Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 3

Rewording
I noticed that my previous statement and refs regarding the decrease in height and health were reworded. While most of it's fine, I'm not convinced that the reference to the "introduction of processed plant-foods" is the right wording. After all, the Neolithic was not only a time when a decrease in health occurred but it was also the time when non-Palaeo foods were introduced, such as dairy, grains and legumes,which caused this very ill-health, and this needs to be made clear as plant-foods were also eaten in Palaeo times, without such consequences.Loki0115 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Loki, legumes and dairy aren't mentioned in the sources as being linked to the decline in health and the morphological changes that occured with the advent of agriculture. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If the paper in question only mentions processed plant-foods I suppose that can't be helped, but it's a fact that grains, in particular, not "processed plant-foods" in general, have been linked to the decrease in human brain-size/decrease in average human height etc. I just find it misleading.Loki0115 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Domesticated and processed plant-foods and cereal grains have all been linked to declining health and stature, so I mentioned all of them. Cheers, --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Major reorganization
I'm not happy with the structure of the article: too much weight is given to the controversy surrounding low-carb and high protein versions, which could be forked into a separate article, and I would prefer to have the criticism integrated into the article rather than relegated to separate sections as per WP:CRITICISM, and there are other issues. I'm working on a major reorganization. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Palaeolithic Diet is, usually, viewed as being very high in carbs, not being low-carb really at all(given the 35% plant-food part of the diet cited in that article), even though a smaller subset of Palaeolithic Dieters follow much lower-carb or zero-carb versions thereof. Therefore low-carb criticisms really belong on the low-carb diet or zero-carb diet pages. Loki0115 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OH, added scientific ref re loss of brain-size during the Neolithic era.Loki0115 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrtulations
Phenilalanine, Thermoprotheus, very impressive. Hats down. --SidiLemine 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot SidiLemine. Cheers! Phenylalanine (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

market pic and caption
The pic of the market- The current pic shows a market stall- HGs didn't have this and it mainly shows a situation (growing food for money) that was mostly post-agriculture, obviously:)  We need a pic which shows all the fruit, veg you want but not in a situation which didn't exist then.  Also the caption states fruit and veg were 'staple' foods of the HG diet- I WP:NPOVed that as that maybe what believers in the PD think, but they're not 'staple foods', (I thought a 'staple food' meant the main food on which a diet primarily relies to provide enough energy to live) if HGs ate these as their main foods, they would die, so this should be made clear that it's just PG's belief, or at least to simply say the HGs ate this more than we do.  Maybe just change the word 'staple', the article on staple foods even claims that these are foods that can be stored throughout the year (that wouldn't be my definition, which I've given above) but this is clearly not the case for fruit and veg in their natural form, either. Sticky Parkin 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, your points are well taken. Note that the pic which was added shows legumes, which are restricted from the Paleolithic diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just cropped a bit of the pic given at whole foods] so feel free to make a different crop including solely stuff used in the Paleolithic diet- it's quite arbitrary what's included so I wouldn't know.:) Sticky Parkin 16:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased
This article has been rewritten in a way that bends over backward to avoid mentioning the main criticisms of the Caveman's diet: It took me 30 seconds to find these criticism in Gale Encyclopedia of Diets, because they've got a "Risks" section for every diet. Apparently this info is not worthy of this FA-standard Wikipedia article. Furthermore, information regarding the pros and cons should be easy to find; WP:CRITICISM is wrong that all criticism needs to be finely diffused in the article&mdash;there's a reason why that essay is not policy. Tagging the article as biased until this is fixed. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * calcium intake
 * high-cholesterol from red meat
 * Ok. I'll add a mention of these criticisms. I generally agree with WP:STRUCTURE, but I also understand your points. I think an acceptable compromise would be to include "Criticism" subheading within the relevant sections. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I don't think this will work because the criticism is spread out across the whole article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the criticism you mentioned. I don't have access to the Gale Encyclopedia of Diets, so please fix the wording if appropriate. Also, I hope we can agree to disagree about the article structure: --Phenylalanine (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Health implications
Have a few concerns regarding health implications. When it comes to obesity for example trying to say that diet composition is one of the main driving forcing is misleading. The three references do not support this. One is about omega 3s, another says that it is due to increased "opportunities to consume excess energy" and the third recommends a low glycemic index diets in pregnant women. The health section oversteps the research. It attempts to present this diet as a wonder solution to the world problems. Is there any evidence from RCT that this diet leads to long term weight lose? Atkins is similar and has very modest result at one year out and no long term benefit.

This page gives me a bit of a strange felling. It does not out right say what percentage of all these bad things are due to our modern diet but imply it significant. It doesn't give balance with the fact the modern diet of our is able to feed most of the world. And that lack of food is not killing children in the first world like it did only a hundred years ago. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article says "risk factor" not "main driving force". And did you look at the sustainability section? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary research
Under the discussion of effectiveness it states "a short-term intervention with the diet in healthy volunteers showed some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors." It doesn't mention the none beneficial effects and did not till I add it mention that this was a study of 14 people!-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay going thru the rest of the refs. First one on pigs, followed by a look at 29 diabetics, and one in Swedish ( could be good?).  Next maybe this is the Swedish one describes a study that started with 20 people.  6 finished total calories decrease by 900/d lost 5 lbs. Had good outcomes.  Might not have been so good if you started under weight though!  Another study of 29 people.  Is it the same 29?


 * Thankfully the NHS finally steps in a recommends people do not get to carried away. Maybe this should be said first.  Maybe the fact that these proclaimed benefits are based on no controled trials of 50 people and a few pigs should be made perfectly clear.


 * Looking at the medical parts of this article I must say I do not think this is a FA. Maybe this is all the info that is avaliable but it is misleading to present it so rosely.  I definately agree that neutrality needs to be addressed.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is all the medical info there is. What would you propose to make the information "less rosy"? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay in the lead it says medical trials have shown that this diet improves health outcomes. Sounds like it improves health comes in the general population and that the ref is a review of the trials available and the general outcome is good?  But what we actually have is one trial of 16 diabetics as the reference and the improved outcome was glucose tolerance in comparison to the Mediterranean diet.
 * This is misleading. After looking into this diet further I am sorry to say that it seem to be a fad diet supported by little research.  This article presents it as more than it is.  I will put this up for FA review to bring more minds to the topic.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I think that's a good idea. More people looking at the article will only help improve it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a global tag
I have added a global tag. The whole basis of this diet is only supported when one looks narrowly at the western world. Obesity and disease of civilization are increasing dramatically in asia well consumption of rice/wheat decreases and meat consumption increases. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai411e/ai411e00.pdf Why is this so? Because this population is eating more and exercising less. See the page on Obesity for a more detailed discussion.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems
This was very well written however it is not NPOV. Unfortunately my crude writing skill ruin some of the prose but I hope provide more balance.

Some concerns: The references say that the diet of previous people is hard to determine. Therefore even if we are evolved to eat a certain diet we do not really know what the diet was. Than no proper study has found improved outcomes. All we have here is a lot of hypothesizing. No large controlled trials.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Found a good summary of why hunter gatherers do not have disease of civilization. It is because of a lack of calories in there diet.  And a lot more exercise.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias
The heading "Alternative views on human evolution" makes it sound like those who beleive in this diet are mainstream well those who do not are a fringe group. I have not yet come across any evidence that this is true and by the looks of it the exact opposite is the case.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of one of the only trials
-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost feel like adding that to my user page. Except I decided to list there only questionable/funny results I ferret out. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
I thank Doc James for his contributions to the article to improve it, especially in the "Intervention studies" section, which is more balanced now. I have specific concerns though with some of the edits, particularly in the lead.

According to Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article ... This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text... Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole."

Furthermore, WP:LEAD states that "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." It further suggests that an article of around 32 kilobytes have two or three paragraphs in the lead. Currently, the article is at 29,764 bytes (see history, last edit).


 * edit I'm OK with the mention of "fad diet" and unfavourable calcium changes in the lead; however I have a problem with this: "Currently there is little evidence supporting its use. One of the few studies performed on people had no control group, was only three weeks in duration, involved 20 people of which 6 dropped out of the study." Why are we singling out one of the intervention studies (out of three) and discussing its methodological problems? If the study is flawed, it cannot be used to make claims about the merits or the demerits of the diet, so why are we discussing the methodological issues in the lead? These are explained in the "intervention studies" section, where they should be. About the first part, "Currently there is little evidence supporting its use", this statement really needs to be attributed to a reliable source, otherwise it's WP:SYN and it should be phrased like "according to X, Y, Z, there is little...” Remember, verifiability not truth.
 * Potentially derogatory terms like "fad" should be attributed. I don't think this is difficult in this case a both UK NHS and US ADA called it fad (correct me if I'm wrong). Saying that there's little evidence when there's little evidence is not WP:SYN; no synthesis is taking place, just an observation. If you really think this trivial observation is WP:OR, we can debate further. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not a trivial observation (see WP:SUBSTANTIATE) and it is actually debatable.
 * --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * edit Regarding the global tag that was added, the rationale stated is that "The whole basis of this diet is only supported when one looks narrowly at the western world." However, the tag should be used when there is bias in the presentation of published material related to the topic at hand; it should not be used for example when the published material supportive of the topic is inherently biased. Remember "verifiability not truth". In this case, there is ample criticism in the article about energy excess being at the root of the diseases of civilization rather than any specific Neolithic food, so the global tag does not apply in this case.


 * edit I have a problem with this sentence: "However just because some hunter-gatherers eat a great deal of wild animal fat and protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans. All it means is human are able to subsist on widely different diets." First of all, the statement is presented as fact, when it should be clearly presented as expressing the view of certain critics of the diet as per WP:NPOV.


 * edit This brings me to another point. That statement should really be placed under an "alternative views" subsection (which was removed). The "Rationale and evolutionary assumptions" section is getting long and a good descriptive subsection would be helpful to the reader, without using terms such as "criticism" as per WP:STRUCTURE. I personally think that "alternative" is a good neutral word; however I am open to alternative suggestions (pun intended).
 * In the biomedical area "alternative" generally implies a minority POV, e.g. Schizophrenia. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let's use another word, e.g. "Contrasting views on human evolution" or something similar. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * edit "The results of initial prospective medical studies are limited by their small size and lack of a control group." Who says this? A source really needs to be provided to back this up, or else it's WP:SYN, i.e. the editor introducing his/her own analysis. I suggest just dropping the sentence altogether, as a good and neutral description of the individual studies will speak for itself.
 * "Lack of a control group" is part of the definition of observational study, so... the authors say it! Xasodfuih (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, only one of the three intervention studies mentioned lacks a control group. this one also lacks a control group The others have control subjects (eating a regular diet). Saying that the studies are limited by lack of a control group is misleading as it implies that all the studies mentioned lack control subjects. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * edit Much of this criticism is already covered in the "Observational studies" section. The scope of the section is limited to "Protein and carbohydrates", so criticisms in that section should specifically address aspects related to protein and carbohydrates. Furthermore, the material is stated as fact, when it should be presented as expressing the views of specific critics per WP:NPOV. Any new information should be properly sourced any moved to the appropriate section "Observational studies" or "Rationale and evolutionary assumptions".


 * edit "The Halford Watch refers to one of the only human studies as "bad science"." Again, why are discussing the methodological flaws of one study, as if it had anything to do with the merits or demerits of the diet? This belongs in the "intervention studies" section. If this study is not reliable, then let's not rely on it to make claims about the diet in the lead.

I look forward to further collaborative work with you. Best regards, Phenylalanine (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please less lecturing on "verifiability not truth". WP:FRINGE applies as well when there's little evidence to support some scientific claims: If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Let's keep this discussion about actual content instead of making it a wikilawyering fest. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE applies as well when there's little evidence to support some scientific claims. Yes, but you're assuming that there is little evidence. There is ample evidence that eliminating junk food from the diet is good, and there no good evidence that eliminating milk, cereals and legumes is bad, provided that you meet your nutritional needs (RDA), i.e. properly planed paleo diet, with ample calcium from green veggies and vitamin D from sun exposure and fish. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not that is true is unrelated to our knowledge of what the broad range of paleolithic hunter gathers ate, and therefore, whether such a diet can be called "paleolithic" with any accuracy. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 05:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article states as fact what can only be hypothesized
The article editors make broad generalizations in this article about information that cannot possibly be known. You are assuming that the diet of paleolithic hunter-gatherers over a broad time span and over a broad geographic area is known and was similar. This can only be hypothesized. You are stating this as fact. Where do you get your information to say that most paleolithic hunter-gatherers had access to varieties of shellfish, for example. In the heart of Africia did they? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is "you"? These are several editors active here that have fairly distinct view (see above). Xasodfuih (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "You" is who ever wrote the statements alluded to&mdash;the writers of this article. I do not need to name names to make my point. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to one of the sources for this article, it is questionable whether these paleolithic hunter-gatherers had access to fire and were able to eat meat. http://files.meetup.com/254306/Food%20for%20Thought.pdf &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, many if not most of the sources for the article do not use the term "Paleolithic diet", which appears to be a fad term, since the specifics of such a diet for the broad range of humans alive during paleolithic times cannot possibly be known. Therefore, where is the proof that a "Paleolithic diet", as presented in this article, is any more than modern speculation? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I pointed out in my FAR comments, the archeological section of this article is really measly for a diet that claims to be based on (pre)historical evidence. Thanks for observing this too. I also suggested some reviews that could be useful in expanding/clarifying this in the "further reading" section above (below the double-column lists that was pasted from the article itself). Xasodfuih (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Paleolithic diet is based on "food groups" and there is no question that preagricultural humans rarely ate grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils. Whether ancestral hunter-gatherers ate more or less meat, fat, etc. is debatable and that is explained, see the "protein and carbohydrates" section.--Phenylalanine (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But it is inaccurate to infer that this is a "paleolithic diet". The original diet,  described in "The stone age diet: Based on in-depth studies of human ecology and the diet of man", by  Walter Voegtlin, was self published by a vanity press. From one of the article sources, describing another version of this diet, "Ray Mears caveman diet" in a puff piece, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4919415.ece, says it was "invented by Cavemen", describes Ray Mears: "A typical day for Mears begins with a bowl of fruit, followed by a lunch of salad, wild mushrooms and venison - usually from deer he has shot on one of the country estates near his home in Sussex. Having always been the slightly cuddly face of wilderness survival..." This is a Caveman diet? A paleolitic diet? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Ray Mears one of the "modern hunter gatherers" being talked about in the article? If so, it should be made clear that this is a pseudo "paleolithic hunter gatherer", not a hunter gatherer in the paleolithic sense. He is quoted in the article as saying, "I’m not a nutritionist, although I have spoken to nutritionists about this. I’m doing this because it feels right. You can test it out for yourself." This is "Ray Mears caveman diet". At the very least, the article should be renamed, as it is very misleading. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by modern hunter-gatherers, I mean for example, the Hadza people, the Pygmies, etc. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "Paleolithic diet" is frequently used to refer to a modern dietary regimen which is based on ancestral paleodiets. It encompasses a range of dietary versions: different proponents will make different recommendations, but all of them claim that these prescriptions are based on certain patterns characteristic of ancestral diets. In the scientific literature (academic journals and volumes), "the paleolithic diet" is advocated by several proponents, e.g. Loren Cordain, S. Boyd Eaton, Staffan Lindeberg, and is strictly used to refer to a diet which excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils. There are some discrepancies between the way this dietary regimen is portrayed in popular books such as Neanderthin and the way it is described in the scientific literature, but the diet is always presented as being based on certain patterns characteristic of ancestral diets. You say that "there is no scientific evidence based on scientific findings regarding what Paleolithic hunter gatherers ate and what their consequent health status was." However, this is incorrect. At the very top of the article, it says: ''This article is about a modern nutritional approach. For information on the dietary practices of Paleolithic humans, see Paleolithic#Diet and nutrition.'' Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment
What I have added I agree is not the best. But it was to try to balance what was presented here previously. One of the studies is garbage we can all agree now I hope on this. The other two are also garbage I just havn't found the energy to find evidence to debunk them. But a quick look at them is obvious. One is in diabetics and not the general population, the other is in pigs. Maybe we should specify this in the lead as well. But we should move onto FACR and remove this as a FA.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am OK with discussing the studies in the lead briefly. I also agree that more balance is required overall (as is indicated by the NPOV tag) but this must be done in compliance with WP:NOR and WP:VER. Regards, Phenylalanine (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Diet and exercise
We all know that a diet low in calories and a lifestyle high in exercise leads to few disease of civilization. The paleo diet try to present itself as "a diet low in calories and a lifestyle high in exercise" and thus claim the benefits proven by such. But a paleo diet is NOT this. The studies on this diet gave the participant 1500 calories!!! It was NOT eat all the paleo foods you like and be healthy which is what is implied by this article. What would happen if one would eat 3600Cals of paleo foods per day similar to the amount the Americans eat (see dietary energy supply)? Would one lose weight and thus have decreased rates of cancer and all the other bad thing of Obesity. No one would not and there is evidence supporting this I just do not have the energy to add it, please read the page on obesity to see it.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Energy intake was 25% lower in the Palaeolithic group (p=0.004; Table 6) despite similar quantities of consumed food (by weight; Table 5). After adjustment for energy intake, the improvement of AUC Glucose0–120 was still larger in the Palaeolithic group (p=0.02; Supplementary Table 2), while the larger waist loss, and the tendency for larger decrease of AUC Insulin0–120, compared with the Consensus group, disappeared (Supplementary Table 3)."


 * "Observational studies cannot prove causal relationships, but they lend support to the notion that a palaeolithic diet may prevent overweight and Western disease, even when food is available in excess."


 * Here is a new study supporting the diet.


 * Cheers, --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Phenylalanine, in response to the "observational study you reference above, the conclusion to that study is: The palaeolithic diet is not primarily a weight-loss programme. Rather, it is part of a theoretical template for health promotion. It has not been proven to prolong life, and the same is true for low-fat, high-fibre diets. Overweight subjects who wish to eat a palaeolithic diet can do so without obvious risks. However, calcium supplementation may be considered.

That does not endorse the diet. Further, the article writers are referring to people alive today, not people in paleolithic times. The reason "observational studies" do not prove support for anything is due to the lack of any causal relationship between variables. Without a cause and effect relationship, you do not know if any effects observed are due to other variables not taken into account, rather than to the hypothetical paleolithic diet. The second study to which you refer which speaks of a hypothetical 'Palaeolithic diet (‘‘stone age’’ diet)' concludes "It is not known whether palaeolithic diets are more, or less, effective than other diets in weight reduction." The third study to which you refer, describes "nine nonobese sedentary healthy volunteers" who consumed a "paleolithic type diet" for 10 days. The fourth is a news report regurgitation of the same "nine non-obese, healthy volunteers" referred to in the third reference. I do not find any of these references scientifically supportive of the Paleolithic diet article. Cheers, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Remember, this is not specifically a weight-loss plan, but a dietary strategy for general health promotion (disease prevention). While no causal relationship can be established, carefully planed observational studies do have their place. Granted, initial intervention studies are limited in size, but three methodologically sound studies, one on pigs and two on humans, have shown positive health outcome (another study showing unfavorable calcium changes). Further research is necessary, but research seems promising at this point and the theoretical underpinning of Palaeolithic nutrition seems robust.. Best, Phenylalanine (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mattise. If this is not a weight loss plan then why did they feed these people so little?  They have done very good studies on obesity and have found that the only thing that matter wrt weight is how many calories you consume.  Diet composition other than its effect on satiety is not important.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way do you know that paleo diet is a registered TM. Funny.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes it all the worse that this ever became a FA. Not that it is not bad enough, as misleading as the article is. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cooking
"Cooking is widely accepted to have been practiced as early as 500,000 years ago in the Middle Paleolithic."

This statement needs some clarification. The article claims there is strong evidence for hearths 250,000 years ago, and that there is weaker evidence for an earlier date, as early as 500,000 years ago. 'Widely accepted' exaggerates the level of agreement for the earlier date.

A better way of presenting the information is to say 'Cooking is thought to have been practiced as early as 500,000 years ago' or 'Cooking is widely accepted to have been practiced 250,000 years ago, perhaps as early as 500,000 years ago.'

In any case, 500,000 years ago is too early for the Middle Paleolithic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That was not my doing, and I agree with your points. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
Matisse, in light of my responses to your points, could you explain precisely how you think this article is misleading (exactly which sources have been misused, the naming issue, etc.), and what specific measures should be taken to address these problems? Thanks, --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the misleading part "but three methodologically sound studies... shown positive health outcome" as the studies are NOT methodologically sound and therefore you CANNOT conclude that they lead to improved health outcomes. See -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, you are an asset to Wikipedia. But your contributions to this page indicate that you have not understood completely the ramifications of the original research policy. This is not an article on obesity, and you're views about the merits or demerits of the diet are irrelevant. The points of view that you add to the article must be based on sources which refer directly to the topic of the article. The original research policy and the neutral point of view policy are both non negotiable. Thanks for your help. Best. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Most recent study to include in the article:


 * This diet makes references to many health problems with no evidence that this diet has any influence on this problems. Take obesity for example.  This page says that this diet can play an important role in obesity.  However there is lots of evidence that says it does not.  Therefore the whole section on health has extreme POV problems.  Evidence that support a positive role is added well evidence that refutes this role is removed.  It takes lots of literature that doesn't refer to this diet but its components and associated it with this diet.  This is original research.  Much of what is here relating to health should be removed.  What I have added is no more of a stretch then what is already here.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in the article is it stated that the diet plays an *important* role in obesity??? Which specific sources do not mention the Paleolithic diet??? Please stop making broad dismissive statements and give me some specifics I can work with. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry should provide more specific. Here is the section I am referring to:These dietary compositional changes have been theorized as risk factors in the pathogenesis of many of the so-called "diseases of civilization" and other chronic illnesses that are widely prevalent in Western societies,[5][10][75][76][77][78] including obesity,[79][80][81] cardiovascular disease,[82][83][84] high blood pressure,[85] type 2 diabetes,[86][87] osteoporosis,[88][89] autoimmune diseases,[90] colorectal cancer,[91][92][93] myopia,[94] acne,[95][96][97][98] depression,[99] and diseases related to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.[90][100][101][102]

I guess it is not all that bad. I am not sure that this theorizing is significant though with evidence disproving some of the theories that all. I have made my points I do not really have any more to say. Do not mean to give you such a hard time. This diet is mostly theoretical with very little hard science. I guess that is what I have a hard time with. The evidence base just isn't there yet.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This section is POV and SYNT. How could a diet that even proponents admit may result in calcium and vitamin D deficiency help with osteoporosis? Xasodfuih (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did. Their rationale is that metabolic acidosis is reduced by the paleo diet, which decreases calcium excretion. They conveniently ignore however that in Neolithic people started drinking milk, which may well offset the loss. Also, the same group suggests a more practical solution that the paleo diet for reducing the acid load in those at risk of osteoporosis: potassium bicarbonate (NEJM paper). From reading this I make two suggestions: First, when making non-obvoius statements in the article, you should give the rationale that the source gave (most people don't read the references). Second, not mentioning that a cheap modern-day remedy can have the same effect is a problem vis-a-vis of comprehensiveness in a FA article, and also NPOV. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestions, thanks. I'll add a short explanation in the "Sodium-potassium ratio and acid-base balance" subsection. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Diet origin
Where is the evidence that Walter L. Voegtlin was a gastroenterologist and that he came up with this diet, other than the mention in The Ray Mears caveman diet puff piece? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, unless you have evidence to the contrary, "timesonline.co.uk" appears to be a reliable source. Note that the Wiki article says "one of the first...". --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, it is not up to me to come up with evidence to the contrary, per WP:RS and other policies, it is up to you to prove it. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:MEDRS, your sources on this issue do not pass the test. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement "First popularized in the mid 1970s by a gastroenterologist named Walter L. Voegtlin," is supported by the following text in the Times:
 * "The so-called Paleo Diet (from paleolithic, the period of early man) was first popularised by Walter L Voegtlin, a gastroenterologist whose book The Stone Age Diet: Based on In-depth Studies of Human Ecology and the Diet of Man, was published in 1975."
 * This is not a medical fact, but an issue of who first published on the topic, and the author's profession. I don't think WP:MEDRS applies to this aspect of the article. I don't have a problem with using a broadsheet newspaper for such facts, especially when they are so explicitly stated in the source text. Colin°Talk 12:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is interesting that Walter L Voegtlin's book was published by a vanity press, and the only mentions of him (and his occupation) occur in derivative statements like in the Times puff piece. (In fact, the Times puff piece is all I could find for a reliable source mentioning Voegtlin after a brief search.) There appear to be no articles on him. His occupation is used in  Paleolithic diet to give credence to "The Ray Mears caveman diet". To me, that sort of sourcing is not very substantial.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit of Googling and reading forums and such (I know, I know) backs up the text in the article, sourced to two books I can't read, that claims his diet was based on decades of work treating colitis, etc. If you search PubMed for [  "Voegtlin WL"[Author]   ] you find 14 articles on gastroenterology published between 1940 and 1964. This guy and his out-of-print book pre-dates the Internet by several decades. He may well be mentioned in a number of reliable books and journals that Google / Google Books don't index.  Colin°Talk 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He worked at the Shadel Sanitarium for Chronic alcoholism in Seattle and was only actively publishing up to the 1950s. I suspect he has long since passed away. A review on Amazon, purportedly from his granddaughter, suggests that no other publisher would touch it. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemere, F. (1987) Aversion treatment of alcoholism: some reminiscences. British Journal of Addiction 82: 257-258


 * "In 1935, Charles Shadel and Walter Voeglin, M.D. established a sanitarium in Seattle for the exclusive treatment of chronic alcoholism by means of Pavlovian conditioned reflex aversion. Dr Voegtlin had had training in Pavlovian techniques under the world famous professor of physiology and a Nobel prize winner, Professor Ivy at the University of Chicago. Dr Voegtlin, a gastroenterologist practicing in Seattle, had not had experience treating alcoholics. However, after an extensive review of the literature, he decided to attempt to create a true conditioned reflex aversion to the sight, taste, smell, and thought of alcoholic beverages."


 * http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119484241/PDFSTART


 * --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like Walter Lyle Voegtlin was originally from Des Moines, and died in Seattle in 1975, aged 71.
 * Interesting man:
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,795779,00.html
 * --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Antiquity of cereal grain processing
I see you added some material on cereal processing during the paleolithic. I am familiar with Piperno et al., but I was not aware of this excellent source! This is very noteworthy: "Further investigations should bring new understanding to the historical study of nutrition, with important implications for modern populations. The so-called ‘diseases of civilisation’ have been related to the incomplete evolutionary adaptation to some foods introduced with the spread of agriculture (Cordain 2002)." Contrary to Piperno et al. (I do not have access to the other reference), this one refers, albeit indirectly, to the Paleolithic diet regimen, and that's what we want. Piperno et al. on the other hand do not, and so, that source would be OR. Do you see where I'm getting at? Anyhow, you seem to be a careful editor with a good grasp of the topic. I hope you stick around. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of Piperno et al would not constitute original research. What would constitute original research is if it was used in the synthesis of an original idea. That is not the case here as the conclusions of the article are being presented directly and are of direct relevence to the subject matter. Piperno et al address a key claim of 'Paleolithic diet' proponents... that cereals were not used before the neolithic revolution. Well, actually we have evidence that they were being used more than twice as long ago as the start of the neolithic. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but the policy says "related", not "relevant", there's a big difference, IMO. If you still disagree we could go here. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do disagree. I've put a request in there... see if you agree with my summary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be original research if a claim were made that Piperno et al. said something directly about the "Paleolithic diet", that is, the modern diet that is described in this article. e.g. Piperno et al. state that the "Paleolithic diet" popularized by Walter L. Voegtlin is clearly not related to the diet of humans in the Paleolithic era because cereal  was used before that era. One problem with this article is that it uses a general term, Paleolithic diet, to refer to a specific diet that is modern and is not a Paleolithic diet in reality.  If fact, Phenylalanine has acknowledged that this diet, as portrayed in the pictures in the article, is not a diet eaten in reality by Paleolithic humans, but some sort of modern synthesis.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter L. Voegtlin & alcoholics


This was added to the lead about Voegtlin "who was noted for his treatment of alcoholics". This at the very least should be moved to the body of the article per WP:LEAD. More importantly, I don't see what use it has in this article. What do the others think? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Colin°Talk 08:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would fit better in the main body. 'Noted for his treatment of alcoholics' underplays him a little. It would be more appropriate to call him a 'pioneer of Pavlovian aversion therapy in the treatment of chronic alcoholism and joint founder of the Shadel Sanitarium for Chronic Alcoholism. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he seems to be such an interesting man, maybe it's time we create Walter L. Voegtlin. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly. It would be nice to have more biographical detail first. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The guy's treatment of alcoholics using aversion therapy is utterly irrelevant in an article on the paleolithic diet. By all means put this in the article on the guy but let's stay focussed on the diet. The fact that he was a gastroenterologist is relevant. Colin°Talk 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this here as there is no consensus for its inclusion in the article: "who was noted for his treatment of alcoholics, " --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate references

 * I'm going throught the references for this article and noticed there's a lot of referencing of news flashes, some of them slightly confusing. For example, the following news flash from Science:

"The Health Benefits of Paleocuisine". Science 317 (5835): 175. July 13, 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5835.175c.

...is referenced four times in the article. This in itself is not a problem. The news piece briefly summarises the findings of Lindeberg et al (2007) without comment. However, Lindeberg et al is referenced elsewhere in the article:

Lindeberg S, Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Borgstrand E, Soffman J, Sjöström K, Ahrén B (September 2007). "A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease" (PDF). Diabetologia 50 (9): 1795–807. doi:10.1007/s00125-007-0716-y. . http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf.

Is there a valid argument for keeping both references, rather than redirecting them all to the original Diabetologia article? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Similarly, we have these two articles referenced in the article:

Moffat, Tina (2001). "Book Review—Evolutionary Aspects of Nutrition and Health: Diet, Exercise, Genetics and Chronic Disease". Human Biology 73 (2): 327–29. doi:10.1353/hub.2001.0021. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v073/73.2moffat.html.

Cordain, Loren (1999). "Cereal grains: humanity's double-edged sword" (PDF). World review of nutrition and dietetics 84: 19–73. doi:10.1159/000059677. . http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf.

Moffat's book review covers the whole of World Review of nutrition and dietetics volume 84, which consists of 5 papers. However, where she is referenced in this article, she is covering Cordain's article. It would seem sensible to ditch the book review as a reference and go with the article itself. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the science news release, note that only the summary is accessable on-line, I do not have access to the full version, but it may contain comment/criticisms of the study/diet. Also, using reliable secondary sources is advisable in itself, as it demonstrates notability and possibly reliability of the primary source. See WP:MEDRS. Regarding the Moffat ref, she is being used in this article to criticize the diet (its sustainability); obviously Cordain is not criticizing the diet ;-) --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'summary' of the Science news piece is the full version. There is no further text. I agree on the Book review. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Science release could noted in the same footnote as Lindeberg et al by adding it with a bullet. It is secondary coverage which indicates notability, but it's pretty sparse on analysis. II  | (t - c) 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It seems that much of the literature is in Swedish. Does anyone know of english versions for use to review.  If this is to remain a FA it must be shown that this diet is more than a fad. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've spotted an Annual Review above (3rd from the bottom). It's not about the effects of the diet as a medical intervention, but still it can be used for a sizeable part of this article. Also, I don't think that asking for RCTs when none (as of yet) exist is reasonable; you are doing a fine a job at toning down the overselling of evidence that was taking place (which is why I didn't feel like intervening here myself). A FA just needs to present the existing evidence in a balanced fashion. Compared to other diet articles I've tried to balance recently (Fit for life, Bible diet) this one at least has some serious studies going. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks there is still work to do though. I do not think with the evidence base that this can be a medical featured article.  Maybe a food featured article but not all subjects can be featured articles in medicine.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the review I pointed above briefly, it's about earlier species than Homo sapiens; sorry :( Xasodfuih (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Still it could be useful for writing about the diet in the lower Paleolithic. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Another somewhat useful review for background is, also listed above; it's a bit dated (2003), but I doubt any significant archaeological discoveries have been made since. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reviews used in Paleolithic_diet (which is rather sketchy as a section given that the whole theory is based on this) are of the same age but more focused and in appeared is lesser venues; in particular, the World review of nutrition and dietetics appears really obscure to me, and it's widely used in this wiki page. looks more reputable and has more context. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, should be an interesting read; I've only read the conclusion section, but that raises doubt that eating like the rest of the hunter-gatherer early Homo species is that "natural" for Homo Sapiens. They suggest that diet and brain evolution are closely linked. 04:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics" is used for two sources in this article. For information on this series of publications, see. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 43 citations for the entire journal for 2004-2007 (3 years) is hardly impressive. For comparison, that source gives Ann. Rev. Nutrition 781 citations in the same period. I also have doubts about how good that site is since JCR 2007 gives Ann. Rev. Nutrition 3467 cites, ranking it 2nd in the nutrition area. I'm not saying the World Review journal is written by crackpots; just that for generic background info like "how bad cereals are for your health" surely there are more credible sources than  cited 6 times in this wiki article. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B.: I see that site sources data from Scopus. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This so-called Paleolithic Diet is a misnomer at best, or a fraud at worst. The description entails the supposed diet of ancient humans, hence the name. Assuming that the Theory of Evolution is correct, then that phenomenon would have had to occur across the spectrum of all living organisms, or it simply could not be true. If so, then the plants and small animals presented in this diet, described in their current, modern form, would have been totally different organisms in pre-historic times. I see this latest fad diet as being an idea borne of enthusiasm, but ill-fated due to the failure of its creators to consider all aspects of the proposals. If the contents of the diet truly are as healthy as the creators claim, then so be it. It will be a good path for many to follow. But to call it what it is called, and claim that it is the supposed diet of ancient humans without taking into consideration the ramifications of evolution on all organisms, is borderline fraud. One side note. I find it odd that the proponents of this diet make the assertion "that human genetics have scarcely changed since the dawn of agriculture." Hmmm... Let the buyer beware.66.64.181.154 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues raised during FAR which need to be fixed

 * Where appropriate, add references listed on talk page to the article.


 * Ensure that all references are reliable and meet the standards outlined at WP:MEDRS.


 * Ensure that all scientifically disputable claims about the features of ancestral paleolithic diets are clearly indicated as reflecting the views of Paleolithic diet proponents. Find appropriate (non-OR) sources to balance these statements.


 * Briefly explain how the diet is said to help prevent osteoprosis in the "Sodium-potassium ratio and acid-base balance" subsection: The rationale is that metabolic acidosis is reduced by the paleo diet, which decreases calcium excretion. Also note that the researchers suggest a more practical solution than the paleo diet for reducing the acid load in those at risk of osteoporosis: potassium bicarbonate (NEJM paper).


 * Consider renaming the article to make it clearer that it's about a modern dietary regimen, not the actual ancestral dietary practices. Possible name: "Paleolithic type diet"


 * Verify this reference to determine whether it refers to the Paleolithic diet regimen. Rewrite critique regarding the antiquity of cereal grain processing in accordance with this source per this discussion at WP:NORN.


 * Discuss health benefits of whole grains and other restricted foods and the relative absence of "diseases of civilization" in certain populations subsisting on such foods, in the "Nutritional factors and health effects" section, using this source:


 * Discuss recent study in "Intervention studies" section.


 * Create subheadings where appropriate so that criticism is easy to find, without using such titles as "criticism" and "controversy", as per WP:STRUCTURE.


 * Create a subsection on "calcium and vitamin D" in the "micronutrient density" section to discuss these shortcomings. Use the following sources:


 * Addressing these questions would help frame the article's subject in a broader context:
 * What percentage of the population, and in what countries, eats this way?
 * Among which age ranges, socio-economic statusses and cultural environments is it popular?
 * Is this a fringe diet, or is it gaining significant popularity?

References

More sources
Add the following citations to the body of the article where appropriate:

1983
toxicants: http://books.google.com/books?id=9XvrC_LR8FMC&pg=PA303&dq=nutrition+toxins#v=onepage&q=nutrition%20toxins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.94.170 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2009

 * Abstract
 * More articles on google scholar:
 * More articles on google scholar:
 * More articles on google scholar:
 * More articles on google scholar:
 * More articles on google scholar:
 * More articles on google scholar:

-- Phenylalanine (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The role of gut micro-organisms and their rate of evolutionary change has been overlooked.
The article seems to be missing an critical aspect of nutrition, the composition of our gut ecosystems, these organisms are also far more rapid in their ability to adapt to change. Do we still have Palaeolithic gut organisms or have we selected for ones that cope with a modern diet? I think there needs to be a whole new section covering this aspect of the topic because without considering these micro factors it is hard to come to any conclusions about the macro ones.

--Dsmatthews (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)