Jump to content

Talk:Paleolithic diet: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→More relevant sources: formatting sources
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
{{WPMED|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{WPMED|class=FA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
}}
}}
{{Maintained|[[User:Phenylalanine]]}}


{{archive box|
{{archive box|

Revision as of 00:49, 26 November 2008

Featured articlePaleolithic diet is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 5, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Suggestion

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)[reply]

Congrats

  • My son, who is way “into” nutrition and fitness directed me to this article. I’m a reasonably experienced Wikipedia editor but I was struck by how well done this article is. It certainly deserves its star and I hope other editors study this article. Greg L (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antinutrients

The lead statement you added is verifiable, but, in my opinion, it's too detailed (WP:SS). I don't see why we should highlight this particular point among all the others arguments, which is why I don't think it belongs in the lead. I moved the paragraph you added in the body of the article, and reworded and sourced the material. I hope it's alright. Thanks for bringing up the issue of anti-nutrients. You're right that the article was lacking in this regard. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree. I think it is a major support of the paleolithic diet, and should not be hidden. Rather, it should be front and center. If you don't put it back in the lead, I will. If you resist, I will continue working on it and reinforce the position with more research. If you leave the anitnutrient entry in the lead, I will step down. I think the lead says little of nothing. Instead, it needs to be a quick review of all strong points. If I am wrong in my position, then there will be enough others that will correct me, and I will step down and have learned.
I do appreciate your moving the section on antinutrients out of the wrong place. Your writing style is very sophisticated and commendable, as well as hard to understand by the average joe blow. Wikipedia should be understood by all. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campoftheamericas, the body of the article is roughly 24 000 characters in length (not counting spaces). According to WP:LEAD, an article of about this length should have two or three lead paragraphs, so we're spot on in this regard. In theory, I support your proposal to add more detail to the existing lead paragraphs, specifically the third one. If we mention antinutrients in the lead, we will need to specify the principal therapeutic factors which have been associated with the Paleodiet in peer-reviewed journals, in order to avoid WP:UNDUE per WP:LEAD. The principal favorable dietary factors identified in the article are: glycemic load, fatty acid composition, macronutrient composition, micronutrient density, acid-base balance, sodium-potassium ratio, fiber content, a reduced amount of antinutrients and molecular-mimicking proteins. Also, this approach proposed requires an equivalent amount of added detail for all aspects covered in the lead. So we will need to briefly note the main criticisms of the diet, in general (criticism regarding comparative life expectancy, the etiology of the diseases of affluence and the evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet) as well as those specific to low-carbohydrate and high-protein versions (criticism regarding the therapeutic merits and anthropological evidence). It's going to be a challenge to fit all of this new material, and possibly other required details, into the lead, per WP:LEAD, in a way that isn't tedious. But, I'm willing to try.
Perhaps we can work together on the article's lead section, here on this talk page, until we reach a version that is mutually satisfactory, before directly editing the lead section in the article. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize. I think this is an excellent article. Looking more closely at it, I have a hard time finding any fault.--Campoftheamericas (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your contributions and suggestions for improving and expanding the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight under Sustainability concerns?

I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this section is suffering from a slight case of WP:UNDUE? Specifically it seems like the claims in the second paragraph are entirely backed by references to one Anthony J. McMichael. As someone who has researched this topic extensively for a couple years now, I'm inclined to believe there must be more and possibly better sources for these extremely common criticisms. What are your thoughts? --WayneMokane (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the second paragraph here so that it can be appropriately sourced and/or reworded. It appears that Anthony J. McMichael is not directly criticising the paleodiet on the grounds that it is environmentaly unsustainable. Rather, he discusses the paleodiet seperately from issue of the environmental impact of meat-based diets. We need sources raising envionmental concerns directly in relation to the Paleolithic diet per WP:NOR.

Concerns have also been raised about the detrimental effects of meat-based diets on the environment.[1] According to Anthony J. McMichael, director of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University, "in order to achieve a world nutritional state that is health-supporting, equitable and ecologically sustainable, we can learn much from consideration of the interplay between the evolutionary, environmental and ecological realms."[1] He further indicates that the level of per-person meat consumption need only be moderate for dietary optimisation in accordance with human evolutionary biology.[1]

--Phenylalanine (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I had a look over this cooked-palaeolithic diet page, and it certainly seems to have changed, since a year or two ago. Instead of a description plus details, favouring neither side with a small pro- and con-paragraph or two, it seems that there is now a very large, undue weight given to anti-Palaeolithic diet arguments - it just looks unbalanced, IMO, by wikipedia's usual standards. I'll see eventually about suggesting various ways to put forward the pro-cooked palaeolithic diet POV and provide counterpoints to some of the pro-vegan arguments. I noticed that reference number 6 leads to an error-page, should be deleted, IMO.Loki0115 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link error notice, I added a url link. Seems the "doi" is not working properly. I agree that the "Criticism of low-carb and high-protein versions" section could be condensed and trimmed a bit. I'm in the process of expanding the "Basis" section. I also have some material to add to the "Criticism and controversies" section. Ideally, the "Basis" section should take up at least as much space as both controversy sections combined. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I have a problem with. Wikipedia entries seem to be using american english spelling versions(eg:- "paleolithic" instead of the British-English "palaeolithic". Is this mandatory, or are we allowed to provide alternative British English spellings in the main text?Loki0115 (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions are fine, see WP:ENGVAR. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loki0115, both spelling versions are fine, but you can't use both in the same article. "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor." (WP:ENGVAR) --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd thought it was OK to mix, my mistake.Loki0115 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant sources

--Phenylalanine (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference pmid16236205 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleolithic_diet&oldid=254130082"