, in this case, would necessitate a fairly equivalent treatment (if not weighted toward criticism), the existing text seems unduly tilted toward presenting the proponents' argument. There seems to be ample content about criticism of the diet in the body; it would be good to make a short summary in the lede to match the summary of proponents' points. Just at a first glance I would say primary points might be a questioning of whether the modern formation of the diet bears a resemblance to a true paleolithic society's diet, and an assertion that the health claims made are scientifically valid. There seems to be one ambiguous sentence about opposition, but it really should be fleshed out to give a neutral feel to the lede. I understand this is a topic some folks are pretty fervent about, but since it borders on the realm of making medical claims, I think we should err on the side of neutrality.204.65.34.128 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

removed recommendation for canola oil as it is not accurate

Loren Cardain no longer advocates eating canola oil, as seen here: http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/09/announcing-paleo-diet-cookbook.html

and various other prominent authors concur with this, for multiple reasons summarized here: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-canola-oil/ http://chriskresser.com/why-fish-stomps-flax-as-a-source-of-omega-3 http://robbwolf.com/2011/07/27/is-this-paleo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fennfoot (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

intestinal flora

In the article the influence of the intestinal flora is not discussed. This flora has certainly an important influence. And, where our own genetical content evolves slowly, the organisms in the flora can evolve much more rapidly and can adapt very quickly to changeing circumstances. I have no idea how the intestinal flora has evolved through the ages, but it would be intersting to know somewhat more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramdod (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I agree that this needs to be addressed, we can't assume that our genetic legasy is the only ball in motion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.237.119 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

hunter-gatherer language

Using the "Hunter-Gatherer" language is loaded and puts a higher emphasis on "Hunting" than "Gathering" as if hunting made a greater contribution to our ancestors' diets. This is not true.

There are many contradictions in paragraphs also:

"Pregnant and lactating females require 100 mg of DHA per day[96] - intake that is impossible to achieve in a purely vegan diet and quite difficult to reach even in a diet that heavily relies on terrestrial animal meat."

Contradicts with

"Other authors suggested that human ability to convert alpha-Linolenic acid into DHA, while poor, is, nevertheless, adequate to prevent DHA deficiency in a plant-based diet. [98]"

Therefore it is not "impossible" for a plant-based diet to attain DHA levels. "Impossible" needs to be removed if this is not true.

150.135.248.34 (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC) resident

Actually, there's no contradiction.
There's a difference between dietary intake of 100 mg/day of DHA and attainment of 100 mg/day of DHA via in vivo conversion of 1..10 g/day of ALA into 100 mg/day of DHA.
To attain the intake of 100 mg/day of DHA, as stated in reference 96, you need to consume 20 g/day of African freshwater fish or 1 kg/day of African ruminant muscle.
To produce 100 mg/day of DHA in vivo, as stated in reference 98, assuming the ALA to DHA conversion rate of 9%, you need to consume 1.1 g/day of ALA (the amount contained in less than an ounce of walnuts).
The primary dispute is whether the 9% ALA to DHA conversion rate was typical of prehistorical humans.
--Itinerant1 (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


I've gone ahead and changed all the "hunter-gather" references in the body to "forager," considering it is the term of art that has been used by paleonthropologists for the past 20 years. This somewhat mitigates the bias implicit in the term "hunter-gatherer" without taking a stance on the underlying nutritional claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.129.132 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Weight loss without caloric deficiency

It is stated in the article: "Diets with a low caloric density tend to provide a greater feeling of satiety at the same energy intake, and they have been shown effective at achieving weight loss in overweight individuals without explicit caloric restrictions.[147][148][149]"

I checked the sources which all seem to confirm the first statement which is about the satiety feeling, but what about the latter, which implicitly states that you can achieve weight loss without caloric restriction? That's not really possible? I thought consuming a more low caloric density diet would lead to caloric deficiency, because of the satiety feeling, thus resulting in a weight-loss. Or have I misinterpreted the sentence somehow... — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4ll3 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Bias and Original Research

This article is written in such a way that presents the paleo diet in the best possible light, which is clearly a biased point of view. Large amounts of data regarding the diet's specifics is presented; in each case, the data are followed by a assertions that the paleo diet is superior to the contemporary diet. Some of these may constitute original research.

Although there is some criticism of the diet presented (mostly related to the ambiguity of proof that the diet is effective), the criticism is buried in a subsection before the bulk of the article. It should be given proper treatment (cf. Atkins Diet).

Furthermore, the large number of references, to me, indicates there's something not quite right. This article has 167 references. Again, to compare to other diet articles: Atkins diet has 56, Ketogenic diet has 62, Gluten-free diet has 72, and Raw Foodism has 141. Although the Raw Foodism article has a similarly high number of references, they are relatively evenly distributed throughout the article, describing the nature of the diet, related research, and criticism. The "Problems with the modern diet" subsection in this article, about 2.5% of the overall article, contains 16% of the references. While the references do back up the statements made, the language used presents the paleo diet as the "solution" to the whole laundry list of problems with modern humans (cancer, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, obesity, osteoporosis, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune diseases, myopia, acne, depression, etc). Note that some of these ailments are repeated within the list.

Basically, the article reads like a review article that's been funded by proponents of the paleo diet. Amateria1121 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm going to work on this article. My plan is: first restructure it, which I've mostly done, then weed out anything that is not encyclopedic and properly sourced, give it a good copy edit, and remove the redundantly-redundant referencing. I believe there's enough material on line without referring to books. --Cornellier (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"I believe there's enough material on line without referring to books" !!! Whatever do yo mean by this? You can't seriously be suggesting that PD -- a controversial subject amenable to several different scientific approaches yet ostensibly mired in a thick mud of popular opinion, fad journalism and junk science -- does *not* need support from peer-reviewed journal articles and books. Am I missing something? Since when is internet-only sourcing ever the best way to proceed in drawing up a fair and balanced account of any subject, let alone one as controversial as PD? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eltheodigraeardgesece. You make good points about the subject of the article and thanks for challenging my hastily-written remark about books. Festina lente. What I meant was that I hoped there was research available online to properly reference this article. Nothing against books per se. but my thinking behind the comment was that other things being equal an authoritative online reference visible to everyone is preferable to an ISBN number and no page number, of which the current article contains more than a few.
Ah. I see. Then forgive my startled and harsh tone. I was simply concerned that your method would leave out several important studies that cannot yet be viewed online. There are precious rigorous scholarly articles out there dealing with PD (I suspect this is because few from the biological and historical sciences take PD claims seriously), and most of the ones I know about are available only in book/print journal form. Can we be sure to include important works like Sarah Elton's article (mentioned above, and only partly viewable on Google Books: http://books.google.ca/books?id=KTGLA0E1m0YC&lpg=PA1&pg=PT27#v=onepage&q&f=false)? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the problems flagged on this article

I've been poking at this article, seeing it get flagged up with categories, and I'm realising we need to step back and look at the bigger picture. We need a rethink of what this article is really about/for. How about this: there is "a thing" called the Paleolithic diet (stay with me people). So what is this thing, the Paleolithic diet? Basically it's a collection of recommendations that exist in the books and websites of advocates such as Loren Cordain, Robb Wolf et al. These are primary (WP:PRIMARY) sources. I think a big problem of the article as it stands is that it is mostly describing the advocates' position and backing that up (referencing) with refs to those advocates' own research. So I think the article should consist of something like:

  • intro/lead
  • brief overview of rationale (evolution/genetics) and brief overview of what is known about the diet of paleolithic peoples and modern hunter-gatherers.
  • a clearly-marked section giving an overview of recommendations (less detailed than at present will suffice) by advocates (primary sources)
  • discussion of pros and cons backed by secondary sources
  • perhaps something about the context - the popularity of diet books in general, the paleo movement, wheat diets?

In the process clean up redundant links, clear links to primary sources, add links to secondary sources, and move some of the content to more specialised pages e.g. Paleolithic#Diet_and_nutrition and Evolutionary_medicine. Also I feel that the use of pictures is rather gratuitous and decorative e.g. the walnuts, but maybe that's my personal preference and it's OK within WP, not sure. --Cornellier (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! Looking forward to seeing the first draft! Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I like pictures, they make articles more visually appealing. However, many medical claims in the article are poorly sourced (I'll take a hatchet to them if nobody beats me to it) and there seem what appear at fast glance to be some novel OR-ish concepts - for examples that animals (can) have a "paleolithic diet"?! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
So I've been working for this for a bit and I feel more strongly that what I suggested above is correct. The underlying reason for this article being so long and having so many references is that the article itself was written to validate the claims - some rather esoteric - of the advocates of the Paleo diet. For example we end up with the statement that diet may be responsible for some medical conditions with 20 references to back it up. Really all that's needed is the statement along the lines of "advocates of the paleo diet believe that the modern diet is responsible for some medical conditions and here's the book where they say it." What's in scope for the article is to describe, duly referenced, the rationale of those for (and against) this particular diet. It is not in scope for the article to provide scientific backing for either view.
I'm concerned about a statement made in the lead as revised by (I think) Cornellier: "Our ancesters evolved for thousands of years and became well adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era". Since this is one of the controversial claims behind the PD theory, I think this sentence needs to be qualified: "proponents claim that...", or something like this. On the controversy surrounding the claim, see Elton's article (I know I keep citing it, but it really is one of the best), where she discusses how little evidence there is for dietary genetic adaptation in hominins following the evolutionary split from their great ape ancestors (where dietary adaptation had in fact geared GI and mastication machinery towards a diet of predominantly fruits and greens). The ability to digest lactase into adulthood is (if I recall correctly) the only currently known example of dietary genetic adaptation in hominins. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was my update. Funny I quickly implemented the change you suggest here without having read it. It was late. I picked up some paleo diet books from my local library, also Zuk's Paleofantasy, but for the Sarah Elton's article I may need to head over to the local university, I don't seem to be able to access it without a substantial subscription fee.--Cornellier (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried this link? http://books.google.ca/books?id=KTGLA0E1m0YC&lpg=PA1&pg=PT27#v=onepage&q&f=false

McDonald's Math

The section on Energy density and the Paleo Diet I believe has some misleading discrepancies. The McDonald's Big Mac is stated to average 9 Calories per gram. This is a typo or a math error. The cited reference ("McDonald's USA Nutrition Facts for Popular Menu Items". McDonald's. March 12, 2012.) shows the Big Mac's nutritional value as 530 Calories per 211 grams, which equals a density of 2.51 Cal/g. The statements in the Wikipedia Article about the Big Mac should be corrected as edible oil or fat itself averages 9 Cal/g and the Big Mac clearly contains a bun and lettuce, etc. which are mainly carbohydrate that averages 4 Cal/g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.35.240.117 (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality, article organization

For neutrality, what I believe the article should do is first present what it is. History is good for how it came to be. Then two sections for the "science" behind each view point, similar to a voting guide, with possibly a section for the controversy being discussed. Or if we follow the voting paradigm, then there would be two sections for each to express why they believe the opponent is incorrect. Alrich44 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for a solution to my medically-induced problem; I need to do something to curtail my weight gain and reduce a number of debilitating physical conditions. Three years ago, I developed an autoimmune disease which has caused the medical retirement of a professional man in his early 60's. A former long-distance runner, the disease has produced muscle weakness and chronic foot pain similar to diabetic neuropathy. Accordingly, my long slow 9-mile runs have been cut back to 190' trips characterised by lurches and shuffles. Careful nutritional analysis and control have not produced a weight loss; I gained 50 pounds this past year. My goal was to lose 100.
My ancestors came from northern climates; I am designated as a Russian-Aleut because of the exploitation of my people by Russian fur-hunters and traders who came after 1740. I know something of the traditional Aleut diet; the men hunted mamals and fish in baidarkas (kayaks) and the women and children scoured the beaches looking for seaweed and clams and anything that proved edible. The aboriginal neighbors to the north did much the same. Whaling was done with boats and harpoons that had no metal -- up until the 18th century.
When I stumbled upon this Diet, it obviously conjured up thoughts of my ancestors and their diets. I go to the Alaska Native Medical Center where I see many elders who stayed with traditional "subsistence" diets while their bretheren who moved to the urban areas shifted to pizza and cheeseburgers. A dentist who worked on the old people of 1970 told me he marveled at the quality of the teeth in the elders while he lamented abut the dental problems of their children who ate "soft" food provided by the colonists. Most of my knowledge is anecdotal, but I shall begin researching the subject so I can live better and longer. I hope to share my findings with you. I understand the words "Neutral Point of View" and "Biased" and also "Advocate". I hope to see an article meeting all of Wikipedia's standards. This is enough to get me editing again. Namaste, my good fellows. //Don K. (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The picture

The picture is really not something that is reminiscent of the paleo diet, especially considering some of the items that go into it. Could someone change it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.105.1 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The following are some images that I found on Wikimedia Commons:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Which do you think is best for the lead? --Bluesky86 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


The current picture of modern bowl of Bouillabaisse is surely not remotely appropriate for the lead. If there is no picture available of food which would have been available at that time, prepared and served in a way that would have been possible with the limited technology, then perhaps there shouldn't be a picture at the head of the article?Anonymous watcher (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just realised that I have missed the point completely and this article isn't about the actual Paleolithic diet, but about a modern diet plan given that name, in which case it doesn't matter that all these pictures are of foods that weren't available at that time in history. I've left the comment here in case anyone else makes the same mistake I did.Anonymous watcher (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is presently an image of sashimi on some sort of (rice?) noodles. I believe the noodles disqualify it, no? --108.170.61.184 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The current picture is rather awful (extremely poor lighting, for starters). Can we get a new one? Something more colourful, perhaps? How about this: http://cardiologydoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/what-is-paleolithic-diet.jpg Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree the bouillabaisse was bad. Shuffled the grapes up and added a mammoth. Hope the mammoth caption isn't controversial. Will hunt around (geddit ?!!??!) for some better pix in wikimedia commons. --Cornellier (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fad diet

There seems to be a debate by editing "fad" diet in and out of the article, so I'm starting a section for discussion. I just watched an interview[1] with Loren Cordain and he cites 200 refs for just one chapter in his book The Paleo Answer, including a 2009 meta-analysis, so I'm surprised those studies have not gotten in here. I know his book neither advocates temporary weight loss, nor temporary change in eating patterns, so adding "fad" in the opening sentence is neither accurate to its definition nor supporting Wikipedia's neutrality. There is obviously much debate around this diet that should be brought out in the article by both sides.

Here is a high-level online link to Dr Cordain's research: http://thepaleodiet.com/research/ . Alrich44 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cornellier (talk · contribs), inviting your comment on this topic. Alrich44 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Packing 200 references into a chapter demonstrates nothing more than a desire to appear interested in situating one's arguments within a body of supporting literature. Succeeding in doing so is another matter. Anyone can cite hundreds of authorities to back their argument up, but the argument benefits nothing if those references contain ambivalent or heavily qualified conclusions or if they are irrelevant to the argument's premises, or if they are junk (of poor quality and/or published in disreputable journals). The amount of references in Cordain's work is no matter; what is of concern (for nutritionists and for editors of this article) is the extent to which his arguments are borne out by relevant research, particularly in the fields of biological archaeology, nutrition and evolutionary medicine. None of the editors for the current article is a specialist in these fields (or at least no such editor has come forth so far) so none of us is qualified to sift through the references cited in Cordain's book and judge how well (if at all) they buttress his arguments. The best thing laypersons like us can do in such circumstances is to pay attention to how specialists in these areas have responded to Cordain's arguments. Such specialists are the only ones qualified to judge the soundness of Cordain's arguments based on the research he cites. This should be where the bulk of this article lies, in my opinion; reviewing how Cordain's et al.'s arguments have been received by specialists in these fields. Incidentally, Cordain's ideas have been rejected or challenged by the overwhelming majority of scholars in the relevant academic communities (see "Criticism of the rationale' section the Wiki article; and these two additional academic responses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8; http://books.google.ca/books?id=KTGLA0E1m0YC&lpg=PA1&pg=PT27#v=onepage&q&f=false). This most likely indicates that many of the references he crams into his book are either irrelevant, ambivalent, of poor quality, or of no consequence to his argument.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Cordain is trained in Exercise Physiology, by the way; he has no credentials in any of the fields mentioned above. He therefore cannot be considered an expert in the fields on whose research he draws.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eltheodigraeardgesece, Thank you for the explanation of what a reliable source is. Interesting name, a male god seeking the land of foreigners. So, the basic question in this section is the Paleo diet a temporary diet? Alrich44 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I agree that describing the PD as a "fad diet" does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Not even sure if the word "fad" is defined well enough to be useful in any serious discussion about nutrition, a discipline where the the extremely fast pace of research and discovery means that many theories only very recently held to be true are no longer supported by current research (e.g. previous theories about the deleterious effects of fat, calories and carbohydrates, all of which have now been rejected or seriously revised). In any event, it is usually not possible to spot a fad until it is over, and the PD phenomenon is most certainly not over. For the Wiki article, I would recommend doing away with the word "fad" altogether. This is not to say that the PD does not conform to most of the characteristics of what have come to be known as fad diets (novelty, inversion of current academic orthodoxy, sensationalism, popularity through public appeal instead of through vetting by professional academic channels). Nor is this to say that the Wiki article should portray Cordain's thesis as a respectable scientific theory. It isn't. At least, according to the specialists who are qualified to weigh in on such matters it isn't. My response above was prompted by the commenter's note of surprise that in its current instantiation the Wiki article on the PD does not include the 200-odd citations referenced in Cordain's chapter. There should be no surprise at this. Cordain's book stands on its own merits, not the merits (whatever they may be) of the works he cites, many of which are perhaps (as I suggest above) of dubious worth or relevance to his argument. This Wiki articles is focused on the claims in books and articles by Cordain and others, not on the books and articles Cordain et al. may point to as supporting their claims. It is enough to represent Cordain's argument, and then to juxtapose criticism of that argument by scholars in whose fields, to put it bluntly, he is trespassing. Let Wikipedia readers draw their own conclusions as to whether or not the PA diet constitutes a "fad" diet, whatever they understand that phrase to mean. (P.S.: my Wiki handle is a phrase from the Old English poem The Sefarer. It translates loosely as "I shall seek foreign peoples' lands".) Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We could simply add a disclaimer like: "The PD has been described by some[reference] as a fad diet", and insert a link to the Food faddism article. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe there is ample criticism in the lead and article. Maybe the third lead paragraph is the place to put the "some think it is a fad" reference. Personally, I've found people who shift to it lose weight, have more energy, better health in general, so I'm not too critical of it myself. I do agree that it is a stretch to completely eliminate grain from a healthy food option, but that's my personal viewpoint.
For references, I wasn't proposing getting his 200 in here, but I would like to read the 2009 meta-analysis.
Thanks for the name explanation. I like it. Some of my best memories are exploring foreign lands, and varying cultures here.
Alrich44 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Alrich44 and Eltheodigraeardgesece. Thanks for raising this and apologies for not coming in earlier. As of this writing we have "The Paleolithic diet ... is a fad diet[1] based on the presumed ancient diet..." and my feeling is that it's OK as it stands. I like that it gives a quick summary of the situation. I think it it crudely and quickly conveys the concept the diet is a popular and not scientific one. That said I have the following unanswered questions: 0) do we have a long enough data sample to say it's fad diet 1) is it appropriate to paint with such broad strokes and 2) is the term fad diet is too ill-defined to be used? So if others wish to go with Eltheodigraeardgesece's "disclaimer" I'd support that. Regarding the discussion of references, above, I stand by what I wrote elsewhere on this page (which is I think in line with Eltheodigraerdgesece's statement) that it's out of scope for this article to discuss the value of the diet at a nutritional level; rather what's needed is a statement along the lines of "advocates of the paleo diet believe bla-bla-bla and here's the book where they say it. The counter-argument by experts is bla-bla-bla and here are some refs where they say it." PS: I've simultaneously been working on Gluten-free diet if you'd care to take a look --Cornellier (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I spent most of my career writing technical reports we expected would end up in the courtroom. The ill-defined word "fad" has connotations that, in my experience, are extremely prejudicial against the subject. I cannot imagine why an encyclopedia would ever use that word in an article about anything other than fads. It is analogous to describing one group or another as "subhuman" or "irrational". When I encountered the word early on in the article, I found myself jumping to the conclusion that the diet has no merit. Is this what you wish to convey to our readers? //Don K. (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the rationale behind the diet certainly does not have any merit. The nutritional recommendations of the diet itself may or may not be salutary. Surely any diet that reduces the amount of processed sugar and increases the amount of vegetables consumed is going to better than one that does not. There seems absolutely no sound basis for eliminating whole grains and legumes from one's diet, however. And many nutritionists will no doubt be concerned about the amount of red meat present in the PD. All beside the point about whether or not to call the PD a fad, mind you. I think if you read the thread above, you'll find that there is a consensus among the editors that "fad" is a poorly defined term. And I agree with you that "fad" does carry the connotation "irrational". But I think talk:Cornellier is correct in arguing that the term is probably suitable for this article's lead. It would, on reflection, be rather odd if the word "fad" did not occur somewhere in the article. The PD, after all, is an elimination diet (as are most other fad diets). It is, moreover, not a diet that is recommended by any nutritional authority (like Health Canada, the HHS, USDA). Instead it is promoted solely through popular literature, where it largely panders to public demand for weight-loss strategies. And the rationale (especially the evolutionary rationale) behind the PD is not backed by any scientific research, and is in many cases disconfirmed by research (seriously: there is not one article I have come across yet that offers evidence to support the evolutionary claims of the PD; even Eaton simply takes the the genetic adaptation of Paleolithic humans to their specific diets as given -- I plan to discuss this in the forthcoming "Criticism of the rationale" section). If these are not some of the defining characteristics of a "fad diet" than I don't think I know what a fad diet is. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the PD in the talk page of the Food faddism article, by the way. There they bring up the important point that diets are considered "fad" if they are described as such by a reliable source. Someone there then points out that no less an authority than the NHS calls the PD a fad diet (no surprise there). In our PD article, it is the NHS that we currently reference after the claim "The Paleolithic diet is a fad diet". Does that not satisfy your concerns about the use of the word "fad" here, //Don K. and Alrich44? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree with "fad" being in the opening sentence and do support it being moved to the third lead paragraph. Some of the proponents of the diet I have found have been eating this way for 20-30 years; it also is not designed for only temporary weight loss, so it does not fit the definition of fad. Comparatively, the Standard American Diet (SAD, talk about non-neutral) has been causing and increasing obesity wherever it has spread in the world, take modern Greece for example and compare SAD to the traditional Cretan diet (a more sedentary life is also contributing to their obesity issues)[2][3]. Prior to 1920, heart disease was not a national concern. [Know your fats]. For these reasons and others, I do not automatically support the USDA considering their non-governmental influences; to me, they are, like the others, another body of information that needs shifting for validity. For me, Wikipedia has an ability to be more neutral than government agencies. Eltheodigraeardgesece, Cornellier, Don K. Alrich44 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What should be made clear early in the article is there is consensus among scientists that the paleo diet is not based on science, but is a result of the appeal to nature. A diet based on science would say "these things are good for you because of this study" while "these other things are bad for you because of this other study". But in PD, good and bad is determined not by studies but by what is "natural". PD then tries to give itself credibility by citing scientific research on hunter-gatherer behaviours. --Cornellier (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would essentially agree with you, Cornellier (talk · contribs), though I would add that most of the problems I (and I think most others) see with the PD lie in its theoretical basis, and not necessarily in their recommendations about what's good or not good for you. The "theoreticians" behind the PD movement seem to have developed a theory that, while admittedly seductive, is based on undefended hypotheses, most of which amount to nothing more than mere armchair reflection. These "theoreticians" then went about searching for (handpicking really) data to back their theory up, a reprehensible practice particularly when engaged in by members of the scientific community (to which some PD advocates, like S.B. Eaton, actually belong). What's worse: there has to date been no attempt by any PD advocate to disprove the hypotheses upon which their theory lies. This is of course backwards, the complete inverse of the way science proceeds: data comes first, which inform testable hypotheses, which are used to create an explanatory theory; this explanatory theory is then tested experimentally by the very proponents of that theory, i.e. they imagine data that would conceivably disprove their theory and then actively search that data out; the theory is a strong one if such data is not forthcoming; the theory is then used to make predictions that can be corroborated by observations, and if observations support these predictions, the theory is provisionally accepted. As I say, as of today not one single PD advocate has even proposed an experiment that could test a single of their underlying hypotheses, much less attempted to do the testing themselves. All the while the hypotheses underlying their theory remain entirely unsupported by evidence; they are merely asserted as fact (even in the relatively thorough-going literature, like Eaton's, this is so). This is not to say that PD advocates don't have correct things to say about human nutritional requirements. One can be correct by accident, after all. A lot of PD advocates' nutritional recommendations are actually spot on, though this has nothing to do with the soundness of their theoretical model; it seems rather to stem from the fact that they are promoting a diet that is relatively high in vegetables and very low in processed sugars. Many PD nutritional recommendations are entirely ridiculous too, however (they're bound to be, given the absence of a rigorous theory behind them): their extremely high recommended daily "dose" of lean red meat, as well as their demonization of whole grains, are (if I'm not mistaken) both recommendations that are universally panned by nutritional agencies.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this article deserves a discussion of the diet's popular appeal. I think the diet is popular for the following reasons (in 2014 anyway) and the rationale is an attempt to cloak "good ol' common sense" with science.

--Cornellier (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Over referencing

Why does nearly every sentence need more than one citation? It looks stupid. As Wikipedia rules state: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source[...] All quotations, [...] must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" But that surely does not mean every goddamn sentence has to be supported by multiple sources reiterating the same point!? TBH a lot of the references are arguably superfluous because they just the say the same thing. It begs the question why there is a need to do it then? Self promotion? Self interest? 86.157.137.146 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Some progress has been made on improving WP:REFBLOAT but I see things are regressing. The statement: "Recommendations to restrict starchy vegetables may not be an accurate representation of the diet of relevant Paleolithic ancestors." is now backed by eight references. This is too much. Would the editor who added these please edit down to one for the sake of readability? --Cornellier (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Legumes

> Cereal grains, legumes, and milk contain bioactive substances, such as gluten and casein [...]

Legumes don't contain gluten or casein, afaik...any other 'bioactive substances'? --Mcohrs (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've just removed statements of benefits of not eating various foods (which in any case looked a bit dodgy and unreferenced); they're out of the diet because Paleo man didn't eat them, not because of their nutritional qualities. They're not in the diet because they're not paleo, 'nuff said. That kind of thing could be in a section called something like "nutritional analysis of the Paleo diet" but I think that would be out of scope for the article. It's enough that we have general statements about the diet in the "Reception" section. --Cornellier (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Rationale" and "Criticism" sections

The first paragraph of the "Criticism of the rationale" section is problematic. It makes the claim that "modern people are adapted to modern foods", and then proceeds to give only one example, specifically the well known genetic adaptation ("lactase persistence") that permits the production of lactase (an enzyme required to break down the lactose in dairy products) into adulthood. I see at least two problems with this. First, milk is not a "modern" food. The ability to digest milk into adulthood can perhaps be described as a comparatively recent adaptation/mutation, but it is certainly not "modern" (it is believed to have occurred around 5-10,000 years ago, though there is as yet no hard evidence for this; it could be an even older mutation). Second, and more importantly, it is my understanding that physiological and metabolic adaptations to specific foods do not exist in humans, with the one exception of the lactase persistence adaptation, which, though worldwide not very common, not surprisingly tends to dominate in the gene pools of traditionally pastoralist peoples. Eaton and Konner were correct to note in their pioneering article of 1985 that there are indeed few known post-Stone Age adaptations to diet in humans besides lactase persistence, and 30 years on researchers have, apparently, still not been able to discover any other "recent" dietary adaptations in humans: see Elton, S. (2008). "Environments, Adaptation, and Evolutionary Medicine". Pp. 23–4. This, of course, would seem to vindicate part of the PD rationale, namely that part that claims that human physiology and metabolism has not adapted to the eating of foods commonly available since the agricultural revolution. Fair enough, but it remains to be seen that these foods need to be adapted to in the first place; as Elton explains (pp. 20–4), there is no evidence that humans are maladapted to eating most foods available today (with the possible exception of highly processed high-calorie foods), and, correspondingly, there is no evidence that Paleolithic humans were particularly adapted to eat specifically "Paleolithic diets" (whatever these may have consisted of). Indeed, what seems to be clear is that, far from having evolved to eat only specific foods available in the Paleolithic era, humans share with all their hominin cousins a remarkably important set of adaptations that allow them to be extremely flexible in their diet, more so than most other organisms on the planet (see Elton, p. 24). And this set of adaptations was in place well before Paleolithic humans walked the earth. And the ability to adapt cultural behaviours quickly, an adaptation unique to homo sapiens, has the effect of extending that flexibility even further (Elton, pp. 17–20). Herein — to my mind at least — lies the real force behind recent critics of the PD rationale; but that is perhaps a discussion for another section. To return to the topic at hand: I believe the first paragraph of the "Criticism of the rationale" section needs to be changed. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I've begun a re-edit of the "Rationale" and "Criticism" sections. I've just finished the "Rationale" section, and await input from the other editors. If everything looks ok, then I would like to go ahead and rewrite the "Criticism" section by addressing, one by one, each of the 8 points introduced in the "Rationale" section. Does that sound ok ? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments about the changes:
* WP:REFBLOAT and WP:OVERLINKING are creeping back into this article, I'd like to see this reversed and can give specific examples if needed.
* The section is too long. Points 2, 3 and 8 could be merged. They are all saying "the old diet was healthier, it was based on hunting and gathering, but we're not sure what they really ate". The 2nd half of point 2 could be added to point 7.
* Most of the rationale section is backed by references to Boyd, this needs to be widened.
* The bulleted list following "Major advocates of the diet believe that this includes eating:" is redundant since that information is repeated in different form under "The diet" a few paragraphs down.
E.g. the current list could be reworked as follows (this might be too pared-down, but I wish to demonstrate that the logic is simple):
* Paleolithic humans were genetically adapted to eating specifically those foods that were available.
* Since the agricultural revolution, foods have become available to which humans are not adapted and this change of diet has led to a decline in health.
* So we should reverse the diseases of affluence by emulating the ancient diet, and avoiding post-Paleolithic foods.
--Cornellier (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eltheodigraeardgesece and Cornellier, E. thanks for working on this. I took a quick look through, and I consider your work is making an improvement. C. has some valid points and these will take more of an effort to implement them. I hope to get back to this article relatively soon.
May we use humans in place of hominids? I took a quick look and humans seem to have started around 50,000 B.C., so that covers 40,000 years prior to the agricultural revolution.
Thanks, Alrich44 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The way things are written at the moment it seems as if people are avoiding saying that humans could have evolved to do better on the agricultural diet. Also, no mention is made of the fact that pre-agricultural peoples collected grains when possible. Finally hasn't there been some evidence from coprolites/paleofeces of paleolithic humans to give some indication of what they ate? Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Cornelier and Alrich44. I recognize that, as it currently stands, the "Rationale" section is a little more detailed than some editors will be comfortable with. I also perfectly understand the concern over (and Wiki policy concerning) reference bloating. Though I will of course side with whatever is ultimately decided about these issues, I nevertheless much prefer the way the "Rationale" section is currently broken down, and I would like to give my reasons here. An 8-point list of the hypotheses underlying the PD theory is able to reflect far more accurately the claims and assumptions being made on the part of PD advocates. Theirs is a theory built on a house of cards, and I think this should be accurately reflected in our discussion. Each of the 8 points represents either a claim independent of the rest, or argumentation that follows from previous claims. This sort of transparency is not only good in and of itself, but it will prove a positive boon when it comes time to address each of the 8 points with a corresponding point of criticism. Flattening the "Rationale" section out to a 3-point list, while entirely feasible, will (I fear) make it harder in the "Criticism" section to show which of the PD hypotheses is being undermined by a particular archaeological or evolutionary medical finding, etc. As for the abundance of references, I think that we have a special case here: more references are better in this instance given that the subject is a controversial one, and that as editors we don't want to appear to be misrepresenting proponents' arguments. I should also say that this same concern (about being seen to misrepresent the position of advocates) can be expressed regarding representing the Rationale via a 3-point list rather than an 8-point list: by cramming the PD rationale into a mere 3 points we run the risk of oversimplifying the PD argument and thus opening ourselves up to criticism from its supporters. And they would be justified in doing so. The rationale underlying the PD is actually rather complex, even if in the final analysis it turns out to be unsound. I would simply like to be as intellectually charitable to the argument as possible, and for me this means representing it with as much accuracy and in as much detail as possible. Cornellier, your 3-point list is good as a brief summary, but I don't see why we need to restrict ourselves to brevity here, especially given the controversial nature of the subject (which would seem to require us to be as careful and detail-oriented as possible). By its brief nature the 3-point list must needs lack many of the subtleties of the PD position. It also covers over many of the weird twists of logic that are implicit in the PD theory. Just two examples of this: 1) PD theorists claim that Paleolithic humans were adapted to eating available foods, which by itself does not entail the conclusion that humans were maladapted to eating non-available foods -- though PD theorists pretend that the one follows from the other. 2) Similarly, claiming that Paleolithic humans were adapted to eating available foods, and claiming that the eating of foods to which one is adapted will confer health benefits, are two different claims, and the second does not follow from the first -- though (again) PD theorists like to pretend that it does. As for relying heavily on Eaton, this is unfortunate though I think largely necessary: he is, after all, the inventor of the "evolutionary discordance hypothesis" and in the scientific literature remains the main proponent of the hypothesis as it is applied to nutrition and the Paelolithic diet. If you can find other articles of equal or greater calibre, by all means please include them! (Not that Eaton's are that high a calibre, though they are better by far than anything Cordain has written on the subject.)
Anyway, if you are still not convinced that the 8-point list is the way to go, then I will happily implement the changes you suggest. I will probably have time to do so this weekend; otherwise, please feel free to implement them yourself (Cornelier, Alrich, or anyone else).
Also, reasoning, these are great points, and I hope we can have them included (and backed up with references) in the soon-to-be-revised "Criticism" section. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Eltheodigraeardgesece, fair enough, you clearly have good reasons for your choices. Personally I like to keep things minimal because it's easier to maintain and there's less to go wrong. Let's see how things pan out when we start to work on the criticism of the rationale. I think we have rather different writing styles but we can work together! I likely won't have time to work on it much in the next while so have at it! Might take a poke at integrating the recommendations as mentioned above. Hmm (thinking aloud) I wonder if the rationale could have have two layers -- one with your eight points, and another "populist" one that perhaps reflects why so many people are jumping on the bandwagon. --Cornellier (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, User:Cornelier! Are there references out there suggesting why people jump on this particular wagon? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
see below! --Cornellier (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3 weeks later went ahead and re-org'd it myself --Cornellier (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protected for a while following repeated IP vandalism. Anyone wishing to make genuine edits but unable to do so, please post them here as edit requests. Euryalus (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable/Incorrect use of sources; Suggestions for improvement

I think it is quite clear to everyone that the overabundance of references (and of referencing) in this article is largely the result of a desire to make up for the very little research that has in fact been done to support the claims of this particular diet, as well as the fact that the diet itself is currently (and has been for a long time) rather controversial. There is absolutely no need for an article of this size to have over 200 references. Furthermore, there is a very high degree of bogus referencing here. For example, of the first two articles referenced, the first is a not-very-critical summary, and obvious supporter, of the claims of the Diet (it adduces no original research of its own), while the second is a review article of several "fad" diets, devoting only a sliver of attention to the Paleodiet specifically. There is absolutely no reason for either of these articles to be used to back up any of claims made in the introductory paragraph to which they refer (there are numerous other articles that are far more relevant; these should be cited instead). I suspect that this kind of shoddy referencing is common throughout the entire article. What is needed, first and foremost, therefore is for each reference to be checked against the claim(s) it is intended to buttress: those references that do not sufficiently corroborate the attached claims need simply to be removed. Following this, all remaining articles in the list of references need to be reviewed for relevance, as many of these a) are of little or no specific relevance to the subject, b) simply repeat (uncritically) the conclusions of other (more nuanced) studies, or c) are uncritical and very obviously biased either for or against the Paleo diet's claims. In short, there is a lot of filler, and filler of the kind that is intended to lend academic weight to a subject that has so far been explored very poorly by academicians. For my part, I recommend removing the first two references and replacing them with a reference to the article "Environments, Adaptation, and Evolutionary Medicine: Should We be Eating a Stone Age Diet" by Sarah Elton (an important, nuanced, and well-researched article, and one that should be cited regularly throughout this Wiki entry).Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought of a few suggestions when reading this article. First, under the subtopic "Humans are adapted to the Paleolithic Diet" The last sentence is a counterargument saying the are studies that show humans have evolved to be flexible eaters. This is not cited and there is no other information on these studies or this information. Secondly, under the subtopic "Human health has been in decline since the agricultural revolution because of dietary changes" within the first paragraph it states that there is "a necessary implication....eating foods to which Paleolithic humans were maladapted resulted in ill health and heightened rates of disease." Why is it necessary to imply that the different foods result in the disease rates? Where are the sources to back up the information or provide truth to this statement? Lastly, under the Rational and Counterarguments tab there is a subtopic titled "We understand and can imitate the Paleolithic Diet". This subtopic has inconsistency with the beginning of the article. In the third paragraph of the article there are multiple sentences about what little is actually known for certain about what food the Paleolithic humans consumed and a hypothesis regarding whether paleolithic humans were genetically adapted to specific local diets. There is a lot of uncertainty within these statements and I would suggest changing the name of the subtopic, since apparently we do not understand fully the diet. Also, within the rational and counterarguments tab there should be details on those statements presented in the third paragraph of the article and sources to back up those counterarguments. Mazzola.23 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mazzola. Thanks for your input ! 1st & 2nd points fixed. Last one I take your point about the uncertainty but the idea is that in WP one doesn't necessarily ref. everything in the intro., it's supposed to be a synthesis of the main article. About the heading "We understand and can imitate the Paleolithic Diet" the intention is that the that is an argument put forth by advocates of the PD. PS this article is a work in progress. Please see some of my other comments on this page, I'd like to hear what you have to say. --Cornellier (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help with this article. I understand what you are saying about my third point. I will definitely look at your other comments on the page when I get a chance. I am working on this article for a project for my evolution course at Ohio State, so will have done more research and have more input within the month, thanks! Mazzola.23 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

I believe that much of the referencing in this article is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines: "primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to ... counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources.... Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided ... controversies ... should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources ... if the same material could be supported by either a primary source or a secondary source, the secondary source should be cited. A primary source may be presented adjunct to a secondary source." --Cornellier (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What nutcracker man ate helps settle the debate about what our early human ancestors ate

Nutcracker man wasn't a human ancestor; what he ate is irrelevant; also a note to some of the earlier comments--it is correct that no inference can be made about the skill of early human hunters; they were likely far superior to modern hunters even without modern weaponry just based on the fact that they survived amid widely fluctuating game populations and climate; also based on bone densities they were much better runners and athletes than modern man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yawnknee (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

The following comes after statistics that give protein changes. " The higher percentage of carbohydrates in the diet essentially took away a percentage of the fats intake, which decreased the amount of fats for men from 37% to 33% and for women from 36% to 33%." The two parts of the paragraph seem to contradict each other.Kdammers (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Health Decline?

the whole section "Human health has been in decline since the agricultural revolution because of dietary changes" is unsubstantiated, especially the causal relationship. Maybe the research done by this group (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X02000035) can shed light on this assertion. Kdammers (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin of paleo diet?

One thing this article doesn't cover, or cover well, is the origin of the paleo diet. Which people invented it? Who first wrote about it. Who first called it paleo, etc. Seems like an encyclopaedic article should cover these types of things. 86.176.229.107 (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It was Loren Cordain. I added something! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(Add) actually it's a bit more complicated than that, I've added more and am still reading up on the origin of the diet - but it seems Cordain the "main man" behind the Paleo diet in its popular modern form. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Change article title to "Paleo diet" ?

This came up during the FA review - the problem with the current title is that it implies this may be an article about the diet paleolithic man ate, rather than the popular/fad diet of today. RS (such as the NHS refs) calls this the "paleo diet" too, and it is the official trademarked name of the diet's inventor. The confusion caused by the current title is all to obviously demonstrated by the off-topic content this article has suffered from.
I therefore propose this article's title be changed to "Paleo diet". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

Alexbrn, you've added another SBM source to the article despite the availability of numerous scientific reviews. Please explain your rationale for doing so. -A1candidate 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not cited (yet) so belongs in WP:Further reading for now. It's particularly interesting (at least) on the CAM/Integrative crossover and on some of the fallacious notions behind the Paelo diet which are not otherwise covered. If there are stronger sources covering this, show them! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If there are no MEDRS supporting a claim, we can't use SBM for it. Some limitations of the diet are covered in PMID 23865796, as I've said above. -A1candidate 14:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS applies to biomedical content. The are plenty of ideological/lifestlyle/anthropological aspects to this topic too, which other sources (including the SBM piece) cover. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if these aspects exist, all non-MEDRS sources would still have to conform to our WP:RELIABLE standards. I don't see any specific "ideological" aspects being mentioned in our article, and certainly not one that needs to be cited to SBM. -A1candidate 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you can savour it when it appears. But for now WP:Further reading is the right place for this source, as that (further reading) is what it is. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A self-published blog that omits the limited evidence for this diet is neither reliable nor balanced. -A1candidate 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Give it a rest already. You obviously don't like SBM but there's stuff here that not elsewhere and which we shall find useful. I don't think torturing PMID 24641555 (which essentially just gives us a verbose form of "more research is needed") is going to make it "support" the paleo diet in any meaningful sense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
SBM is a useful source for fringe-y topics like fad diets. Fine as a "further reading" link for sure. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
"Userful" and "fine" are nothing more than synonyms for WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't a strong argument for keeping junk. -A1candidate 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A1 you have beat the horse to death, that you believe quackwatch and SBM are SPS and unreliable. you do not have consensus for your perspective on that. WP:SPS and WP:PARITY provide clear justification for using both sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS only allows sources from established experts in the field of nutrition. PD isn't a fringe diet so WP:PARITY doesn't apply. -A1candidate 19:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh it's fringe alright. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It's covered in review articles and therefore not fringe. -A1candidate 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just like homeopathy! Seriously, I thought you had the basics down at least - are you trolling? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlike PD, none of the review articles claim that homeopathy has a scientific basis. Can't you see the difference? -A1candidate 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see spurious new A1 rules being invented on the hoof! A fad diet grounded in fallacies, which makes unevidenced claims, feeds on conspiracy theories and is condemned by respected dietetic sources is fringe. If you want to know more, I suggest you seek guidance from editors who are expert in this field at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does A1camndidate seem suspiciously biased in favor of the Paleo diet?203.129.51.51 (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of counter-argument

Aside from the merits or otherwise of the actual diet, why is there a neutrality box specifically for the rationale/counter argument section, when there's already a big box at the top of the article indicating neutrality problems? Is the neutrality doubly problematic here? Each individual section doesn't need its own neutrality warning when the entire article has one.Mdw0 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-feminist

I've no idea. I just ran into the Guardian article I linked as an EL, and it says that there's an anti-feminist aspect. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read it's more popular with men than women because of its virile caveman vibe. Who knows how that plays into the battle of the sexes? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's appropriate to make a clear separation between a diet and the ideology behind it. Surely, even the most ineffective and dangerous diet can't be intrinsically anti-feminist? Can it? Those fighting pseudoscience must identify the culprits behind these things. Failure to do so would risk sending the entire topic of study into disrepute and possibly harm the honest few that do place it under strict scientific investigation. The Guardian article is ok, but PMID 24641555 is better. -A1candidate 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually A1C, with the amount of whackery in the anti-feminist camp, I'm perfectly capable of thinking there are those who argue the diet is somehow anti-feminist ("the prevailing Western diet is a matriarchal plot to deplete our protein and dry our precious bodily fluids; paleo is the fight-back" -kind-of-thing). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Fad diet

This trendy/popular diet is based on fallacy and unscientific propositions and is categorized as afad diet. WP needs to be clear about this and not say it is a "modern nutritional approach" or somesuch, as that would not be neutral. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The med literature seems to be inconclusive on this issue:
  • Review article PMID 23865796 says that the paleolithic diet is "inconsistent with the ways in which metabolisms and eating habits develop in humans."
  • However, review article PMID 24641555 says: "There is a scientific case for the Paleolithic diet based in part on anthropological considerations. Intervention studies lend support as well, suggesting benefits over the prevailing Western diet."
Recent primary studies also support this assertion (see this review), so I would strongly caution against quack fighting this right now. -A1candidate 00:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you miss the point of hte PMID 24641555, which is that in the authors' opinion, " the same basic dietary pattern exerts favorable influences across a wide spectrum of health conditions..... This message, however, is at present a relatively feeble signal lost in a chorus of noise. In pursuit of marketing advantage, notoriety, or some other bias, the defenders of competing diets tend inevitably to emphasize their mutual exclusivities. This pattern conforms well with prevailing media practices, and the result is perpetual confusion and doubt." The "pattern" they mention is summarized in their figure 1, which is pretty common sense. The authors don't support or care about Paleo or any other fad diet - in fact they wish all of them would go away. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to comment that I reverted in error because I though the revision I went back to was the one previously chosen by consensus (new to the page) in the previous fad diet section. That aside, I think leaving it unqualified might result in the least drama and accuracy. I'm also confused over the arguments over the merits of the diet vs the usage of the word 'fad' which (to me) has a time aspect to it. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We can get the lede right once the body is in better shape. That said, since RS categorizes this as a fad diet we shall do so too, and prominently, to orient readers that this is a.n. other one of those. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I hear you: The authors have made it clear that the defenders of these diets tend to make "exaggerated claims" and I would support the removal of any incorrect statements. The authors certainly do not advocate the exclusive promotion of the diet, but they are supportive of studying the diet's basic tenets ("there is thus good reason to examine at least the basis for Paleolithic eating"). Calling it "based on fallacy and unscientific propositions", as Alexbrn does, is going too far. -A1candidate 11:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with your statement. The logic of it is fallacious, first off and then there is very little historical or scientific evidence. You can loose weight by starving yourself. Lets take another logical argument. If I were to eat a cooked bag of carrots and you were to eat a raw bag of carrots, who will transfer the most calories? Naturally, I would finish before you. My food is predigested. Therefore the energy transfer is sooner and faster. Personally, I believe you would be better off tackling another dietary enemy... sugar. Don't eat it don't use it and you will lose weight and be much healthier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillsie (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Terminology and etymology

I've added a section to explain the general etymology of the term. It could do with being expanded to explain the history of the term though. What do you all think? Sotakeit (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_5&oldid=1137067704"