Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Medicine Assessment

Just wanted to say that the "B" rating for WPMED is not meant in any way to affect the Good Article assessment. If it passes GA status, then please feel free to update the project assessment ratings at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article pre-review

In a very brief review I see that this article is not stable (Good Article criterion #5) and will likely not pass a comprehensive GA review. I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn. MilesAgain (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your pre-review MilesAgain. As per WP:WIAGA, "nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." In any case, I think all major edits are pretty much done. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know it's cited and whatnot, but "According to Kopp, "the implementation of high-glycemic/high-insulinogenic food, like refined cereals, potatoes and sugars, into human nutrition only about 200 years, or 10 generations, ago, occurred too recently on an evolutionary time scale for the human genome to adjust." seems ridiculous. Weren't potatoes eaten by pre-Columbian cultures in the Americas? Murderbike (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think Kopp meant that potatoes were introduced as food staples in the "Western" world (being Europe and North America) only about 200 years ago. The statement under the image would need to be changed accordingly. Good point. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the text for the image, but I'm not sure what to do with the quote. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the statement would just be kind of irrellevant since there isn't much biological difference between "Western" and "American" peoples, so there wouldn't be any significance to the potatoe being adopted by "Westerners". Either way, if it isn't removed, it should qualified so as not to show our bias towards "Western" peoples. Murderbike (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done
I'll e-mail the author and see if he can shed light on this matter. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No response from the author. I'm removing the statement and image. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how an image of some potatoes can be considered "biased". It's a nice picture, actually, and serves to break up the sea of text. The caption was wrong, that's all. A caption explaining that foods similar to potatoes are restricted under the Paleolithic diet would be appropriate. =Axlq (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A simple loaf of bread might do the job... --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done

Also...

This: "has attracted a number of criticisms,[9][85][86][87][88][89][11][10][75][90][91][92]" is really ugly. I don't know if there's a MOS issue here, but it's really unsightly. Is there any way these refs can just be tagged on the specific criticism? Otherwise it looks like a linkfarm disguised as refs. Murderbike (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done Phenylalanine (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This would require a bit of work but it's doable. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't want to do it, I just imagine that it could be a GA problem. Murderbike (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, right off the bat, I removed the ones that are already attributed to specific criticisms in the subsequent paragraphs. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I cut them down to 4 sources. The rest of the sources were already attributed to criticisms in the subsequent paragraphs, even though the criticisms mentionned in these paragraphs do not cover all those presented in the sources removed, but they cover the main criticisms. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to keep nitpicking, but "Whether a diet can be considered environmentally sustainable depends on the ratio of plant to animal foods consumed, the type of animal foods eaten and the sources of these foods." seems like it should also say that it depends on the scale with which any of these sources is being exploited. 100 people hunting-gathering or farming is going to be sustainable forever, but 6 billion doing either is never going to be sustainable. Murderbike (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually considering removing that sentence altogether and adding it in another article on the subject of sustainability that I could link to. I'm not sure whether it could be considered as an analysis of published research used for the purpose of advancing a position with regards to Paleolithic-style diets to which these sources do not refer. In any case, you raise a good point. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I finally decided to removed that sentence. I moved it the article "sustainability", which is linked to from the section on sustainability. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done Phenylalanine (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also done some reviewing of the article.

  • When you mention the "Department of medicine at the University of Lund," the word "medicine" should be capitalized. Y Done
  • "It was argued that humans are carnivorous animals and that the Stone Age diet was that of a carnivore - chiefly fats and protein," The hyphen should be replaced by an em dash. Y Done
  • "Paleolithic-style diets also seem to generate beneficial health outcomes in controlled medical studies." This seems rather POV, as the paragraph that follows it describes things that, in my unexperienced medical mind, do seem beneficial, rather than merely seemingly so. Y Done
  • "7 crucial nutritional characteristics of ancestral hominin diets," the "7" should be changed to the word "seven," per the Manual of Style. Y Done
  • "Since no processed foods or added salt are included the sodium intake (~726 mg)," I believe that using the approximately equal to sign (≈) would be more appropriate here than simply a tilde. This usage occurs several more times in the paragraph. Y Done
  • "…the statement that the human genome has evolved during the Pleistocene…" Simply the word "evolved" is better to use here, as the Pleistocene period was quite a while ago. Y Done
  • "Echoing Milton's criticism, Ströhle et al. argue that it is questionable if all hunter–gatherers…" "Hunter-gatherer" is a compound word, therefore an en dash should not be used, just a simple hyphen. Y Done
  • "She argues that Dioxin, which is stored in animal fat," "Dioxin" should not be capitalized. Y Done
  • And finally, the way the sections are separated into "proponents" and "critics" portions creates a sense of POV. (See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.) I know that this would be a gigantic thing to fix, but if it is, I believe that the article would be most definitely a GA. Kakofonous (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple more things:
  • There is quite a bit of overlinking in the article, but I see that you have already begun to correct that problem.
  • If you do not believe that you will be able to correct the section problem in seven days (the time allotted for an on hold nomination), then I will fail the article. This does not mean in any way that the article is not a good one, simply that the major correction will take longer than is really possible for the scope of an on hold nomination.
  • One of the links (for the "Hazards of Dairy" article) is dead, temporarily, because of a typing error. Simply remove the "/" after the .pdf extension and the file will come up fine. Kakofonous (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done

Thanks for your review Kakofonous! I should be able to address those points in seven days. I'll check them as I go along. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting criticism

I'm affraid that integrating the criticism in the article would disrupt its flow.

This matter has been discussed before (Archive 1):

"I have eliminated the "criticism", "counter-criticism" and "support" sections and have created an "Archaeological and anthropological evidence" section and a "Sustainability" section. I have integrated the material from the deleted sections into the new sections and the renamed "Health" section. --Phenylalanine 02:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? At least to this reader, it obfuscates the difference between supporting evidence and opposing evidence. Perhaps I'm just unusually stupid or inattentive, but it seems to me that someone scanning or skimming the article (most readers) will not remember the initial premises of the diet long enough to remember if a point is a "pro" or a "con." I see what you're trying to do here, of course, and it is laudable (having criticism, counter-criticism, and counter-counter-criticism sections is just as confusing), but is there really any reason not to simply have a criticism section (perhaps with archaeological, sustainability, health, and theory sections, or something similar), and corresponding sections for evidence/arguments favoring the paleolithic diet? As it stands, the article appears POV simply because criticism is dispersed and buried in the prose. I'm sure this was not your aim. I also feel obligated to let you know that I'm not opposed to this diet, I'm just not sure its basis is quite as rock-solid as a cursory reading of the article (as currently sectioned) would suggest. Kajerm (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"

This dietary concept could be considered as a "point of view" in itself (for example "transhumanism"):

  • The appropriate way to structure criticism may depend on the style of the article. In articles on people, places, things, etc., it can be very useful to integrate criticism into the article. In articles whose subjects are themselves points of view, such as philosophies (Idealism, Materialism, Existentialism, etc.), political outlooks Left-wing politics, Right-wing politics, etc.), religions (Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, etc.), intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with criticism of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook. Wikipedia:Criticism
  • Criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created. Wikipedia:Criticism

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Essentially the only reason I raised that concern was because I sometimes have a bit of difficulty ignoring all rules, and interpreted the guideline as being set in stone. Kakofonous (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful GA nom

This article is now a good article! The only issues I had were the grammatical problems and the other, which is now moot. Kakofonous (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent review! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Length of Lead Paragraphs

Phenylalanine, you've worked really hard on this article, and I'm glad to see it pass GA status. I have, however, placed a tag on the lead section in the hope that it can be made more concise somehow. The lead seems a just a tad long in proportion to the rest of the article. Overall, the article looks really good, so I won't complain if you remove the "toolong" tag. Otherwise, I suggest that the following phrases indicated may be struck without detracting from the thrust of the lead section:
Proponents of the diet consider that the healthiest foods for the human body are those that humans are best adapted to eat, arguing that many modern ailments are diet related and can be avoided using this nutritional approach.[5] They believe that human genetics have scarcely changed since the Paleolithic Era, and therefore that an ideal diet would be a reconstructed prehistoric diet such as the one humans and proto-humans consumed before the Neolithic Revolution.[6]
In support of this theory, advocates argue that modern human populations, such as contemporary hunter-gatherers, that subsist on traditional diets similar to those of Paleolithic hominins seem to be largely free of diseases of affluence,[7] and that such diets produce beneficial health outcomes in controlled medical studies.[8] In this regard, supporters point to several potentially therapeutic nutritional characteristics of preagricultural diets.[6] Critics of this nutritional approach have taken issue with its underlying evolutionary logic....
Try that out. The parts I struck out are expanded later in the article. What remains describes the gist of the proponents' claims, and gives more balanced weight to both proponents and critics in terms of number of words devoted to each in the lead. =Axlq (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Axlq. I shortened the lead a bit, and moved some info to the "theory" section. If it's possible, I would like to keep the info on the medical studies in the lead. I'll see if I can further compress the text. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization of Lead Paragraphs

I have some issues with the current organization of the lead:

  • 1 - The description of the nature of the diet should come before the description of its theory or supporting/unsupportive evidence.
  • 2 - The description of support should not predominate or be placed apart from the criticism, which suggests that the supportive evidence is uncontroversial, which is not the case, or that it's more worthy of mention than the criticism, indicating a non neutral point of view.

I suggest that the lead be organized in the following order:

  • 1 - Description of the Diet;
  • 2 - Description of the theory;
  • 3 - Description of the supportive/unsupportive evidence (arguments in favor/criticisms).

Regards --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some issues too. I tried to revise it as follows:
  • Descriptive sentence
  • Origins of the diet ("Deriving from the field of evolutionary nutrition....")
  • Proponent views, begining "Promponents differ in their dietary prescriptions...."
  • Opposing views
My attempt at organizing was reverted. At the moment, I see it looks like this:
  • Descriptive sentence
  • A proponent perspective of what it is ("Proponents differ in their dietary prescriptions...")
  • Origins of the diet ("Deriving from...")
  • More proponent views
  • Opposing views
To me, the lead looks disorganized in its current state with the views of proponents scattered throughout. In particular, the "Deriving from..." sentence needs to be the second sentence in the lead. State what it is, how it originated, and then go into details about differences, benefits, and criticisms. I'm happy to see it's more concise, though. =Axlq (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done
Good point. I reorganized the lead as per your suggestions. --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

It has struck me that in the discussion of paleolithic diets little is said that on a non-paleolithic diet life expectancy has show dramatic increases over the last 100 years. The article seems to allude to that, but the discussion is indirect regarding that. Also, it seems that in the past it was important for humans to put up a good inflammatory response, wheras now inflammation is counterproductive.

The comment that hunter-gatherer now that live to 60 are free of chronic disease needs to be challenged. I'd like to see what happens from 60 to 80. Most modern people that get to 60 are free of chronic disease. What happens from 60 to 80 is where most of the excitement happens to us, medically speaking. Kd4ttc (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't think it's necessary to mention the increase in life-expectancy, nor the time frame. For the purposes of the article, what matters, in my opinion, is the life-expectancy discrepancy, which presupposes an increase at some point in post-agricultural history. The point about inflammation is interesting, but without a source to relate that matter to Paleolithic nutrtion, it would be inappropriate to mention it in the article. Regarding the last point, notice that the statement in the article says "60 and over". --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured

Well done getting featured. I am on this diet and am 130 years old (and no I do not care or want to enter any sort of worlds oldest man competition), it's done me very well so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow it must work then! Congratulations on reaching such a ripe old age. :) Great article by the way. By coincidence I was only recently thinking that I should be eating what my ancestors ate and low and behold I find an article on it Tremello22 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Kudos to the editors of this article on their hard work. However I'm very disappointed to see it featured in this form. The criticism section (including against low carbohydrate diets in general, which probably doesn't even belong here) is 2/3 the length of the article, and the benefits section that was here in previous revisions has completely disappeared. --WayneMokane (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey WayneMokane! Thanks for the comments. The article is basically divided up into three sections: description of the diet, support for the diet (renamed "Theory") and criticism of the diet. You're right that the "criticism" section is a bit longer than the support section, but I see it more like a controversy section, where both views are exposed. The criticism about the low-carb approach is not about low-carb diets in general, but specifically about Paleolithic-style low-carb approaches, since they seem to be dominant. Nice to see you back here. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually one bit of praise I forgot to add before was, the formerly sprawling sustainability section is now completely under control and succinct. Fantastic! And you're right about the low carbohydrate section - I responded before reading it carefully enough. --WayneMokane (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But you sure don't talk like a person who was raised in the 1800s! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This was my first Wikipedia edit. I only changed one word, but I figure I should start small. Any help, ideas, etc. are welcome. Thanks! Lavishlova (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I checked out your edit to this article and it was spot on. Start small, but at the same time, be bold and have fun. --WayneMokane (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No discussion of recent human evolution?

I see no discussion in the article of recent human evolution. It appears that neither proponents or critics of the diet acknowledge that humans can have evolved over the time interval between the Pleistocene and now. Yet in discussions of human evolution I have read that traits like lactose tolerance have evolved relatively recently in the human population, and in concert with cultural adaptations like the domestication of cattle. This, then, would seem to be an important argument in favour of the concept that human dietary requirements evolve with time, and against the idea that modern humans should adopt a diet to which they may no longer be optimally adapted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.175.109 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this appears to be a very valid point. Recent human evolution which results in modification of dietary traits thus making us more suited to "modern" foods, is a rather potent argument since it manifests itself in many forms. Lactose tolerance being one of them. I would recommend you add it yourself to the criticisms section. -Bodhi 122.167.21.185 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is discussed in the section "Criticism of evolutionary logic". While "lactose intolerance" isn't specifically mentioned, the idea that populations who have been eating agrarian diets for hundreds of generations should be in some way adequately adapted to eating grains is presented. Before adding any additional information, make sure that it's really useful and that it's not original research. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture

Homo sapiens did not "invent" agriculture. They discovered it. You wouldn't say that homo sapiens invented fire would you? Same principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.99.120 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

They didn't discover it either. Unless another animal had been using it already. --Leladax (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would add 'invent' is at least technically accurate, though not usually used. --131.227.208.46 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done -- I changed it to "developed". --Phenylalanine (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We discovered that sparks cause fire; but we invented striking flint against iron for the purpose. We discovered edible plants, but we invented transplanting to neat rows near our homes and digging irrigation ditches. Agriculture is the directed activity we invented; as opposed to gathering edible plants from where we find them. All invention involves discoveries, and some insects cultivate fungi (although we didn't discover that until later); it's a matter of degree. Pete St.John (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Resticted foods

How is "potato" an example of a root vegetable that is inedible when raw? Boomcoach (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It contains a toxin (solanine) that will make you sick if eaten raw. [1] --WayneMokane (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn’t. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done -- I removed the statement about potatoes being inedible raw. The article "potato" explains that in some cases, potatoes are highly toxic in limited amounts, but supermarket raw potatoes usually don't contain enough toxins to be harmful in moderate amounts. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Only green or actively sprouting potatoes, I believe. I haven't looked it up though. Eperotao (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless your name is Dan Quail, the singular is spelled potato, not potatoe. The plural is potato with an 'es' added to come up with potatoes. Same rule as with tomato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.245.176 (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Y Done

Cooking really "Widely Accepted"??

Hi phenylalanine. This is a great article. I have been reading about this elsewhere--journal articles-- and a friend sent me here. I have two criticisms so far. 1. I think what is in the diet or not seems repetitious. The same information seems to show up over and over. 2. I don't agree that it's widely accepted that cooking goes back 250,000 years. It's been proposed, and there is tentative evidence at, I think, two sites for extended evidence of ancient fires with bones. But regular fires with a surround of stones that are clearly human made are more recent. And even at the two sites with a long history of fire, it's not clear if they were controlled fire built by humans, let alone if deliberate cooking was involved. I think, like you, that it was. But there remains the rest of the area where hominins lived, where there is NO evidence of cooking. In any case, it's NOT widely accepted. Just a hypothesis, so I think you need to back off on that. Congratulations on a great entry.Eperotao (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. This peer-revied source says that it is widely accepted that humans cooked their food as early as 250,000 years ago: Wrangham R, Conklin-Brittain N. (2003 Sep). "Cooking as a biological trait". Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 136 (1): 35-46. doi:10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00020-5. PMID 14527628. . Also, could you give examples of which descriptions you find repetitious. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary

The word "contemporary" means "at the same time". It's often used to mean "at the present time", but when used in conjunction with a word that denotes another time, like "paleolithic", it means "at the same time as the paleolithic". 82.3.223.77 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well noted. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tedious

This article can be summed up in four words: "Some but not all" If I read that qualifier once, I read it a hundred times. OK, we get it - there are fringes on the fringe of this fringe and of that fringe and they are all demanding to be recognized and represented - but there has got to be a more encyclopedic way of handling this. Some, but not all, Liliputians are less than six inches tall. Some, but not all, Liliputions are more that five inches tall. Yada, yada, yada...65.69.81.2 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- I removed all instances of this wording. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

so how many people actually eat this way?

These questions could be addressed by this article: 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? Addressing these questions would help frame the article's subject in a broader context. Spebudmak (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I totally agree that this would be very helpful. There's just no data on these questions. I'll keep my eyes open. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, not strictly true

  • "the Paleolithic (the Old Stone Age), a period of about 2 million years duration that ended about 10,000 years ago when Homo sapiens developed agriculture."

Not so. The Palaeolithic ended in the Mesolithic, the Middle Stone Age, which was broadly speaking the continuation of the Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer way of life but in a post-glacial environment. The Mesolithic is called the called the Epipalaeolithic in those parts of the world where there was no glaciation, such as the Middle East. The Neolithic, the period when agriculture was developed, followed the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic, not the Palaeolithic period. 86.143.70.75 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the Paleolithic began 2.6 million years ago not 2 million years ago becuse the first stone tools were invented around 2.6 million years ago.--Fang 23 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I fixed the date and I removed the fact that the Paleolithic ended when humans invented agriculture.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Paleolithic ended with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago is verified by a peer-reviewed source in the article, so I changed it back. This seems to be confirmed by the article "Paleolithic".

Proposal to rename the article "Paleolithic diet"

I'm not happy with the title of the article "Paleolithic-style diet". This dietary approach is most often referred to as the "Paleolithic diet". I only found one credible source using the term "Paleolithic-style diet" en passant. The rational for using the later term is that it's more descriptive and indicates that this dietary concept is not about exactly mimicking the ancestral diets of the Paleolithic. Nevertheless, I think we should use the term under which this concept is best known, i.e. "Paleolithic diet". --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this article should be renamed to Paleolithic diet becuse only one reliable source says that it is called the Paleolithic style diet.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would wonder if that might be confusing to people who are looking for the ancestral diet. Perhaps 2 separate pages, one with the ancestral diet as reconstructed from archaeological evidence and the other for the modern fad diet?Trilobitealive (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a possibility. Otherwise, we could have a disambiguation notice at the top of the page: "This article is about a modern dietary regimen. For information on the dietary practices of Paleolithic hominids, see "Paleolithic"." Or something along those lines. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to go ahead with this name change, and I'll add a disambiguation notice at the top of the article for now. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the the article move, the first line of the article no longer complies with WP:LEAD:
A Paleolithic-style diet,[1] popularly known as a Paleolithic diet, paleo diet (or paleodiet), caveman diet, Stone Age diet or hunter-gatherer diet, is a nutritional program which emulates the diet of ...
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed the lead. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to emphasize "peer-reviewed" descriptions of the diet

I suggest that the content of the "Practices" section which is not "peer-reviewed" be merged into the history section. This is because the description of the paleolithic diet in peer-reviewed sources is often different from that found in books and websites. The later sources focus on adapting the diet to make it convenient and luring to ordinary people, while the "peer-reviewed" focus on describing the actual ancestral diet and it's health implications. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Y Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.