Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 7

The Paleolithic period goes back only 2 million years and represents only the last 10% of hominid evolution; humans and other great apes have been evolving for the last 20 million years, starting in the Miocene era.^[1] During the Miocene era, their diet was high in fiber and was plant based; indeed, for the majority of human evolution, humans ate what apes ate: leaves, stems, and shoots (vegetables) and fruits, seeds, and nuts.^[2] Even the most carnivorous great apes eat a 98% plant-based diet^[3]; the digestive tracts of humans and great apes are similar, as is our DNA.^[4] Ancestral hunter–gatherers consumed 70–120 grams of fiber per day, compared with the current typical Western diet, which contains 20 grams.^[5] High fiber diets have been shown to result in weight loss, a decrease in LDL cholesterol (even without weight loss),^[6] and decreases in many of the diseases of Western civilization (e.g., diverticulitis, diabetes, gallstones).^[7]

I have OR, RS, and NPOV concerns about this material, and so moved it here. First, it supposedly summarizes pre-paleolithic diets, yet there are no archaeology/anthropology sources. Second, some of the sources are quite old for the subject matter. Third, none appear to be about the Paleolithic diet. Overall, it looks like cherry-picked sourcing that is out of date or otherwise does not summarize the science well, all thrown together to suggest the information might be relevant to humans today and the Paleolithic diet. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, content-violating content that does not fly. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kierstenmieko, thanks for wanting to update the health effects section. Content here does need to be sourced per WP:MEDRS and needs to be focused on the paleo diet per se. here is a link to reviews on the paleo diet. the refs there are generally OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Today I came across an article in New Scientist^[1] which discusses recent archaeological work indicating that people occupying the site they were researching ate a diet primarily composed of vegetables, fruits, and seeds, supplemented with very small amounts of meat and animal fat. New Scientist has an error in their citation to the journal where this research was published, but I'm sure someone can find it if they want to.

I'm not sure how well this fits in with the overall thrust of this article, which describes the fad diet and not what paleolithic people actually ate. However, someone who has done more work on this article than I have may want to take a look and see if they can work it in. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to reference this, as it's not especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Facts00 the "fad diet" issue has been discussed to death. Please see the archives (for example, the several discussions in Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6) before continuing to try to make this change. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The line, "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes..." needs a reference. I added one that is directly relevant to the claim. My link has been reverted twice by jytdog without a good reason. If it's this same jytdog, it's someone who takes payment to edit Wikipedia, so the motivation for there is suspect. Let99 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC) (struck-out part was removed without redaction in this diff. restored by me in this diff. struck-out by me in this signed diff. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[I'm merging the two sections at the bottom here, because they are about the same issue. Let99 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)]

About the (badly formed) reference, Humans feasting on grains for at least 100,000 years, that has been added:

• here and
• here and
• here ...

As has been noted when this has been removed, it doesn't mention the paleo diet. User:Let99 if you would review this talk page and its archives, you will see that this article has been extremely contested. We have paleo fans and paleo haters all bringing bloggy sources that do not even mention Paleo and trying to force content into the article based on them, which is WP:SYN. Please read WP:SYN.

The article already makes it clear that the underlying claims about paleolithic people don't work; you are trying to beat a dead horse with an offtopic source in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't need to mention Paleo Diet specifically. The article says, "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes." There is not source for that. There is no need for the reference to mention Paleo Diet, because the claim does not mention the Paleo Diet. What source do you propose for that claim in the article? Even the claim as written is false, because more than one study has found that humans have been eating grains for many tens of thousands of years--it is not "likely", but definitive. Also, there are 44 references -- are you going to delete every single one that doesn't mention the Paleo Diet? For example, this, this, this, and this do not appear to mention the Paleo Diet either, so your justification for reverting my edits does not hold up at all. Let99 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes" needs a reference. I am proposing several here for the community to consider. This, this, and this are all relevant. Please comment below about which source should be used as a reference to the claim in the article. I propose that all three are added as references to that statement. Jytdog, I am awaiting your response. If you do not respond within a few days, I will assume that you approve of the citations. Thanks. Let99 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

starting from the end ("there are 44 references...")

• The first link there is current ref #44, a paper in the The Quarterly Review of Biology. If you look at ref #43, it discusses the paleo diet in view of that paper; the paper is just provided in case somebody wants to see what it actually said (we often provide the primary source discussed by a secondary source, in just this manner)
• the 2nd link there is to the Revedin PNAS paper. Yes that does not belong here.
• the 3rd link there is to Leonard's Food for Thought piece. This one directly speaks to the Paleo diet and both Eaton and Cordain's work. It is a key rebuttal, actually.
• the 4th, about humans possibly causing the extinction of mammoths, was used in a caption to an image. The caption was off-topic and i have removed it, and the ref.

Moving to the sentence you have called out and tagged, "Although little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they did consume wild grains and legumes." That sentence is in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, all the lead does is summarize the sourced content in the body. This content is neither stated nor sourced already in the body. It should come out. I have done that. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• additional note that the ref that is the subject of the dispute, along with not mentioning paleo, does not mention legumes, leaving probably the most contentious part of the now-removed sentence still unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Debunking the paleo diet by Dr. Christina Warinner @TED-Talk TEDxOU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8 ----~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.151.217 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've added it to the external links section, thanks for the suggestion. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely recall something about TEDx talks being of less reliability/usefulness (than the normal TED talks) somewhere. Something about less rigourous standards for speakers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

They're basically franchised, independently organised conferences using the TED brand, so the reputability and selectivity will vary depend on the organiser. This one (TEDxOU) was organised by the University of Oklahoma, and Warinner is verifiably an expert on ancient diets, so I think we're good to use it as an external link at least. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable then. I was only vaguely recalling the issue with TEDx before so just wanted to check. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@ (talk) - you and Joe are spot on. I worked for an organization where our founder gave a ted talk and I was of the many involved in the "effort" (the talk is exceptionally boring and perhaps among the least viewed ted talks!). In the bargain, I learnt more about the way Ted and Tedx work. Both try to get interesting speakers to talk - for the exceptional ones (like Malala Yousufzai and Bunker Roy), it is free, but for the rest, speakers have to pay to speak, and the audience has to pay to listen. A lot. For the audience, it usually costs about 1,000 USD/day including the hotel (it is all exceptionally professionally arranged - much like a high priced international conference on ending hunger in Africa). For the speakers, the amount that the speaker has to pay to be allowed to speak varies from 5,000 to 10,000 USD per talk (there are a number of slabs - it looked like a mix of trying to choose a mobile phone service + a happy meal + booking tickets in an auditorium!). TedX franchises the same system out to any oganisation that can pay the franchising sum to Ted. There is a nice video on Ted, with interviews with the founders and staff on you tube somewhere. Their "low key" head office looks a lot like the outfit I worked for :) Notthebestusername (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Did she debunk anything?

Myth 1 : Humans are not adapted to eating meat, but then she changes her mind and claim humans did eat meat during the paleolithic period.

Myth 2 : The agrarian revolution did not happen?

Myth 3 : Paleolithic humans did not get their food from the supermarket - No shit!!! No one thought about that! So most plants was not as tasty as today - so did they eat meat or not?

Then she spends the rest of the time to advocate paleo diet. LOL

The paleo diet website gives a number of references and talks of published papers on this diet. However ,I did not find any on this wiki. Are there no articles published in reputable medical journals (Lancet et al) on the paleo diet? Notthebestusername (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

pls see WP:MEDRS Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I offer my congratulations to our colleague, who seems to have made a "quantum leap" along the continuum toward increasingly cool and provocative user names!
--Jerzy•t 18:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

   Before consulting this talk page, i boldly edited (and do not now regret having done so). IMnshO, i in fact extended the work colleagues have collectively done, fleshing out nascent trends apparent in the layers of prior editing, and what can be seen here is an effective evolution in at least 2 directions, greater precision and greater breadth of terminology.
--Jerzy•t 18:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What? Is there a proposed edit and if so what? Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What does "IMnshO" mean? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What does any of this mean? – Joe (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jerzy reworded one sentence to say the same thing, and reworded another sentence to make it claim that foods have said things about this diet. Now Jerzy seems to be patting themselves on the back for their cleverness in making these changes.

And "IMnshO" means "In My not-so-humble Opinion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx Mr Pants. My considered response to all this? Meh. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a perfectly valid response, of course. I think I shall stick with "I'm quite certain that vegatables, fruits, nuts, roots and organ meats have never described the paleolithic diet (or anything else) in any way, considering that dead organic matter rarely has anything to say about anything." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Paleolithic Diet This page seems to be in a pretty good place. Most of the references are active links and the information presented is neutral, thorough, and supported by references. There is a lot about the history and origination of the diet but I think it could use more modern day material. Perhaps a section on the 'popularity of the diet' could be a good addition to the article. I think the article could also benefit from an expansion of the 'health effects' section; subheadings of Positive and Negative Effects would be a nice way to organize it. I think the article might be slightly out of date; it claims there have not been major studies regarding the health effects of a paleo diet, but I'm sure there is relevant research published. The best part of this article is the balance of counter arguments so no one viewpoint is vastly overrepresented. I also think the article does a good job of redirecting people to relevant, similar diets. --Saritaben (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Saritaben

Could we fit this chap in? He seems to be all over the place

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/03/25/unconventional-medicine.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20180325Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM200262&et_rid=256684839

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZoLvUjEPTg

I don't want him promoted, just described / investigated Wythy (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article starts with the word "fad" from the beginning and keeps the tone for the entire introductory section. TudorTulok (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To be neutral. Extensively discussed to death here before. Alexbrn (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This is concerning the revisions to this paragraph from:

The paleo diet is promoted as a way of improving health.^[1] There is some evidence that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects compared with the typical Western diet^[2] or compared with diets recommended by national nutritional guidelines.^[3] However, conflicting research states there is no good evidence that the diet helps with weight loss, other than through the normal mechanisms of calorie restriction.^[4] This research also contends that following the paleo diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies such as an inadequate calcium intake, and side effects can include weakness, diarrhea, and headaches.^[5][4]

to:

The paleo diet is promoted as a way of improving health.^[1] There is some evidence that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects compared with the typical Western diet^[2] or compared with diets recommended by national nutritional guidelines.^[3] There is no good evidence that the diet helps with weight loss, other than through the normal mechanisms of calorie restriction.^[4] Following the paleo diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies such as an inadequate calcium intake, and side effects can include weakness, diarrhea, and headaches.^[5][4]

"Conflicting" may not be the correct way to phrase it, but as far as I can see, there is only one reference backing up the claim of "no good evidence" I don't think it is correct encyclopedic style for this to be written as if it is established "fact". All I am suggesting is that it should explicitly reference that the claim is made by a specific study, just as the claim that following the diet "may lead to improvements" is softened earlier in the same paragraph. These two claims are at odds and it reads weirdly not to explicity mention this. Similarly, the last sentence should also be clear that this is based on specific references, not established as fact.

This would also apply to the sentence further down the page, from:

The research concluded that any weight loss caused by the diet was merely the result of calorie restriction, rather than a special feature of the diet itself.^[4]

to:

Any weight loss caused by the diet was merely the result of calorie restriction, rather than a special feature of the diet itself.^[4]

Again, a single study has that conclusion and it isn't prudent for an article in Wikipedia to state it as if it is a definitive fact.

Finally, regarding the journal Environmental Nutrition. I think this is the text of the referenced article: https://universityhealthnews.com/topics/nutrition-topics/the-modern-take-on-the-paleo-diet-is-it-grounded-in-science/ . I couldn't find any solid information about the journal other than from the commercial site where it is hosted: https://universityhealthnews.com/publication/environmental-nutrition/ . All I was trying to point out with the reference tag was that I couldn't validate if the journal was a reliable source or not. I'm no expert on any of this stuff but not having a URL stuck out to me when I was reading through the article. At the least I'm going to add the direct URL to the reference so others can find it more easily, but I still think a better source for the claim should be found.

Anyway, I'm just trying to improve the article based on our polcies and guidelines. I'm happy to collaborate here on a mutually acceptable solution.

Thanks, - Paul^T+/_C 18:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We aren't citing "single studies", but review articles of studies, which are WP:MEDRS for health content, and so their findings are simply asserted. Attributing them gives the false impression there is some dispute, so causes POV issues. Environmental Nutrition is not the world's most prestigious journal but it's fine for the material cited to it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well then... TIL (today I learned). I didn't realize that review studies in general can be asserted as fact, especially with studies on nutrition since, in general, high-quality ones are very hard to do reliably. There is no direct information about Current Gastroenterology Reports on Wikipedia (that I could find easily anyway), but based on the description at Springer it looks to be fairly well-regarded. Point taken and thanks for setting me straight! - Paul^T+/_C 19:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's reputably-published and MEDLINE-indexed, which indicates it's a strong source. But the nub here is that we're using it to support a mundane fact (only calorie restriction causes weight loss, in a dietary context), so there's not a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, therin lies the controversy! I assume you mean "only calorie restriction causes weight loss, in a dietary context" specifically with regard to the paleo diet (as supported in the cited review article). Because, in general, I think there is some genuine controversy around whether certian kinds of calories are metabolized differently than other kinds of calories (for example, the different metabolizations of glucose vs fructose/sucrose) and therefore as a result could have differing effects on weight loss. Not quite "a mundane fact" as far as I understand it anyway... But I agree that, given the sourcing policy you pointed out above, your current wording makes sense. Regardless, I didn't realize the kind of controversial rabbit hole I stepped into here, so I'm perfectly happy leaving things as they are before getting myself into unintended trouble, especially as I don't purport to have any specific expertise in this area. ;) Thanks for walking me through your rationale. - Paul^T+/_C 21:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Various diet advocates have said there is metabolic advantage to protein-rich diet compositions (and this is one of the paleo diet's "selling points") and there have been unreliable one-off studies to "prove" this (and the opposite). But overall, the current scientific consensus is solid and all this "metabolic advantage" stuff has been debunked: this is all covered at Low-carbohydrate diet if you're interested, but this is not paleo diet specific so a longer discussion probably doesn't belong in this article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Boyd Eaton's seminal book "The Paleolithic Prescription is not listed in the Bibliography or referenced in this article. Published in 1989, it is arguably the first comprehensive treatise on the scientific rationale for the Paleolithic [ie evolutionary/genetic] diet and exercise program. It is frequently referenced in other scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.81.6 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First off, I do not follow this diet and I consider myself an arch sceptic, certainly as much as the article's apparent guardian Alexbrn seems to do. No, this article is not neutral. It uses the emotive word "fad" right off the bat, then goes directly into attack mode, only mentioning the diet's premise in order to criticize it. This how propaganda functions. Talking down to readers as if they were children. Alexbrn, your method is self-defeating and you are giving this encyclopedia a bad name. Rollo (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as found in reliable sources. If the serious world regards this as a fad diet, it's not Wikipedia's problem to fix, and per policy we simply need to reflect that reality. That is what we call "neutral". Alexbrn (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No need for the lecture, thank you, I understand very well the rule, hence why I cited it myself. Nor for the pompous "we", as if you personally are judge and jury of the rule. Because my position is that you are in contravention of that rule, with your apparent busybody policing of this article to ensure it presents opinion from the first sentence. The article should begin by outlining the diet for what it is, which would include the word "claim", and then proceed to present the facts, from which it would become clear what the "serious world" thinks. Instead it reads like hectoring propaganda. Your approach is against policy and self-defeating. Rollo (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Great work on this article, Alex. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rollo: That's not how it works. It's best to avoid WP:CLAIMs, and since we know (from the sources) that the diet is based on a load of ignorance, zeal & stupidity we don't want to give space to that; instead we describe the diet as it is described by contextualizing respectable sources, and from that there is plenty for readers to get a good summary. If they want the full "paleo" pitch, they can go to the wider web. But here, we do high-quality accepted knowledge. If you have an issue with me being in "contravention" of something of other, take it to a noticeboard. Belly-aching here is disruptive and (ironically) actually is in contravention of policy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The cited study does not present any argument that a paleolithic diet will lead to a weight loss regardless of calorie intake, nor does anything in the Wikipedia article itself. Thus, this sentence seems to disprove a claim that was never raised, and to my knowledge is not part of the paleolithic consensus. This seems like a strawman fallacy, or alternatively a red herring to distract from the weight loss benefits that were found in trials with a paleolithic diet, or both. According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, this sentence could be true for any food consumed i.e. any diet. Since the claim that a paleolithic diet will lead to a weight loss regardless of calorie intake was (to my knowledge) never presented, and is not true for any diet, there is no reason to disprove it (except of course, to distract from relevant research and falsely make it seem like the diet's claims were refuted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are many diet proponents who reject the proposition that a calorie is a calorie. Wikipedia reflects what high-quality sources say about topics, so it a source concludes something about the paleo diet, Wikipedia reflects that. It would be good if we could find more good sources commenting on the marketing claims made for this diet, to add useful context. Are there such? Alexbrn (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are sources for paleo diet information.

I've found 2 relevant articles in the The Paleo Diet's website, run by Loren Cordain. They both generally oppose the idea of counting calories, but because they think it's not necessarily a sustainable approach and only part of the picture, not because they deny that calorie balance is the mechanism for weight loss. Both of these article have grounds in papers published in medical journals. The first is largely based on this paper in "Open Heart" by BMJ, and the second is based on this one in the journal "Public Health Nutrition".

There are other mainstream sources for the paleo diet. One of the biggest is Mark's daily apple by Mark Sisson. In an article about it, he says: "[about calorie-counters] They usually oppose the Primal Blueprint because they assume that we “deny” the importance of calories in weight loss.

Well, they’re wrong. I don’t deny the importance of calories. Calories absolutely count. And if someone has lost weight, they have necessarily expended more calories than they consumed"

An article in the Paleo Magazine says: "Sorry, but somebody had to say it. Even when following the Paleo diet, calories still count."

You can see there is no opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 06:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I took looked at some Paleo sites and found a pitch that calorie counting is not necessary because the calories go directly to the cells as "energy" rather than been laid down as fat (or some such nonsense). They are essentially hanging these claims off the low-carb pitch ("a high-calorie way to stay thin forever!"). As one site says: "The beauty of a low-carb diet for weight loss is that you don’t have to bother counting calories and you’ll still see results". However, I couldn't find any good independent sources discussing this and all the paleo sources you mention are unsuitable. Anyway the fact that some paleo sites feel bound to counter the myth is in alignment with the excellent source we do have; so all is good. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You convinced me this sentence is relevant and important. However, I also think it should be noted that this is true for every diet, for people without this understanding in nutrition (the original sentence leaves place to think that other diets could have that "special feature" and could lead to weight loss regardless of caloric balance).

The cited study says: “Both intermittent fasting and the paleo diet lead to weight loss because of overall decreased caloric intake”. So I think something along: “As with any other diet regime, the paleo diet leads to weight loss because of overall decreased caloric intake, rather than a special feature of the diet itself” will fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Added it. Thanks for helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed this article from March 2008 when it was a featured article. I suggest you do the same. It seems to have significantly degraded since then. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Maybe it should get reverted to it's content in 2008. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The status history of the article is given at the top of this page. It was de-listed as a featured article precisely because it was giving non-neutral credence to fringe ideas. The content has improved since then. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The content may have improved, but it doesn't seem like it. It seems, currently, like a real cut and paste job (i.e. a hack job). The opening paragraph from the article's 2008 iteration seemed to thoroughly describe the subject. Since then content has been removed and counter-arguments inserted with little thought about point-to-point logic. The counter arguments are often outside the "Rational and Counter-Arguments" section. That's just my opinion. I'm sure someone else has a different opinion and can find a consistent logic while reading it. Honestly, there are many academic articles in academic environments that read like total gibberish, too. (Funny that this gibberish is about cavemen Ug-boga-bg-gonk- lol)

I think it was better written before. That likely got it to be a featured article in the first place. I get that it's been updated, but disorderly so. Liberty5651 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If there are any policy-based concerns of the changes in article content over that time period, please clearly state them. Best to do so in the context of the past discussions since. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Liberty5651, alternative hypothesis: in 2008 the diet was relatively new and unknown, and in the intervening decade it has been investigated and found to be the usual bollocks.

Wikipedia has lots of articles that have carefully described ideas which have since been falsified. In some cases they have been lovingly polished to the appearance of great quality by True Believers, before that has been noticed. We've also introduced more robust policies on fringe ideas.

Fad diets are an endless source of money for charlatans primarily because the claims they make are superficially attractive ("one weird trick" to fix everything) and in most cases it takes years to perform structured tests to check the claims, by which time most of the hucksters have moved on to the next fad anyway. Guy (help!) 16:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "mistakenly assume" (found* in the article's opening section) is redundant or incorrect. Any assumption is, by definition, not proven. Thus, until proven, the assumption has the potential to be either a mistake or correct. It's the same as a theory upon which scientific research is based. If the assumption is proven wrong then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is redundant. If the assumption is proven correct then the phrase "mistakenly assume" is a contradiction. Redundancies and contradictions both tend to distract a reader from comprehending a fact based article; that's my opinion. I'd suggest "mistakenly" be removed from the phrase so as not to bias the reader with hyperbole in what's a science based article. Liberty5651 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC) *Fixed a spelling error Liberty5651 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand what "mistakenly assume" means, but I don't understand your objection. We need to point out these people are labouring under a misconception (we could say that, except it's probably a bit flowery for Wikipedia). Per WP:PSCI we must point out pseudoscience clearly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm objecting to pointing out that it is a factual misconception. It seems as if the misconception is an opinion only because there is fairly equal support for both sides. I also object because "mistakenly assume" is not logical. It's poor grammar. Hyperbole is foul in a science based article. Liberty5651 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are evolutionary scientists on one side, and diet enthusiasts on the other side. On the question of human evolution, one side is right, the other wrong. We must avoid the WP:GEVAL fallacy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Now, I get it. Thanks.

Yet, it seems as if there is almost nothing in the article supporting the diet. Aside from a minimal definition that the diet is based on "vegetables, fruits, nuts, roots, meat, and organ meats" (and two other points) almost everything else seems, to me, to be counter argument. Has it been completely refuted? Wouldn't there be a bit more fact supporting the assumption (i.e. the theory) that the diet is not all bad. Maybe I'm not reading it logically. Yet, too, a diet is a difficult thing to prove successfully. Liberty5651 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I fixed my own poor grammar here.Liberty5651 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about "refuted", but it's based on a misconception and its proponents make exaggerated claims. It might be healthy when it coincides with a recognized healthy diet, but in general it's just one of the hundreds of fad diets out there. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe any positive source material falls into the don't-knock-it-till-you-tried-it category; a fad.

I still contend that the phrase "mistakenly assume" is bad grammar and bad logic for the reasons above (that it is either redundant or contradictory). If this is mostly an opinion piece (Would that be true for every diet? That it's opinion?), though, maybe logic is irrelevant. Since the positive supposition is unproven (and likely unprovable) the article is mostly subjective. So both sides' opinions are fine. "What you like to eat is your decision" and "you can't tell me how I feel" seem applicable, no? That would be even more true if there is no real supposition, no assumption, no theory and that any diet is just one person's opinion as if he or she where to say "I like to eat these things and I'm not dead". Liberty5651 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The rationale for the diet is not "I like to eat these things", it is "I am aligning my diet with my body's true biological food preferences, as were set in the paleolithic era". That rationale is empirically wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, right I get that's the supposition for this specific diet. The concern you're referencing is about every diet; that they seem very subjective and unprovable which then lends itself to opinion. Both opinions are fine.

I still contend that the phrase "mistakenly assume" is bad grammar and bad logic for the reasons above (that it is either redundant or contradictory). Liberty5651 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrase is neither bad grammar nor is its use contradictory. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, because you said so? The article reads like that statement a lot, too. Liberty5651 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As an editor who has restored the phrase "mistakenly assumed" to the article at least once, I just wanted to state that I do not share Liberty's mistaken evaluation of it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's my opinion, restated: Any adverb modifying "assumed" detracts from the neutrality to the thesis (i.e. assumption). I'm sure you're aware the definition is: 1. to take to or upon oneself; 2. to take as true or as a fact without actual proof; 3. to form an opinion from little or no evidence. When something is assumed, and done so knowingly, scientifically, then there is knowledge that the thing assumed can be proven incorrect. Until there is proof for or against the assumption (i.e. the theory,) using the word "assume", unmodified by words like "mistakenly" or "correctly", recognizes that the idea is unproven. That's the case here. That's the reason there are two conflicting arguments for the Paleolithic diet article. Modifying the word "assumed" adds hyperbole and invites bias. Wikipedia in general and this article specifically is trying to avoid bias to meet the NPOV standard. (I get there are a few jokes out there about the word "making an ass out from you and me" but that colloquialism shouldn't impact the word's use in a real informative setting.) Liberty5651 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLUD applies. Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that seems a bit rude. I imagine the argument to be more like a sharp hobby knife. Is there no nuance?

Take a look over the previous contents on this talk page. There are a few other readers concerned with the bias to the article you are defending. From hollow science it bypassed neutrality on it's way to antagonistic scrutiny. Don't get me wrong, middle ground and compromise are tough; take some work and an open mind. Liberty5651 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Can somebody explain how the sourcing justifies the sentences? I assume that the terms "human digestion" and "digestive abilities" refer to the physiology of the digestive system, and the "human" in "human digestion" and "pre-Homo sapiens humans" to refer to all species of the genus Homo, given that the artice repeatedly refers to encompassing the whole Paleolithic, which equivalent to the entire Pleistocene epoch, long before modern humans. The first citation to is to a book which does not give a page number and so can be discounted unless a supporting quotation and page number is provided, It is also a popular science book, which means it has probably not undergone proper peer review, and therefore can be looser with the facts than a research paper. 2. The second is a paper about neanderthal diet, which states in the abstract:

  Our results suggest that both species [Neanderthals and modern humans] consumed a similarly wide array of plant foods, including foods that are often considered low-ranked, like underground storage organs and grass seeds. Plants were consumed across the entire range of individuals and sites we examined, and none of the expected predictors of variation (species, geographic region, or associated stone tool technology) had a strong influence on the number of plant species consumed. Our data suggest that Neanderthal dietary ecology was more complex than previously thought.

  The paper contains no mention of the word "digestion". The digestive system of pre-modern hominins is unknown and it doesn't make sense to include "mistakenly" in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The first citation to is to a book which does not give a page number and so can be discounted unless a supporting quotation and page number is provided I've tagged it for confirmation of verification. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done There's quite a bit more in Zuk's book which might be relevant too. I'm not sure how deep we want to delve into gene mutation and microbial changes over the generations, though ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Clicking the link in the first citation leads to a "404 Not found" error. I didn't find anything that referred to "Zuk" in the first three citations. Is that correct? @Hipal:, how does one verify it? Liberty5651 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Which citation? What's unresolved at this point? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, it would be helpful if these folks could just post a link tot he forum where this is being driven from, so we can read their concerns without them having to retype them here. Guy (help!) 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So now we have a worse problem which is that editors are ignoring guidelines and the article has been locked WITH THE MATERIAL WHICH BREACHES WIKIPEDIA RULES. The person who keeps reverting additions and changes is clearly and openly NOT even pretending to maintain an objective point of view. He's stated he's working to an agenda to discredit the subject of the article. The editors have said the talk page should be used to reach an consensus, but it's already in consensus - every single person commenting has discussed this abuse and bias. This is Wikipedia at its worst. The people responsible for that don't even bother to try and participate in the talk page or to address their poor behaviour. Their sole comment, subsequently edited out, is to reply to the accusation of bias with, 'yup'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.159.208 (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

you need to identify specific changes in the form "change X to Y based on Z sourrce", and the sources need to be reliable. Vague arm-waving about bias and rules does not help. Guy (help!) 09:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey random IP dude. I left a helpful message in your talk page. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The request for book page numbers and quotations above has raised the spectre of citation formatting; with the current method if we're going to be exact about locations it will require a run-through of the article using {{rp}} annotations (or similar) where different locations in the same work are referred to. I propose switching to the WP:ADR method, which is more suitable for a non-hard science article like this. I am prepared to make a pass through the sources doing this (I think I have access to all/most of them). Any objections? Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hearing no objection ... I will start this soon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Objection. This is a nutrition article (it's in the title). Nutrition is a hard science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אקראי אחר (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Nutrition is not a hard science. Maybe not even a science at all. In any case on examination WP:ADR is the wrong method, so I'll simply split the notes/citations to enable neater use of page numbers for the many books we cite. That should improve WP:V anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Per the above. I fixed many citation errors, inconsistencies and items of missing metadata but otherwise the article text and citations used are entirely as they were before (warts and all). Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

John Harvey Kellogg was a vegetarian, not an advocate of any paleo diet. Should his image be used on this article? The Paleo fad diet is meat-based. Emmet Densmore was one of the earliest paleo diet proponents, I suggest his image could replace Kellogg.

"The ideas behind the diet can be traced to Emmet Densmore and John Harvey Kellogg in the 19th century", this is not accurate for Kellogg because he was a vegetarian who did not consume meat, I don't think the ideas behind the diet can be traced to Kellogg at all. On the article it also says Kellogg supported a diet of starchy and grain-based foods in accord with "the ways and likings of our primitive ancestors", if you search for that quote, it was taken originally from Kellogg's book The Natural Diet of Man, on page 15, in a chapter "Man Not Naturally a Flesh-Eater". This book argues that the first humans were herbivores and originated from the Garden of Eden. This is in direct opposition to the claims of the Paleo diet. The Paleo diet forbids starchy and grain-based foods but Kellogg was fond of them.

Kellogg was a religious nut who attempted to prove that the first humans were herbivores (The Garden of Eden etc). He was teaching the opposite to the paleo diet. Kellogg also allowed heavy quantities of dairy at his Battle Creek Sanitarium. Basically Kellogg was the complete opposite of the Paleo diet fad. I think we should remove Kellogg's name from the article because it could confuse readers. The source used on the article "The Paleo Diet and the American Weight Loss Utopia" does not argue that Kellogg originated the ideas of the paleo diet, it merely mentioned his name in one sentence that he thought a primitive diet was superior to current dietary habits but his idea of "primitive" dieting is very different than that of the paleo diet. Emmet Densmore was originally a vegetarian who converted and promoted an early version of the paleo diet (but did not oppose milk), so I believe it would be more accurate to cite Densmore rather than Kellogg. What do others think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the "meatiness" of the current paleo diet is just the latest manifestation of its irrationality, the idea has always been to align with some idea of what "primitive man" ate, and what this is, is basically made up to align with the proponent's preferences (or market demand - notice how the paleo diet these days is aboard the LCHF bandwagon). These days it's meaty; for Kellogg he seemed to think primitive man preferred nibbling on grains. I only really selected Kellogg's picture because it was better quality than Densmore's. I'm not really fussed: either is better than the rubbishy "berry" picture we had before. I wonder what would be the best headline image to use, neither of these guys really "sums up" the diet. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, Kellogg and Densmore do not really sum up the diet very well in accord to what modern proponents are claiming. For me, the first paleo diet publication was Arnold DeVries' Primitive Man and His Food from 1952 and Richard Mackarness Eat Fat and Grow Slim from 1958 both promoting a stone age diet of meat and simple vegetables with grains and sugar entirely forbidden. Unfortunately, Arnold DeVries I have never seen a photograph of him and Richard Mackarness is under copyvio. I will have to look around and see if there are any other photographs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an old YouTube interview video here from Richard Mackarness in 1958 on the paleo diet, he says if a man is to lose weight and be thin he should eat an unlimited diet of meat and fat and avoid all sugar and grains like "primitive" people did. The LCHF stuff is not new, it amazes me how long this sort of misinformation has been around. Unfortunately the interview is copyrighted by British Pathé so I cannot take any screenshots and upload them to Commons. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn, there is a WikipediaCommons category for Paleo diet dishes, they don't look very pleasant but we can use them on the article if need be. And what is this supposed to be? Apparently there is a Paleo festival in Budapest. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeuurch - I think I could take a more appetizing photo than those. In fact I'm about to cook a rib of beef and serve it with broad beans and celeriac purée ... accidental paleo me ... maybe I should get the camera out! But that also sort of reminds me why I don't think a food photo is best ... it's doesn't really convey the distinctive paleo difference. The festival photos are promising - if we had a photo of somebody dressed in furs carving meat that would be great. For a diet which is meant virtuously to avoid "processed food" these European paleo people seem very keen on sausages! Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've put a food pic there for now as an improvement, but it would be good if we could think of something better! Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes many of those pictures look like the slop I used to have to eat at school dinners as a child. I am happy with the photograph you chose, it actually looks like an appetizing dish. I agree it's not the best out there but until something better turns up it will do. I just did a bit of research on this, sausages are excluded from the paleo diet, so it is very strange that the Paleo festival featured them so strongly. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, the festival that those meat market photographs came from were not taken at a Paleo festival. Somebody has done some original research and just added that to the description. The Mangalica Festival Budapest is on every year, it has nothing to do with the paleo diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The first illustration is of fish and tomatoes. A sentence in the lede says, "foods presumed to have been available to humans during the Paleolithic era." Tomatoes are probably 3000 or fewer years old. They are too recent for the Paleolithic. The term is not usually applied to the New World, except to some extent when referring to Paleo-Indians, a term for native Americans well before 1,000 B.C. So, let's get a different first picture.Kdammers (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say "imagined" rather than "presumed" (Add: and actually this is something we need to bring out in the article since, from the sources, it's often mentioned that the paleo diet of today bears little resemblance to what was actually eaten by "cavemen"). Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Kdammers, actually I like the irony. The entire idea of a "paleolithic diet" is a delusion, and the picture highlights that! Guy (help!) 15:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Jamka M, Kulczyński B, Juruć, A, Gramza-Michałowska A, Stokes CS, Walkowiak J. The effect of the paleolithic diet vs. healthy diets on glucose and insulin homeostasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 296

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073984/ https://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/going-paleo-study-says-its-no-better-than-other-diets-for-glucose-insulin-regulation

The above paper was published in an open access journal "Journal of Clinical Medicine" operated by MDPI. It is not reliable but I document it here because sooner or later it will be mentioned by someone.

Another from 2019 but reliable: Effects of a Paleolithic Diet on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31041449/ published in the Advances in Nutrition journal. I suggest this one should be added to the article. Any thoughts? Alexbrn is the most experience editor on here, so maybe he can help add it. Sorry I am not very good at adding citations correctly with multiple authors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree PMID 31973038, as a MDPI journal, is not usable for any non-mundane claim. PMID 31041449 looks fine, even if its conclusion is basically, "meh". Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

For the second, Effects of a Paleolithic Diet on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors:

The abstract includes, "However, sensitivity analysis revealed that the overall effects of a PD on lipid profile, systolic blood pressure, and circulating CRP concentrations were sensitive to removing some studies and to the correlation coefficients, hence the results must be interpreted with caution."

Can someone access the "Expressions of concern" to see what's in it? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I found the "Expressions of concern". There has been a revision to the article: "Note that as of April 29, 2020 this Expression of Concern has been lifted after the article was replaced with a revised version." We should be using that version. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

From the article conclusion:

However, we have insufficient evidence to make solid conclusions regarding the efficacy of a PD on improving CVD risk factor ...

In other words, although they found "something" is doesn't amount to meaningful evidence. A decent summary of the source would therefore be "There is no good evidence that the paleolithic diet lessens the risk of cardiovascular disease". Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How about: "The [aforementioned study] produced no evidence that the paleolithic diet lessens the risk of cardiovascular disease" Liberty5651 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Liberty5651, how about not bothering? "Paleo diet still bollocks" is not really that interesting IMO. Guy (help!) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Liberty5651: The trouble with saying "no evidence" is that there is some - this is the meat of the paper. It just doesn't amount to anything solid. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I get it. Yep. You're right. That's certainly an issue. Liberty5651 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is not just biased, it is dismissive of its subject. This makes it inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and more suitable for a blog.

Take this sentence: "Following the paleo diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies such as an inadequate calcium intake, and side effects can include weakness, diarrhea, and headaches." This is not an argument. It reads more like a forced attempt at undermining the paleo diet. Following a Western "mainstream" diet hcan lead to even worse nutritional deficiencies, not to mention heart disease and copious types of cancers! These nutritional deficiencies are not the result of the paleo diet itself, but the way individual people eat. It might be appropriate to be dismissive of the paleo diet if the mainstream alternative was better, but it isn't!

There are good things about the Paleo diet, such as the avoidance of processed foods. Therefore for the benefit of the advancement of knowledge, we should be able to evaluate the arguments of the Paleo diet neutrally, and take the positives out of it, so that we can increase our knowledge and move forward. An article with a dismissive tone, such as this one, kills the whole idea and does not offer the opportunity for it to lead to other, potentially better ideas. That's a failure for an encyclopedia. It's not wikipedia's puropose to denounce the paleo diet as a fad on the flimsy premise that the "mainstream" has dismissed it. Leave that to the bloggers. Greg376 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You have a lot of person opinion there. I am not sure why you think a healthy diet leads to copious cancer! We say of the diet "The aspects of the paleo diet that result in eating fewer processed foods and less sugar and salt are consistent with mainstream advice about diet." Other than that, mainstream health source are - yes - "dismissive" of thie diet (as with other fad diets). Wikipedia is, quite properly, aligned with the mainstream health view. Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Greg376, I can see why scientists think it's bollocks. First, there is no such thing as a "paleolithic diet". Paleolithic huimans ate a huge range of different diets according to where ont he planet they lived. Second, the idea that the human digestive system is somehow optimised for the food of paleolithic times is absurd. A single obvious example is the evolution of lactase persistence. Third, with only minor exceptions (e.g. the indigenous populations of the Arctic and some small areas of Africa) nobody can eat a paleolithic diet because the foodstuffs themselves have evolved or been bred into unregonisable form. The yam, a staple crop throughout the tropics and Africa, has been genetically modified the "hard way" through its microbiome. Fourth, we don't know to what extent vitamin deficiencies contributed to shorter lifespans in paleolithic times. We now understand about micronutrients in a way we did not then.

No, if you want to find a scientifically credible way of repudiating progress and evolution I think you need to look elsewhere. Guy (help!) 10:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

To others looking for NPOV: apologies on behalf of genuine skeptics! This article is policed by a couple of self-appointed activists. In their smug self-satisfaction as purveyors of truth to children, they have lost sight of the fact that obvious propaganda is counter-productive. The truth would have been enough to gently debunk paleo while respecting those who follow the diet. Instead we have obvious POV and nannyish condescension. Besides discrediting the article, that is only going to convince some readers that there might me something to paleo after all. Nice work, guys. Rollo (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, genuine sceptic here, I'd like to apologise for Rollo. W?F. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also a skeptic, but I'm commenting, here, that I agree with Rollo. Though, skeptically, I'm not sure that they are intentionally activists or if it's subconscious ... or maybe it's an issue arising from grammatical differences or differences in perspective. Also, The following quote from Rollo "The truth would have been enough to gently debunk paleo while respecting those who follow the diet." deserves some recognition. Liberty5651 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm applying Hitchen's razor to this discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple revisions to this page to remove bias are being overturned.

Some of those doing that are actually admitting in the edit that they are doing that purely to reinforce their own opinion.

The sections most in question are those stating that Paleo sources are making assertions which they do not. The supposed citations lead to opinion articles which themselves have no citations and are presenting straw man arguments.

It's well known that the Paleo diets are a particular target of Vegan wrath! PETA has particular dislike of it and has denounced it. The revisions and reversions seem to be part of that rather than from any interest in the diet itself.

Specifically the mains sections involved are: 1. "The digestive abilities of anatomically modern humans are different from those of pre-Homo sapiens humans, which undermines the diet's core premise." The Paleo Diet has no concern with pre-human diet. It relates purely to that period immediately before the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution i.e around 10,000 years ago. The citation leads to an opinion piece which lacks any citations from any authoritative source, such as Cordain. The assertion that it undermines the 'core premise' is pure uncited opinion.

2. "During the 2.6 million year-long Paleolithic era, the highly variable climate and worldwide spread of human populations meant that humans were, by necessity, nutritionally adaptable. Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time" Another straw man argument. As above, the term Paleo - as used in reference to a specific historical window rather than the Palolithic period - only specifically relates to the period immediately before agriculture, not the entire Palaeolithic period reaching all the way back to first tool use (which would BTW make it 3.3 million years and not 2.6). The statement that 'Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time' has no evidenced citation. It is merely a statement of opinion. There may well be some supporters who know nothing of the science behind it, but that most definitely does not include the authors of the source materials, and they say n such thing.

Cordain, the author of the actual Paleo Diet book makes the timeframe entirely clear:

"Seventy percent of the foods that comprise the modern diet—grain products, vegetable oils, dairy, refined sugar, and alcohol—were introduced in the past 10,000 years and are completely out of line with the center of the curve. Importantly, 10,000 years is not nearly enough time for evolution to shift the curve."

He also makes clear that he does not think that the dietry habits of our ancestors are static:

"At the center of the bell-shaped curve are the foods we evolved to eat. That doesn’t mean there is a single Paleo Diet—our Paleolithic ancestors ate different foods depending on where they lived. The optimal human diet is a range, not a point, and most of us sit within the two standard deviations of the peak of that curve."

https://thepaleodiet.com/science/key-concepts/the-evolutionary-approach

The clarifications I made citing the THE ACTUAL DAMNED BOOK were removed!

IF someone thinks that there are citable arguments against the diet then put them in a separate section rather than in the main body of the article and misrepresenting the claims made by the actual authors of the associated text - that is pure propagandising and vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.159.208 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for a description of what constitutes a reliable source. Sites like "thepaleodiet.com" are not reliable. Guy (help!) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite. This article is not meant to be a credulous exposition of the diet, but a summary of accepted knowledge about it from the perspective of the mainstream (i.e. that's it's nonsense on toast). This is central to how Wikipedia works: neutrality above all. Also see WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet this is doing quite the opposite, you can't claim neutrality while supporting the retention of non-neutral material and claiming that it's OK because 'that's it's nonsense on toast'. That is iteslf a clear breech. Looka tit like this, Breatharianism is clearly nonsense. the way that's dealt with is by explaining the premise and then addressing the issues in it, not by inventing claims that they sacrifice goats. Non-neutral would mean keeping the language natural rather than full of opinion claims (and also replies in a criticism section) but not embedding misleading and simply untrue opinion pieces as fact.

You may think it is 'nonsense on toast' but that doesn't mean it's OK to simply actually misrepresent the source material. If you check my comments above I;ve been fairly clear that my intent is to increase the neutrality of the acticle. It cxlearly currently is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerista (talk • contribs) 09:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to the claim that the book 'The Paleo Diet' is not a reliable source, it clearly IS a reliable source about what the diets claims are i.e. timeframes addressed in it. It's the actual source of the claims for god's sake. To say that the diet is base on the period immediately before the Neolithic and point to the actual source book is pretty sound. Compare that to the pure opinion piece which IS being accepted as reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerista (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Writerista, see below. You need to propose specific changes of the form "change X yo Y using Z source", and the sources need to be reliable by Wikipedia's definition. Guy (help!) 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is clearly a hefty amount of vandalism occurring here. Just compare the Paleo page to the Veganism page. Night and day. For the Wikipedia administration to be ignoring this (if not perpetuating it) is abhorrent. Diet and nutrition is crucial to our health, and skewing the information on a supposedly objective website is a crime which cannot be understated. Please let the higher-ups know about the situation so that we can FIX this page! Remove the lock so that we can insert neutral, objective, and cited data - without it being constantly overturned by rampant vegans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.226.239.243 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. You need to propose specific changes of the form "change X to Y using Z source", and the sources need to be reliable by Wikipedia's definition. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Continuation of this. Alexbrn, as I pointed out, I think Cordain's books are reliable sources for what the paleo diet claims, according to WP:SOURCE. I know that currently the paleo diet is considered fringe, but it's rationale and claims are relatively clear. I don't see how changing the claims to the ones in Cordain's book will not fit WP:NPOV and WP:VALID. In fact, WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As I said, I think according to WP:SOURCE, Cordain's books ARE reliable for claims on paleo diets. And I don't see how including more precise claims, taken from a reliable source, will provide a false balance. You wrote: "We only include fringe views through the lens of mainstream, respectable sources". Could you provide a phrase from the guidelines that proves this? It would make more sense to me to take the views from the primary source, without interpretation (even in respectable sources, things could be 'lost in translation').אקראי אחר (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

אקראי אחר, we typically don't use in-universe sources for fictional claims. Guy (help!) 12:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I talked about Cordain's claims on the evolution of humans & the human diet (more specifically - that he doesn't think our physiology and digestion remained unchanged during and after the paleolithic times). I'm pretty sure these aren't fictional. אקראי אחר (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@אקראי אחר:Read WP:VALID (I have already pointed you at this).

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my bold]]

Our articles must be based on secondary sources. Of course Cordain is "reliable" for Cordain's view, but that does not guarantee inclusion and is not in any case the real issue: as the very policy you quoted says we want "significant views" on the Paleo diet. More of those, from respected authorities, would be good. Are there such sources we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't completely agree (primary or not, Cordain is still one of the most looked upon people in the paleo community, and WP:PSTS does say: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia [...]"), but I'm tired of this discussion. I'll probably be back in a week (enjoy your vacation) when I'll have more free time and will try to find good resources. אקראי אחר (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every POV-pushing editor who truncates that quotation from WP:PSTS where you did, I would be very rich indeed. Primary sources may be used, but carefully. In this case, where their use risks running against the WP:PAGs for fringe material, their use is never going to be unproblematic. We have plenty of good independent secondary sources describing the Paleo diet, so there is simply no need to scour around for material not sourcable to those. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary sources - so why would we include primary material that the rest of the world has ignored? Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to a newbie like me. I've found that the 1985 paleo paper actually has a statement on the topic (right in the beginning actually): "The foods available to evolving hominids varied widely according to the paleontological period, geographical location, and seasonal conditions, so that our ancestral line maintained the versatility of the omnivore that typifies most primates. Natural selection has provided us with nutritional adaptability". This is the first scientific source that introduced the concept of emulating paleo diets, and it's says that. So I think writing "Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time" is false. I know it's coming from a primary source. Thing is, the secondary source (Zuk 2013) is actually much less credible. I've searched about it, while I didn't read it, all reviews I saw regarding the topic said Zuk takes her claims mainly from blogs (and it doesn't matter for the article, but even as a (currently) paleo proponent, I can attest there are many ignorant people in the paleo community - from regular consumers of "paleo cupcakes", to guys like pete evans, to me. But if you want an actually worthwhile criticism of paleo diets you gotta refer to the science based folks).

It might be a fine scientific source, but if books that debunk blog articles is a good secondary sources, I could probably debunk about everything.

I’ve also found an actually good secondary source that states similarly to the 1985 paper: “As Ströhle et al (1) rightly note, recently studied hunter-gatherers (HGs) exhibited a wide range of nutritional patterns that varied according to local availability of animals and edible plants”. This study is co-authored by Eaton and Cordain and also says: “...It can be argued that the typical diet, physical activity patterns, and body composition of late Paleolithic humans remain normative for contemporary humans—and models for disease-prevention recommendations”. Clearly paleo supporters.

Also: “During the Palaeolithic,wild meat, fish, insects, eggs, fruit, berries, vegetables and nuts were consumed in varying proportions depending on the ecological niche”, co-authored by Staffan Lindeberg which was a prominent paleo supporter.

(I realize that they didn't explicitly said what paleo supporters think, but when well respected source published by paleo supporters say something, I think it's safe to say that paleo supporters think like that. And the burden of proof is not on me, I'm arguing for what they didn't claim.)

As to the sentence: "The digestive abilities of anatomically modern humans are different from those of pre-Homo sapiens humans, which undermines the diet's core premise" - it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the paleo diet’s premise, and also cited by Zuk 2013. The 1985 paper makes it pretty clear: “The human genetic constitution has changed relatively little since the appearance of truly modern human beings, Homo sapiens sapiens, about 40,000 years ago [...] The range of diets available to preagricultural human beings determines the range that still exists for men and women living in the 20th century - the nutrition for which human beings are in essence genetically programmed”. Secondary sources also say so: “The basic notions are very simple: foods are probably appropriate for any given species if they were regularly consumed during most of its prior evolution, in our case the hunter– gatherer diet”, “Lean meat, fish, leafy/green vegetables and fruits are advisable as health promoting because of our long pre-agricultural ancestral experience during which such foods fuelled human evolution. Dairy products, cereals, beans, salt, separated fats and refined carbohydrates, including sugar, are ‘new’.” OR “A Paleolithic diet is a modern dietary regimen based on foods presumably eaten regularly during the Paleolithic, which includes lean meat, fish, shellfish, fruits, vegetables, roots, eggs and nuts, but not grains, dairy products, salt or refined fats and sugar, which became staple foods long after the appearance of fully modern humans.” OR “nearly all the genes and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms we carry today were originally selected for behaviorally modern humans who appeared in Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 y ago. Genetic evolution during subsequent millennia has continued, as shown by pigmentation changes (hair, eyes, skin), intestinal lactase retention beyond infancy, and adaptive defenses against microorganisms (eg, hemoglobinopathies and immune system adaptations). However, core biochemical and physiologic processes have been preserved (2). Accordingly, it can be argued that the typical diet, physical activity patterns, and body composition of late Paleolithic humans remain normative for contemporary humans—and models for disease-prevention recommendations.”

At best, the paragraph could be replaced with “some supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time”, but that’s redundant, and seeing the quality of Zuk’s work I don’t even think that’s credible. I’ll proceed to delete the paragraph. And hack, I didn’t even need to cite all the research, just the poor quality of Zuk’s claims is enough to disqualify it. אקראי אחר (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there to cause concern. We are meant to summarize good sources, and we are doing that. You seem to take personal issue with what they say, for the reasons you give, but that's irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

So a book that takes random blog posts and generalizes them for an entire community is better than peer-reviewed research? Sure Alex. What can I say, you are way ahead of our time.

And I do take a bit of personal issue when false information is presented to 470,000 visitors per year. אקראי אחר (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

As we know from our sources, the paleo diet is promoted by celebrities, in social media, by wellness bloggers etc. So if (I have no idea whether it's true) Zuk's critique is based on this it would seem exactly right. Generally, we prefer the published views of esteemed experts in their field to those of "random" anonymous Wikipedia WP:SPAs with a POV to push. Eaton and Konner's paper is a 35 year old source behind a paywall – the idea that this is the beating heart behind the paleo movement today is laughable (we only need to see your own comments above where you identify Cordain as the head honcho for the movement). Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, because you wrote: "The very policy you quoted says we want 'significant views' on the Paleo diet. More of those, from respected authorities, would be good" to my claim that Cordain's views are significant because of his importance, but now you're all for using bad resources (the science might be fine but citing blog posts isn't), because they represent some of the paleo community. Also, Cordain is a co-author in many papers that I cited that literally contradict the article's paragraph. I presented 6 peer-reviewed sources, you 1 bad book and you call me POV pushing. And lastly, this article is called "Paleolithic diet", not "Paleolithic diet supporters". The idea behind the paleo diet is represented well enough in serious sources, so no need to take from books that cite blog articles. אקראי אחר (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not using any "bad books", and your personal dislike of a book does not make it so, any more than the dislike of diet fans. Zuk's book is great for WP:PARITY because this is a topic that is generally not considered by serious commentators - so to have a professor of evolutionary biology commenting is something to treasure, and helps us fulfil our requirement of contextualizing the pseudoscience underlying this diet. We now have material from Zuk, Ungar and Stone - all of whom are eminently well-qualified to comment independently on the "paleo diet". We want secondary sources; we want sources that are WP:FRIND; we want views on the diet (not in-universe expositions of it from its proponents). More independent expert commentary on the diet would be good, yes! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Zuk's book is a bad in the sense that takes random web pages, and uses them to make generalizations on the whole diet. As I said the science might be sound, but using it as a source of information on the paleo diet is a joke. Ungar and Stone might be alright, haven't checked.

It also shouldn't matter if the view is coming from a proponent or not. They are published in well regarded peer-reviewed journals. If that's not an "independent reliable source" what is? And I cited a secondary source for every claim I've made. The rest of your points seem irrelevant (also debunkable though).

I think all of Zuk's claims about the diet should be deleted, and other points in the article should be reconsidered using WP:BALANCE אקראי אחר (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't engaged with my points at all about WP:FRIND and WP:PARITY. Where exactly (page numbers please) do you see these "random" blog posts being decided? This is just your personal view right? What was the randomization process? Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The points I haven't addressed are irrelevant. The papers I linked to are published in independent reliable sources, that's it. As to blogs, I wrote, "while I didn't read it, all reviews I saw regarding the topic said Zuk takes her claims mainly from blogs" (I looked at reviews on LibraryThing, Amazon and Goodreads. I can provide links). Seeing that this are stuff that people that read the book consistently wrote, and the big disparity between Zuk's claims on the paleo diet and what all the respectable sources say, it seems correct. Even if that's not acceptable here in Wikipedia:

A. I made myself look like a dumbass

B. The article is still in desperate need of balancing according to all the papers I linked.

BTW I saw that you originally integrated Zuk as a source. Maybe you'll be able to provide page pics that prove that she did take these claims from good sources and did not generalize? (and I used "random" rhetorically) אקראי אחר (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Amazon reviews &c are obviously junk. Probably just diet fans in denial about reality. I've seen the book well-reviewed in other RS (including the SBM piece we include in our Further Reading section). You may think my references to policy are irrelevant, but they're important here. And ... I am to understand you're complaining about a source you haven't even read? Trying to instigate WP:COPYVIO isn't great. Maybe try a library? Alexbrn (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tomatoes are definitely not something that should be included if we want to demonstrate Paleolithic foods. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I was looking before coming here, and thought "tomato, thats fruit". -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nor are carrots, lettuce or what is presumably farmed-fish! But that's sort of the point: adherents of the diet generally don't actually eat anything that Palaeolithic foragers would have had access to. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to address the two statements tagged with {{Npsn}} in this section, but there are still problems with it. For one, genetics is hardly mentioned: the section mostly duplicates the "Ancestral diet" and "Health effects" section. In a couple of places it also presents the erroneous understanding of prehistoric diets advanced by proponents of the evolutionary discordance hypothesis (e.g. that grains and legumes were introduced in the Neolithic) as fact. I'm unsure how best to address this while avoiding WP:SYNTH. Maybe selectively merge some of it into other sections, then rework what's left to be a summary of the evolutionary discordance hypothesis (which is not totally WP:FRINGE, but it is not uncontested either) in a evidence for-and-against style? Suggestions welcome. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)