Talk:Paleo diet/Archive3

"Rational" wiki
Turning away contributors and undoing sourced, scientifically supported edits in favor of unsourced and straight up false content is something I would expect from conservapedia, not the rational wiki.

71.82.69.206 (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody DRINK! -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Тy rannis 23:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I should have seen that coming. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And it usually is rational, but why would you remove scientifically-backed edits for nothing more than unfounded opinion?


 * I get that you consider this wiki a joke, but I would have hoped for more respect for reason. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is this supported evidence again? Linky. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we start with the complete falsehoods that were reverted? "Nutritionists have claimed that a true "paleodiet" is generally lacking in nutritional content including but not limited to mono- and poly- unsaturated fats (the paleo diet limits you to fruit and nut fats, but not ones that are processed), micro and macro nutrition from dairy products, as well as active biotics from things like cheese and yoghurt that help the digestive system. "
 * Limited in mono and polyunsatured fat? Magic nutrients in milk that can't be obtained from anything else? Milk produce being the only thing fermented ever? That entire paragraph is embarrassingly misinformed.
 * I want a scientific study that contradicts our position. Go. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which position are you referring to? The changes that were reverted were corrections that should be common sense. E.g., a diet high in fish is lacking in polyunsatured fat? That's just ridiculous. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) By assuming that we consider this wiki a joke, you don't understand the purpose of the site. Please refer to our Mission page for more information, particularly in regards to the first two points. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Respect for reason? Heh. Well you know better now, doncha? -- MtD Pinko Scum   23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, it'd be easier to not make fun of you if you explained yourself better. The only source I see being deleted is "http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/palatability-satiety-and-calorie-intake.html" - I wouldn't call a random blog 'scientific support'. Is there something I am missing, as an outsider to this edit conflict?  ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies on that, as it was supposed to be a link directly to the satiety study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
 * My problem is that you have nothing less than complete fabrications that I attempted to correct (with explanations as to why) that were just reverted by a lazy moderator with no desire to even incorporate any of the changes that shouldn't be controversial. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may step in as a pretty much uninvolved party, I have to say: the reversion was probably uncalled-for, but the edits you made sounded like apologism. In particular, the paragraph you added, "Nutritionists have claimed ... However, a modern paleo diet would not be lacking in mono and polyunsaturated fats due to the inclusion of ... Additionally, active biotics can be acquired from fermented foods such as...": this reads as if you are specifically trying to write a rebuttal to the claim you erased by adding it. That's not what the wiki is for. If you'd like to make some counterpoints, consider adding them as footnotes or as counterpoints, don't make the article read like weird diet apologism.
 * That said, the reversion was heavyhanded in that you added some real material, and the paragraph you erased was bad. Replacing it with a paragraph that's not great in the other direction isn't a good solution, is all. ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  00:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My hope was that my edit wouldn't be reverted if I did more than just deleting information that's, well, wrong (or at the very least heavily biased, though I also understand bias against perceived pseudoscience is accepted here). There wouldn't be much of a paragraph left after that, and it's not my goal to reduce content. If I added information that supported the paleo diet from a nutritional (not an anthropological) standpoint, would it even be considered?71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Srsly, a claim that someone has cured their MS with a paleo fad diet backed by a link to YouTube? Puhleez. -- MtD Pinko Scum   00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a TEDx talk by a doctor who cured her own MS with a documented method describing how she did it. It being on Youtube somehow lessens its validity? 71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Because it's not a verifiable independent source. It's her claim on YouTube." Are you kidding me? This entire article is one big "Citation needed", and you get your panties in a bunch because I removed MS because a doctor actually cured their MS with such a diet? This is ridiculous, and you're doing an incredible job of forcing away contributors. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone actually, verifyably, cured MS from a diet they - and my sister in law - would be shouting it from the rooftops. Extraordinary claims - like curing MS from a diet, demand extraordinary evidence - not some youtube clip. It's crap like that that is this Wiki's function to refute, not endorse. Jack Hughes (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IP-san (I'd love it if you registered so we had a name to call you), this one falls into the standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There are plenty of doctors out there who are total quacks: trust me, I am 2/3 of the way to being one myself. There is also a lot of work that can be done on this article, and removing "MS" from the list of "things this diet has been claimed to cure but probably can't" is going to earn contention unless you can honestly, with serious backup, produce evidence to the contrary. Because it's been claimed that this diet can cure MS, the point belongs in the list unless there's overwhelming evidence that it actually can. Given the extraordinarily complex physiological and genetic components to MS as far as we presently understand, I highly doubt that the solution will be as simple as "eat something different". I could of course be wrong, and I would be extraordinarily happy if I was... but it's unlikely that I am.
 * Regarding your edits, you seem to want to write about the benefits of a paleo-diet. Fine. This article needs a lot of revision: why don't you consider separating out some of the "in favour" material that's scattered about the article, and consolidating it along with some more of your knowledge into an "Arguments in Favour of the Paleo Diet" subsection? See how that goes over? Trying to edit the article into a positive light is not going to go over well, because no matter how you spin it, it's still a fad diet. ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  00:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Can I at least redo some of the edits that were initially reverted that were undeniably wrong, e.g., the claim that a diet high in fish would ever be deficient in polyunsaturated fats; pointless quips like "And we all trust that an exercise physiology specialist is as good a source for nutrition as a geologist is for biological processes, right?"; or generally poorly-worded and unverifiable claims such as "Further, those attempting to follow this diet and keep it 'low fat' from the wild means, often wind up finding it so difficult to follow they end up resorting to the same cows and pigs and chickens the rest of us eat."? 71.82.69.206 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a reply to Honorable Mr/Ms IP, but stepping backward a little bit, I do sort of second removing the milk part of the unsaturated fat. But I will say that other than perhaps fish, the other places to get unsaturated fats lie in things like vegetable oils... which the paleolithic people definitely did not refine. Humans do require a fat intake; heck, humans require saturated fat, too. But unless you manage to eat fish every day, or manage to eat a metric crap-tonne of nuts every day, or manage to land the rare beastfood... you're out of luck. Paleolithic people likely did NOT have a 'sure' intake of food. Modern paleolithic people can go to the supermarket and buy sashimi every day if they so desire... but paleolithic man definitely didn't have a Whole Foods Market from which to buy lovely (and delicious!) organic salmon. What one ate highly depended on what was around, and diets varied the world over. Some were nutritious, some were not. Fossils have been found malnourished or starved. Heck, there were periods of glacier retreat and advance in the paleolithic, and it was either move on or adapt to eating things on top of ice sheets. I don't think RationalWiki really objects SO MUCH to the idea of the diet being... well... a diet that has the possibility of being healthy, as it does to the falsehoods the diet presents about how prehistoric peoples ate and lived: romanticizing them into super-humans and that modern man has somehow fallen out of grace or lost touch with nature. It's a cheap tug at people's heartstrings and even their wish fulfillment. Many other movements such as New Age and folk healing have an element of disappointment of the modern world (culture guilt: the same stuff that makes the 'wisdom of the ancients' or the 'closer to earth' idealization arguments work) to make them more convincing. Really the nutrition of the paleolithic diet should be what is discussed and presented as the face of it, not idealistic interpretations of ancient peoples who died figuring out exactly which fruits wouldn't kill them. The same fruits that later were bred into our contemporary peppers and tomatoes that are consumed by modern people the world over. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "the other places to get unsaturated fats lie in things like vegetable oils" We seemed to be fine before the relatively recent introduction of vegetable oils.
 * You are, of course, correct in saying that diets varied hugely by region, as they did too by season, weather, etc., which is partially why it seems that the more vocal of the paleo crowd are dropping the dogma of things like low-carb and focusing instead on eating real foods, which is pretty universally accepted as healthier. The only restrictions the most commonly described paleo diet places now are: fresh, frozen, or otherwise unprocessed foods only, no grains or legumes unless they're traditionally prepared (sprouted, fermented), try to eat healthy animals, and, to some people, no milk. That's it. This entire article sounds like it was written by someone who read a review or overview of one of Cordain's old books and took that to be the total embodiment of a community that's constantly evolving. For example, Cordain is referred to as the "author of the most popular modern version of this diet". This is simply not the case. Is he respected? Certainly. Is his word final? No. 71.82.69.206 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take issue with some of your comments, but in general this is the sort of argument you should be modifying and using on the main page. Since you're clearly more up to date on the paleo diet, add in some info in a less biased way. However, plenty of people eating this way are still crackpots, and it's those people we need to be prepared to debate with... moderate people who just eat healthy and for some reason identify their healthy diet as somehow paleolithic are just kind of strange people who are eating healthily; there's no call to debate with them, so we don't need tons of info about them. Simply stating that they exist and what they do differently would be good. ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  04:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Rational" wiki part deux
First, let's loosen you guys up:

Okay, now that you're back: I'm going to be making some corrections about the paleo diet. I'm not trying to make the article sound supportive, I'm just trying to correct errors in the perception of what a paleo-style diet actually constitutes. Please don't mistake "revert" for "I don't like this guy". Thanks. Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why high/higher protein diets work
Valid points put forth, though it might be noted that protein is not the only satiating part of a paleo diet. Protein and fiber, which are high on a paleo-style diet, also contribute to satiety and, therefore, calorie restriction without the need to tediously count calories. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104) Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to pull our variety of "fads" together, but still show the facts. high protien, low carb (vs. high protein mod carb) is dangerous long term, and I want to empathize it.  But it's also a safe and effective way to lose 10 or 15 lbs over 2-3 months, if you are a healthy adult.  But my concern is emphasizing that it's not a good way to eat "the rest of your life".  But no one can deny that study after study is showing **higher** protein, **lower carb** diets are both healthy, long term sustainable, and will help with weight loss for many reasons.  the trick is the extremes -- like everything in life, I suppose. --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paleo is in a tough growing period right now, distancing itself from the almost religious low-carb crowd and moving towards a more moderate view of carbohydrate--especially in regards to potatoes and the like. The increasingly popular view is one put forth by Richard Nikoley: "From the equator to the poles, from sea level to 16,000 feet, humans have evolved to exploit the environment in which they’ve found themselves." Avoiding poison has and might always be a constant game of trial and error for us. Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So how bout a section "moving away from the woo", that addresses where paleo is going, why, and what research backs it up?--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   oi, putain, genial, merci 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I still find it kinda "dumb" that the diet frames itself around such bad anthropology and evo biology. When they found out they were right about adding more protein, and studies were backing them up, but not the reasons WHY they were right, wouldn't it be better to start a new trend like "scientific Lower carb, higher protein diet".  or does "paleo" sound cool, so sell books?  I know everything is ultimately not about helping people but making money (yes, I'm a cynic).  People on diet sites are always telling me "this is how man ate", and "there is proof that we were more healthy back when".  those are the comments that make me go nutty! :-)--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 16:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's because it's an easy way to clamp on to people. The culture-guilt idea, the concept that western society has 'gone too far' and we aren't close to nature and we are bad is a pretty common meme circulating in culture nowadays, with many manifestations. From things like James Cameron's Avatar (Man and development is evil; the native aliens who can literally connect with nature are good), new age healing and alternative medicine (drugs are evil, these methods that sound like elves from a woodland grove developed them are better for you), ancient wisdom practices (Modern people have forgotten about the wisdom of the ancients), and even apocalypse fixation (All my problems would go away if civilization went away!) have some element of self-resentment in them. In varying degrees, of course. But the idea that somehow we used to be better and have since gotten worse plays into a lot of self-consiousness issues that humans may have. Imagine you feel bad, and then somebody tells you that of of course you feel bad, and you contain the potential to be better than you are. It matches up with your self-image yet also uses positive reinforcement to imply that you are fundamentally good and only have to do a few things to make it show. Like buy stuff. Usually the aim is to get people to buy stuff.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stephan Guyenet ("a Ph.D. in neurobiology investigating the causes of obesity and the regulation of body fat by the brain") has some interesting blog posts about diseases of civilization/affluence, the effect of agriculture on us as a species: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/archaeology. His slant is obviously there, but he's a smart guy. Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I cannot find a reference to the chewing effect on satiety. I know it's there, cause i've run across it in my readings... so if anyone has a cite, I'd love it. --Godot   oi, putain, genial, merci 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Something that might be valuable to mention is the idea of 'rabbit starvation'. It is fully possible to starve to death eating a diet of only very lean meat. Followers of the paleo diet do not have to worry about this danger, considering they can supplement their lean meat with the proper amount of fat and safe vegetables year-round from the grocery... but when paleolithic man was driven to hunt and consume such meats they likely weren't able to pull oil or out-of-season vegetables out of thin air like we can. Lean meat was probably a necessity but also probably not the ideal protien for paleolithic man; they likely ate fatty brains, sucked marrow, and extracted fats any way they could to fend off this kind of starvation. The diet makes it sound like eating lean meat is the ideal meat for humans, that we evolved to eat lean meat, and that hunter-gatherers sought out lean meat as a priority food, which probably isn't entirely true.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First: Marrow is freaking delicious. Second: This guy has some experience with Aboriginals: goo.gl/zU3nn It could be noted that many paleo advocates say "lean meat" in reference to store-bought meat, as the nutritional profile of the fat is one of the reasons grass-fed beef is preferred. Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Marrow is delicious, I do admit.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WE have one of our pro-paleo BONs *insisting* that wild game is not more lean than agrarian meat. I want to slap people sometimes. ;-)  KOTL - can i use your stuff pretty much word for word in our intro?[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 17:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This section seems to assume that paleo diets are higher in protein and assume that it is in virtue of being higher in protein that they are more satiating. This doesn't seem to be borne out by various paleo diet trials. In the 2007 Diabetologia paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/) the absolute levels of protein are the same in the paleo and 'consensus diet' group (90g and 89g respectively). While the paleo group voluntarily consumed fewer calories and so protein forms a larger % of calories, this is all due to reduced carb intake- the consensus group are actually consuming more fat. Similarly, this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009971/?tool=pubmed) 2010 paper in Nutrition & Metabolism, shows little correlation between satiety and protein intake (see figure 8). Note htat you can also see the association between satiety and fibre, energy density, carbohydrate intake, grain intake. This 2009 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/?tool=pubmed) in Cardiovascular Diabetology also shows only a 4g (94g versus 90g) difference in protein intake between the paleo and diabetes diet groups (table 5). Lewstherin123 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and edit it; you don't have to ask permission. I believe somebody who TOOK DEEP OFFENSE to the fact that we slammed the diet edited here a while ago and the article as it stands now is a compromise between the fact that the paleo diet is goofy in many incarnations and somebody who was flailing 'It's just a low carb high protien diet and those DO work!' ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 14:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What you can eat
WE are a woo debunking site. And when you google paleo diet, potatoes are almost always included in the "not acceptable" list. As is corn (which i understand is a grain, but plays specifically into a argument brought up that native americans (north south and central) were eating corn long before they were growing it. I think we really need a "most people claim" vs., a "new trend towards" section to mark the distiction between what I hear on Sparks people, and at various paleo websites, and what HOnorable is saying is the "better" path.  Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, as I have stated, a still-growing trend. A major point of contention for some. Big names like Archevore and Free the Animal support tubers, though. Nobody is all that hot on grains, though. Even traditionally prepared, they're just "meh". Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have no problem at all with this particle stating that, clearly. I just want to make sure we don't lose focus of debunking the wooier side of this, that as i said, I see all over the net, sparks people,e tc.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be confrontational. Meaning is so often lost in text. :( Honorable Mr. IP (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not confrontational. YOu're sane.  you need only look at the various BONs who log in, say "this is stupid" and log out to see what "confrontational" is.  :-)  I want to make sure we are not creating straw men at RW, but still providing good info for people who are less likely to be researching this stuff.  keep adding! keep refining, so the article reflects what you know and have seen in the world of paleo.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font color="Blue">Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 19:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Autism claims
The saddest part of the study The gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism: an overview with clinical implications by Elder, Jennifer Harrison Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, ISSN 0884-5336, 2009, Volume 23, Issue 6, p. 583

was that many of the parents reported behavioral improvements that were not corroborated by videotaping and objective observation. Hope springs eternal. There's always the chance that if you put large swaths of people on a diet that doesn't contain a common allergen (like gluten) some of them will discover that oh hey, they were allergic to gluten this whole time. If those people have limited verbal communication and couldn't explain that their stomach hurt, you're probably going to see some behavioral improvements. I'm waiting on more conclusive evidence about whether people with autism are more likely to have digestion problems/allergies than other people.&mdash; Unsigned, by: User: / talk / contribs
 * That's the trouble with illnesses like autism. So much of it is about perception, when you are trying to rate how well someone is doing, or if they are improving.  "he cries less" is really a marker, for example.  But since it is a parent reporting, and as you say "hope springs eternal", they are likely to say "oh look, he is doing better! it's working!  something is helping!".  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   15:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)