Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paleolithic diet/archive1 - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:11, 18 March 2009 [1].

Notified: WP Medicine, WP Food and drink, Phenylalanine.

I am concerned about the balance of this article. Research from primary studies is used to make generalized comments. "studies" is used when only one study is refed. Improved health outcomes is used when "16 diabetics have improved glucose control". It is implied that this plays a significant role in many conditions with out quantifying what that role may be.

I have not been convinced by the three or four studies presented that this is anything more than a fad diet and if that is so then it should be presented as such. Having experts say how great it is or what it might achieve if followed means nothing. As the say "show me the numbers". Unfortunately there are no numbers as the research has not been done. Therefore the health benefits are unknown.

I am not convinced there is a research base to make this a featured article in the field of medicine.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are three controlled "studies" referenced, one on domestic pigs, and two human trials, and WP:FACR does not require a substantial "research base" for the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my gripes with this article (first posted on WT:MED). Since it has been promoted last year it has seen over 1,000 substantive edits, most of which were done by the same user that nominated it for FA (using two accounts). The result of these edits has be mostly a bias of the article towards an overly favorable POV by several means:

"World Review of Nutrition & Dietetics" is used for two sources in this article. For information on this series of publications, see [2][3][4]. Loren Cordain is one of the main proponents of the paleodiet as well as an internationally recognized expert on the subject, and the papers he posted at thepaleodiet.com are all published in reliable sources. I therefore rely largely on his and other proponents publications to support their views of the merits of the diet. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • cherry-picking abstracts only for favorable facts, e.g. from PMID 17522610 only the positive findings are presented
Doc James has fixed this particular instance. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • mentioning every disease ever associated with (modern) diet as to imply that paleo diet somehow would help [even though this is not explicitly stated], even those diseases that it would clearly not do so, e.g. osteoporosis.
Respectfully, that is your opinion. Yes, the diet is claimed by proponents to do help prevent numerous diseases, so it's important to mention which diseases. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference spamming the studies section: every little newsflash about a study and even a Ph.D. thesis resulting from it is given as a separate reference in addition to the study giving the impression that bigger of evidence actually exits, e.g. "The results of initial prospective medical studies on the Paleolithic diet have shown positive health outcomes.[1][2][3][4]" If you read the NHS article on this study, it's nowhere near that optimistic in interpretation.
Refs
  1. ^ Jönsson T, Ahren B, Pacini G, Sundler F, Wierup N, Steen S, Sjoberg T, Ugander M, Frostegard J, Goransson L, Lindeberg S (2006). "A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs". Nutrition & Metabolism. 3 (39): 39. doi:10.1186/1743-7075-3-39. PMID 17081292.
  2. ^ "The Health Benefits of Paleocuisine". Science. 317 (5835): 175. July 13, 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5835.175c. S2CID 220098755.
  3. ^ NHS Knowledge Service (May 9, 2008). "Caveman fad diet". NHS Choices. Retrieved August 1, 2008.
  4. ^ Jönsson, Tommy (November 23, 2007). "Healthy Satiety. Effects of Paleolithic diet on Satiety and Risk factors for Cardiovascular disease. (Doctoral Thesis)" (Document). Lund University, Sweden. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help) ISBN 9789185897230.

This is just a sample of the problems in the article, but these problems are pervasive. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat "The results of initial prospective medical studies on the Paleolithic diet have shown positive health outcomes." is based on three studies, one animal experiment (ref 1), and two human trials (ref 2 & 3). The doctoral thesis discusses the animal study and the first human trial and related matters. All the diseases mentioned are specifically referred to in the publications cited. If some sources are not reliable, I will remove them. Must they be indexed by JCR? I think you're right about PMID 17522610, I will mention the unfavorable effect on calcium.
I must admit that the article is still very much a work in progress (and I personally think that it improved a lot since featured; work has focused on improving scope (for example. including contrary POVs), summary style, sourcing and reference formatting): I have to admit that the article is still very much a work in progress, and I agree that some of the material should be framed in more NPOV fashion, specifically within the "Nutritional factors and health effects" and "Research" sections. I will try to address these issues within the following weeks, with the limited time I have. Although, I wouldn't mind going through the featured process again. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gone for the next few days will look more closely when I get back.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I landed on this article a few weeks ago and got an unpleasant feeling, and was very surprised it was a FA. There was unexplained other pseudoscience which I had to google to find out was about the alkaline diet in a caption, the article did not make clear what was believers in the diet's opinion rather than fact (i.e. what made up the majority of 'real' paleolithic diets would not have been this), WP:OWN on the article and a general pro-this diet tone. It is/was not neutral and should not be a FA. Not looked for a couple of weeks so will look tomorrow, I don't know much about the subject but know this is not an accurate description of what a paleolithic diet would have been in most regions, and that this is only a believer's view of what it might have been should be made very clear in the text at every point throughout the article. It should include more language like 'followers of the diet believe it is good for..." rather than saying such claims are proven to most scientist's satisfaction, and generally be more NPOV. Sticky Parkin 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to collaborating with you to improve this article. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This diet is recognized as a fad diet and should be how it is protrayed. "www.eatright.org". --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc James has pushed the article towards WP:NPOV in a significant way with his recent edits that described the existing evidence in accurate terms. I'm concerned however that a diet which claims (pre)historical roots has a measly one-paragraph section about archaeological evidence. A quick look at the rather beefy further reading section (now moved to the article's talk page) identified two reputable reviews that could be used as source for expanding that section; that could also address the issue that too many obscure sources are used, which I raised in my initial comment here. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that modern diet causes disease of civilization and thus the paleo diet prevents it is very misleading. All of these conditions mentioned are very complex and they way it is presented fails WP:WEIGHT.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said your edits were an improvement. That does not mean all POV/WEIGHT issues have been solved, as you correctly pointed out. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the accuracy of the accompanying photo as representing the Paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet or paleodiet), also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet. The photo is described as "bouillabaisse served in a Brazilian restaurant". —Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Bouillabaisse is a fish stock containing different kinds of cooked fish and shellfish and vegetables, flavored with a variety of herbs and spices such as garlic, orange peel, basil, bay leaf, fennel and saffron.". That seems to fit the definition. You don't have to eat wild foods to eat paleo. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is a food/recipe article and not a medical article. You should make that clear. In the lead it sounds like you actually know what this diet was composed of, and a photo reifies this pseudo knowledge. I doubt actual hunter-gatherers during paleolithic times ate dishes made of "different kinds of cooked fish and shellfish and vegetables, flavored with a variety of herbs and spices such as garlic, orange peel, basil, bay leaf, fennel and saffron." Where did these paleolithic hunter-gatherers live that they had such variety available? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this make it clear? "Centered around commonly available modern foods, the "contemporary" Paleolithic diet consists mainly of lean meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts; and excludes grains, legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils.[2][4][5]" The paleolithic diet is based on "food groups", although some advocates recommend specific ratios. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phenylalanine is basically rejecting any reasonable fixes and wikilawyers endlessly over trivial observations like "there's little research about this diet" on that article's talk page. I don't see how progress can be made under these circumstances, and I therefore suggest to move to the voting stage (FACR). Xasodfuih (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think at the very least the title of the article be changed so as not to infer that this diet is anymore than superficially related to a hypothesized "paleolithic diet" reflective of the broad range of diets of paleolithic hunting and gathering paleolithic peoples in various parts of the world. "Ray Mears Caveman Diet" is the name given in one of the references to the article. It is a modern diet, loosely based on a hypothesized "paleolithic diet" and presented in the article as a "fad" diet, like the "South Beach diet" or others of the same ilk. There is no scientific evidence based on scientific findings regarding what Paleolithic hunter gatherers ate and what their consequent health status was. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.[5][6] 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)[reply]

And there's little experimental evidence supporting the beneficial claims of this modern approach. Also, this wiki article is uttely biased even in coparison with descriptive/analytical publications of the propopents of this diet. User:Phenylalanine claims that WP:MOS doesn't allow him/us to have section(s) outlining the shortcomings of this diet, and consequently suppressed that information. Compare the structure of the current version of the wiki article with that of a paper by proponents of the paleo diet pdf freely available. It that paper roughly one page is dedicated to the discussion potential shortcoming of the diet, in a clearly labeled section with the following subsections:

    • calcium
    • vitamin D
    • cholesterol

Can you spot these sections in the wiki article? I bet you cannot. For comparision, the potential benefits are discussed in that paper on rougly two pages, and has the following heading (I bet you find these in the wiki article):

    • protein
    • carbohydrate and fiber
    • sodium and potasium
    • trace nutrients

So about 33% of the analysis in a paper published by the proponents is about the potential risks. How much space is dedicated to potential risks relative to potential benefits in the wiki article? Virtually none. Add to this the suppression of negative findings from the only experimental study in humans (now fixed), and I hope it's clear I considered this article very biased, and why I think substantial bias still persists.Doc James (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xaso. This page need a lot of work and I am all for bringing it to FARC now. This changes will take months to address.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cordain is presenting an example paleo menu based on what he believes would be an optimal animal/plant food ratio (that would closely resemble the ancestral paleolithic diet, and this is debatable, see "protein and carbohydrate" section. Another paleo advocate, Staffan Lindeberg, believes that a paleolithic diet can vary widely with regards to the proportions of meat vs. plant food. So the issue of cholesterol is limited to Cordain's framework. This means that it is not an inherent shortcoming of a paleolithic diet consisting of meat, veggies, seafood, roots and nuts. There is increasing evidence that individuals living in northern countries may need to take vitamin D supplements in the winter, especially older individuals (above 60 years I think), since less vitamin D is produced by the skin (seafood does not provide sufficient vitamin D). This would not have been an issue for ancestral humans living in Africa. So, we should probably mention that older individuals should take vitamin D supplements. Regarding calcium, this should be discussed further in the article, I agree with you, specifically in the "micronutrient density" section. I agree with Doc James that this article should be delisted. Regards, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could indeed have a subsection on "calcium and vitamin D" in the "micronutrient density" section. This would be an acceptable compromise I think. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I was referring to WP:STRUCTURE, not the Manual of Style, and I do believe that we need a set of useful subheadings, as that makes it easier for the reader to find information he might be looking for, the calcium and vitamin D issues would be an example. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few concerns about the photos of dishes supposedly representitive of paleolithic diets: 'Pork loin roast dinner with mushrooms, onions, strawberries, cucumbers, and carrots' Carrots and courgettes never existed in anything approaching those forms before agriculture. Moreover, they originated on opposite sides of the world and certainly could never have been found together on a plate before around 1600 AD.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems inappropriate to use, especially as a lead image. Such sophisticated modern meals are not representative of the diet this article describes imo. An image of a meal cooked from one of the diets cook books is needed.YobMod 09:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is fine. This modern diet is based on paleolithic food groups, and that includes domesticated animal and plant foods.[7] --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, they are not 'fine'. They're misleading.
On one hand the diet restricts use of foods (such as cereals that were most certainly used in the Paleolithic) based on vague and erroneous assumptions about what food was used in prehistoric times, and on the other it states that the use of crops that did not exist in prehistoric times is okay. I find it difficult to comprehend how a Vegan dish containing courgettes can be representative of the eating habits of primarily carnivourous societies that lived long before the courgette was bred.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you comprehend or not is irrelevant. This article about a modern dietary regimen, and the images are representative of the regimen. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People in ancient times eat what every was available. Therefore the diet was different in different areas of the world. I assume bugs would be have been rather prominent ( like grass hoppers and ants ) probably however neither fried nor covered in chocolate though. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may well have been served with bread though, since it's apparent Paleolithic societies did indeed use cereals.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back over the last few hundred edits, the balance of the article has shifted remarkably. It has gone from an article that was broadly critical of the diet to a promotion of it. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paleolithic_diet&diff=226572744&oldid=226561600

--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added inappropriate material to the article, which I removed immediately. How does that prove your point? Less broad dismissive generalizations please, and more constructive specifics. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my main concern with that particular edit is that appropriate material was removed (sourced evidence of adaptation to post-paleolithic diet), and that there has been an overall shift in balance to a non-neutral POV with what appears to be a systematic removal of criticism of the diet. Apologies if this has not been your intent.
It seems to me that the article would be stronger if there was a specific section that dealt with criticisms of the diet, rather than having them peppered through the article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I removed the material per WP:NOR — the material introduces a point of view on this dietary regimen, yet the sources do not refer to the regimen - I will search for appropriate sources;
  2. I integrated the criticism into the article per WP:STRUCTURE — I'm in the process of adding appropriate non-POV subheadings, such as "calcium and vitamin D"; and
  3. I summarized in the "Protein and carbohydrates" subsection, per WP:SS, the controversy regarding the specific macronutrient recommendations made by certain proponents, as their views about the regimen do not reflect those of other proponents, and none of the three prospective human studies on the paleolithic diet refer to specific ratios in defining the diet:
  • "comprising lean meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and excluding nonpaleolithic type foods, such as cereal grains, dairy or legumes"[8].
  • "based on lean meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs and nuts as staple foods, while avoiding cereals, dairy products, refined fat, sugar and salt."[9]
  • "fresh or frozen fruit, berries or vegetables, lean meat, unsalted fish, canned tomatoes, lemon or lime juice, spices and coffee or tea without milk or sugar, for three weeks. All dairy products were banned as well as beans, salt, peanuts, pasta or rice, sausages, alcohol, sugar and fruit juice. However, participants were allowed up to two potatoes a day and were also given some dried fruit, cured meats and a portion of fatty meat as a weekly treat."[10]

--Phenylalanine (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular edit was not against WP:NOR. It was sourced material that was directly relevant to the subject, in that it contrasted with a particular claim of the diet.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better reference:
Tishkoff, S.A., Reed, F.A., Ranciaro, A., Voight, B.F., Babbitt, C.C., Silverman, J.S., Powell, K., Mortensen, H.M., Hirbo, J.B, Osman, M., Ibrahim, M., Omar, S.A., Lema, G., Nyambo, T.B., Ghori, J., Bumpstead, S., Pritchard, J.K., Wray, G.A., Deloukas, P. (2006) Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe. Nature Genetics 39: 31-40: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/full/ng1946.html
The authors describe two distinct evolutionary adaptations to Neolithic diet, namely in Lactase Persistence in pastoral populations, both occurring less than 10,000 years ago.
Another can be found here: Hum Genet (2007) 120:779-788--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best and most recent criticism peace on the paleodiet we should be using. It discusses the issue of lactase persistence and other post-paleolithic adaptations in detail.[11] Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pursue our discussion on the article talk page. Thanks Phenylalanine (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, "paleolithic diet" has two different meanings, one is the actual ancestral diet, the other is a modern dietary regimen advocated for health reasons. Using information on the actual ancestral diet to critique the way the dietary regimen is set up is OR unless the source refers to the dietary regimen. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness and NPOV. Joelito (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per confusion over what the article is about. Article editor claims actual evidence about what humans ate during the paleolithic era is OR because this article is about the "modern" use of the term. At the very least, the article name should be changed to "Caveman diet" or one of the alternative names that will not be confused with the scientic-based paleolithic diet. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else feel confused over the article name, despite clarifications in the lead paragraph? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not call it something like Paleolithic diet (modern) or Paleolithic diet (contemporary) or even "Paleolithic diet" (modern) if its basically a commercial name.Fainites barleyscribs 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "paleolithic type diet"? — "The contemporary American diet figures centrally in the pathogenesis of numerous chronic diseases—'diseases of civilization'. We investigated in humans whether a diet similar to that consumed by our preagricultural hunter-gatherer ancestors (that is, a paleolithic type diet) confers health benefits."[12] --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME requires us to use a name the world uses, not to make up some compromise title nobody uses. The use of parenthesis is only for disamiguation when there already exists an article with the name we'd prefer to use (it breaks the rule "makes linking to the article easy and second nature"). The world mostly calls this the "Paleolithic diet", with the informal "caveman diet" in second place. The sources clearly show that the diet is usually discussed in academic circles as the "paleolithic diet" (or "palaeolithic diet"), while always making clear it is a contemporary diet regime. We should do likewise. No name change required. Colin°Talk 13:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an FA criterion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all articles can be FA. I agree with the rest of the comments aswell.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Article gives undue weight to pseudoscience/fringe science and ignores mainstream science when convenient. Neutral Point of View is seriously compromised by over-reliance on obscure journals, some of which have no official Impact Factor and have been denied inclusion on mainstream citation indexes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you told me which specific refs are problematic, in order for us to improve the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition was my initial concern.--Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the "Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition"? --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.