Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Dubious line and failed citation in the lead

This line in the lead should be removed, "The diet has different variants: some are predominantly plant-based but the most recent popular variants focus on animal products" This line is sourced to this paper [1] but it does not support this claim. This is original research and should be removed. Users really need to check citations because this is a failed citation and a bad one because it was put in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be me.[2]. I think the intent was to mirror the text in the body saying:

Loren Cordain's – probably the most popular [paleo diet] – instead emphasizes animal products and an avoidance of processed food.

Looking at the source, it seems to say that the "paleo diet" has shifted over time mostly to follow the goals of Cordain's scheme, and that "In practice, these goals are accomplished by consuming fresh, unprocessed foods and large amounts of animal products". So this at least was my reasoning. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Alex, I can't find that quote in the link provided by Psych Guy. I can only find one mention of Cordain: Most proponents strive to follow a program described by Loren Cordain, a health scientist with a Ph.D. in physical education, who is one of the foremost celebrities of the modern Paleo movement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm using the full article (PDF). The text I quoted starts on page 229, column 2, line 9. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it the same pdf as the one in the link Psych Guy gave? On page 229 of what I'm looking at, column 2, line 9 picks up in the middle of a sentence, with the word "periodic" in The number of news headlines including the term “Paleo diet” began a steep upward trend only in 2010, hit a huge spike in 2014, and has trended slightly downward with periodic spikes since then. (Over the same period, Google searches for the term “human evolution” remained essentially flat).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making any implications here, just trying to resolve my confusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The PDFs look the same - for me the word "periodic" is on p. 228, not 229. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants in the pdf [3] it says "Paleolithic diet, which Eaton, Shostak, and Konner considered to be comparable to what they referred to as the “average” North American diet. This Paleolithic diet comprised about 65% plant-based foods and 35% animal-based foods. However, many current interpretations of the Paleo diet do not follow this guideline". I think Alexbrn looked at this line and this is why he put in the lead "The diet has different variants: some are predominantly plant-based but the most recent popular variants focus on animal products". So Alexbrn has not actually made a mistake I do apologise but what I have said below still stands. A diet consisting of 65% plants is not a plant-based diet and the paleo diet was never plant-based to begin with. This is again a semantics issue with the term "plant-based" and I know this is a bit petty but I don't think we should be using that term to describe the paleo diet. It's really a non-issue now because that line has been removed but we might want to mention more on the article about the plant-animal ratio. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue is probably that the term "plant-based" has acquired new resonances since that article was written. I suppose the point is simply that in the past there were "paleo" diet variants which weren't so very meaty like the most popular variants today. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not finding that quote (I found the one provided by Psych Guy, whom I swear I'm not trying to talk about as if he's not here), but it doesn't really matter all that much. We might be getting served different revisions due to regional differences.

I think that, if one interprets "plant-based" as a generic, descriptive term, then this doesn't really fail verification, but if one uses the more current meaning of "predominantly plant-based", then I can see where the complaint comes from. I'll start a proposal below that might resolve this issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that Acrobat's page number is "wrong", probably because ResearchGate inject extra front matter into the PDF; I'm going by the page number that appears on the top right of the page itself (which is correct). Page 229 deffo has these words. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, and caught myself the second time around. Like I said, it's probably a regional difference thing. I'm not too concerned, because in any case, there's content to justify the original edit. If it bothers you, I'll screenshot it so you can circle in red where it's right fucking there, dumbass and make me feel like an idiot.

Of course, the joke would still be on you, because I am an idiot. I'm used to feeling this way. Hah! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of curious - it would be interesting to know what's up! Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

See here. As you can see, it's page 229, and line 9 of column 2 says the dietary proxies of the aurochs,. Or, if you're a programmer; one proponent stated, "we are eating. You can see Psych Guy's quote near the bottom right, and the top of the image that proves just how gullible many American consumers are at the bottom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Aha! The problem is mine. I miscounted: the wording starts on line 10! D'oh! Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the error was mine, as I just realized.

You said the text was meant to mirror the text in the body when I assumed you said it was to mirror the text in the source and went looking for that quote. I can very clearly see that the sentence starting on line 10 supports the bit about animal products. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Phew - the mystery is solved. I think I now need a glass of wine (is that paleo-compatible I wonder?) Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, though I prefer beer myself.

Though to be completely honest, I'd take a doobie over alcohol any day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see why Alexbrn made that edit. I didn't see the line on the article "Konner, for example, wrote a 1988 book The Paleolithic Prescription with Marjorie Shostak, and it described a diet which is 65% plant-based". So I can see why the line to the lead was added about plant-based variants but I believe the term "plant-based" can be misleading. A plant-based diet is usually 90% or more plants where plants take a main role, obviously a diet with 65% plants is not "plant-based", the percentage is not high enough. I double checked this and Konner does indeed propose a paleo diet of 65% plants and 35% meat [4], his conclusions have often been rejected by other paleo advocates. His 65:35 ratio has been disputed by Loren Cordain who supports a 56–65% animal food diet which is very high [5]. I look back at the founders of the paleo diet and they did not support a plant-based approach either, the ratio was always massively high for animal products. For example Richard Mackarness and Walter L. Voegtlin advocated a diet high in animal protein so right from the beginning the variants were always focused on animal products. None of the famous paleo variants are predominantly plant-based and this is not supported by the sources, this is what I was trying to get at. If a diet is 60% or 65% plants I think it is misleading to call that plant-based. I have always disliked the term "plant-based" because it can be very misleading but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Melvin Konner has since retracted his 65:35 ratio "We calculated the world-wide average for hunter-gatherers at 65%, but we now know that this figure was too high. My own estimate today is 50-50, but others, including Boyd, think that the diet included more flesh and fish.​" [6] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm proposing the following revision:

Different formulations of the diet have various constituent ingredients, with more modern versions being more heavily based on meats and other animal products.

I'm, of course, open to suggestions for improvement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valemadz. Peer reviewers: Saritaben.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2021 and 31 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LNguyen2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fad diet" in introductory paragraph

The opening sentence reads "The Paleolithic diet, Paleo diet, caveman diet, or stone-age diet is a modern fad diet consisting of foods thought by its proponents to mirror those eaten by humans during the Paleolithic era".

I did a search for "Paleo Diet" and the top 3 reliable sources results and their introductions were:

1) Mayo Clinic: "A paleo diet is a dietary plan based on foods similar to what might have been eaten during the Paleolithic era, which dates from approximately 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago.

A paleo diet typically includes lean meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds — foods that in the past could be obtained by hunting and gathering. A paleo diet limits foods that became common when farming emerged about 10,000 years ago. These foods include dairy products, legumes and grains.

Other names for a paleo diet include Paleolithic diet, Stone Age diet, hunter-gatherer diet and caveman diet."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/paleo-diet/art-20111182

2) WebMD: "The Promise Eat like a caveman and shed pounds. That's the theory behind the Paleo Diet.

Loren Cordain, PhD, who literally wrote the book on The Paleo Diet, claims that by eating like our prehistoric ancestors, we’ll be leaner and less likely to get diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other health problems.

Also called the Caveman Diet or the Stone Age diet, it’s basically a high-protein, high-fiber eating plan that promises you can lose weight without cutting calories."

https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/paleo-diet

3) HealthLine: "The paleo diet is designed to resemble what human hunter-gatherer ancestors ate thousands of years ago.

Although it’s impossible to know exactly what human ancestors ate in different parts of the world, researchers believe their diets consisted of whole foods.

By following a whole food-based diet and leading physically active lives, hunter-gatherers presumably had much lower rates of lifestyle diseases, such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

In fact, several studies suggest that this diet can lead to significant weight loss (without calorie counting) and major improvements in health.

This article is a basic introduction to the paleo diet, providing a simple meal plan and other essential information."

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/paleo-diet-meal-plan-and-menu

The Paleo diet has a certain logic, and its criticism should be in section labelled, for example "Criticism". Calling it a "fad" in the very opening section is an editor's POV and not neutral. None of the references above dismiss it as a fad, rather they discuss its arguments.

I have accordingly deleted "fad" from the opening paragraph. If you wish to include criticism please put it in a "Criticisms" section.

Best,

JS (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also note that the older version cited "Influence of Paleolithic diet on anthropometric markers in chronic diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ehrika Vanessa Almeida de Menezes et al." after the sentence labelling it as a "fad".

If you read the cited paper, it says the following in the "Results" section.

Results The summary of the effect showed a loss of − 3.52 kg in the mean weight (CI 95%: − 5.26; − 1.79; p < 0,001; I2 = 24%) of people who adopted the Paleolithic diet compared to diets based on recommendations. The analysis showed a positive association of adopting the Paleolithic diet in relation to weight loss. The effect was significant on weight, body mass index and waist circumference.

This looks like anything but a "fad" and I doubt this paper can be used in calling the diet a fad.

JS (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fad is well-sourced (and kind of obvious) as discussed ad nauseam here before. Your suggestion of a WP:CRITS is a POV trap. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your saying it is "obvious" is obviously POV. There are many sources that discuss the diet without calling it a "fad". The top Google search matches certainly don't call it a "fad". The very first reference is an article in scientific journal that says it caused weight loss of 3.52 kg with a p value < 0.001.

There are other scientific sources which offer some evidence in favor of the diet. For example, "Paleolithic nutrition: twenty-five years later by Melvin Konner 1, S Boyd Eaton, Nutrition Clinic Practice, NIH" says "We said at the outset that such evidence could only suggest testable hypotheses and that recommendations must ultimately rest on more conventional epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies. Such studies have multiplied and have supported many aspects of our model, to the extent that in some respects, official recommendations today have targets closer to those prevalent among hunter-gatherers than did comparable recommendations 25 years ago. Furthermore, doubts have been raised about the necessity for very low levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol intake common in official recommendations. Most impressively, randomized controlled trials have begun to confirm the value of hunter-gatherer diets in some high-risk groups, even as compared with routinely recommended diets."

You pointed to WP:CRITS which actually says "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". Where is the positive info about the diet? To rectify this deficiency, I have added the positive information to the opening paragraph.

Best, JS (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Insert Admiral Ackbar gif here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)