Talk:Carnivore diet

Fad diet?

This redirects to inaccurate information. The carnivore diet at the redirect page is characterized as a "fad diet," when in fact it is a long-established diet noted for promoting excellent human health across the lifespan for entire cultures both historically and contemporarily, such as the Inuit of Canada, the Nenets (Samoyed) people of Russia, Mongolians, and others.

I would like to create a more accurate page that respectfully reflects these cultures and includes current research on the nutritional implications of these ways of eating.

MeatRx (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)MeatRx

(Note: MeatRx has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia)

"A fad diet, or novelty diet, is a diet that is popular for a time, similar to fads in fashion, without being a standard dietary recommendation... Highly restrictive fad diets should be avoided. At best, fad diets may offer novel and engaging ways to reduce calories intake, but at worst they may be medically unsuitable to the individual, unsustainable, or even dangerous. Dietetician advice should be preferred before attempting any diet... Celebrity endorsements are frequently used to promote fad diets, which may generate significant revenue for the creators of the diets through the sale of associated products. Regardless of their evidence base, or lack of, fad diets are extremely popular, with over 1500 books published each year, and many consumers willing to pay an industry worth $35 billon/year in the USA. About 14-15% Americans declare having used a fad diet for short-term weight loss." -- Fad diet

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Reason for revert

Hello @Tdts5: - What was the reason for your revert?[1] BecomeFree (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@BecomeFree: Apologies. Reverted without realizing. I see that you've undone my edit, sorry again!! Tdts5 (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Medsci

@Zefr: - Regarding your revert[2] and the Talk page comment[3], I looked at WP:MEDSCI but have trouble understanding the relevance. The section you have removed wasn't intending to present any medical or scientific consensus on the matter. It mainly covers anecdotes (all are reliable sources, gathered via WP:RSSE) and case studies, without presenting them as a fact. Can you describe what the specific problem is here? BecomeFree (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Anecdotes are useless as sources, and case reports are the lowest quality of clinical evidence - see left pyramid, WP:MEDASSESS. There was not one good source to support any cause or effect on diseases in the Health section, and the content was misleading to imply some effect on health may occur. Read the whole WP:MEDRS guide and WP:WHYMEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The section wasn't talking about cause or effect, especially in general terms. Even case studies apply only to the participants involved, and not to general population. As for "the content was misleading to imply some effect on health may occur", as long as we stick close to the reliable source - indicating that anecdotes and case studies are only that, and don't imply general causation, I don't see what the problem is with referencing them, especially if it adds context to the article. We can certainly rephrase things so that they don't give off any such impression. The article is still evolving. BecomeFree (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have went ahead and significantly edited the section to avoid giving off any impression that some (positive) effect on health may occur. The section now simply reports what reliable sources report regarding anecdotes (in addition I've also removed the individual medical conditions), and medical case studies say as their result. The comment by a Zoologist has been removed as well. Finally I've explicitly added a warning about there being no medical consensus that the diet is safe and healthy in the long run; which exists both in body and in the lead. I did my best to facilitate WP:NPOV. BecomeFree (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Case reports are not reliable sources for health content per WP:MEDRS. Please do not add unreliably-sourced content to Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on PKD case studies

PKD is a form of carnivore diet (subject of this article). Clinical researchers in Hungary have been using PKD for 6+ years to try to treat various conditions. They published their case reports in peer-reviewed journals. Two editors object to its inclusion citing WP:MEDASSESS, however I argue that WP:MEDASSESS applies only when making factual statements or recommendations in regards to dietary health, which the removed section (see diff[4] or rendered[5]) does not. BecomeFree (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Do not use non-WP:MEDRS sources. Case studies are not reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information (and, what is more, being primary they are undue). We are not going to include the incredible claim that an all-meat diet help cure cancer sourced to unreliable sources. Wikipedia does not give medical "recommendations" so by your argument we could use unreliable sources for pretty much any health content. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The removed content [6] did not make "the incredible claim that an all-meat diet help cure cancer" or gave any medical recommendations. Can you refer to where exactly it did so? I do agree that if it did, we would have to remove it. But that's not what the section you removed stated at all. BecomeFree (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Case studies have been published on a stricter form of carnivore diet known as Paleolithic Ketogenic Diet [...] indicating successful treatment of certain cancers ..." is a medical factoid sourced to an unreliable source. And the POV-pushers' ploy of trying to make it an indirect claim doesn't absolve us from the responsibility not to use unreliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You have removed the vital part of the quote giving an erroneous impression that it was making a general claim; here it is in full: "Case studies have been published on a stricter form of carnivore diet known as Paleolithic Ketogenic Diet [...] indicating successful treatment of certain cancers ... in some patients" (emphasis mine). Second, the case studies (case reports, to be precise) are published in peer-reviewed journals like American Journal of Medical Case Reports and International Journal of Case Reports and Images, which are indeed reliable sources (as far as individual case reports are concerned). BecomeFree (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less of a medical claim, or the source any less unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Case reports are avoided only when making a "general medical advice or recommendation" (the original objection); you tried to quote saying that a general medical advice or recommendation was being given, and I responded by expanding the quote (the "in some people" part) demonstrating that it wasn't a general medical advice or recommendation. You keep saying the source is unreliable, but have not provided any reasons as to why a peer-reviewed medical journal would be unreliable. BecomeFree (talk)

• Include, being careful not to imply causality: Since no claims are made about causes or diagnoses (see Wikipedia:Biomedical_information), and that PKD is highly due for the article subject, and that the case studies span the last 6+ years (i.e., not WP:RECENTISM), we should include the PKD case studies, while taking particular care not to give any impression of providing general medical advice or recommendation. The article should make it obvious that PKD treated certain conditions in some individuals, and that nothing general can be inferred from it. BecomeFree (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: BecomeFree - this revert was appropriate to remove anecdotal (a case report is a clinical anecdote) content when no expert review is available. What is the hurry to include this and other non-expert public media content and sources? The topic of the carnivore diet is WP:RECENTISM, i.e., it is unevaluated by clinical or nutrition science reviews, reflecting a low-WP:WEIGHT topic. Apply the 10 year test. Best to wait for scientific evidence for or against this diet before trying to fill out the article. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Invalid RfC: This RfC should be closed and the author should consider posting a new, properly-written RfC in its place.

WP:RFCBRIEF says:

"In general, avoid writing anything that could predispose the reader towards a particular conclusion. Also be careful not to do this by implication: avoid rhetorical constructions and wording choices that indicate preference towards a particular outcome.

A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question.

The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome, unless included as part of a brief summary of all sides of the argument. Your own opinions should be included in a separate "support" or "oppose" comment in the discussion section of the RfC, not in the question itself."

In particular, the assertion "PKD is a form of carnivore diet (subject of this article)" assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown. Per Paleolithic diet, "The Paleolithic diet, Paleo diet, caveman diet, or stone-age diet is a modern fad diet requiring the sole or predominant eating of foods presumed to have been available to humans during the Paleolithic era." In the Carnivore diet, dairy comes from an animal so it’s allowed. The paleolithic diet forbids the consumption of all dairy products because milking did not exist until animals were domesticated after the Paleolithic era. Likewise, the Ketogenic diet allows nuts and low carbohydrate green leafy vegetables The Carnivore diet does not. These diets are similar but not identical, and thus we should only use WP:MEDRS compliant sources that document the exact diet that only contains meat, eggs, and dairy, not some similar diet. Any source that talks about a diet that allows nuts, for example, cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the carnivore diet. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, PKD is not a Paleolithic diet. Neither it is Ketogenic diet. Second, the PKD protocol is explained in the citations (from one of the citations, The diet is consisting of animal fat, meat, offal and eggs with an approximate 2:1 fat : protein); it is a high-fat diet of meat and offal. I think the RfC is described in neutral fashion. If you have any other specific issues with it, please state it here. BecomeFree (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Paleolithic Ketogenic diet is not a Paleolithic diet? Neither it is Ketogenic diet? Evidence, please.

Leaving aside the inappropriate use of single-patient case studies, let's look at the sources you added:

"Vegetables, mostly in the form of root vegetables, were allowed to an extent of < 30% (in volume) of the diet... Coffee was allowed in moderation... The patient admitted having consuming alcoholic drinks in moderation... as well as occasional consumption of tomato and oilseeds."[7]

"The paleolithic ketogenic diet is an animal meat-fat based diet with a fat:protein ratio of approximately 2:1 and with a plant content less than 30% (in volume)."[8]

"Diet was supplemented with vitamin D3 (2,000 IU/day) and omega3 fatty acids (500 mg/day)... At 3 months on the diet she was advised to gradually increase carbohydrate intake mostly in the form of low glycemic index vegetables."[9]

Coffee? Alchohol? 30% vegetables? Omega3 fatty acids (which often come from nuts, seeds and algae)?. These case studies are clearly about a different diet than the Carnivore diet.

All three case studies, however, make a point of saying that the patient staying in ketosis is a key to the treatment. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable points. PKD is of two kinds: strict and more liberal (includes up to 30% plants). Only the strict kind is a form of carnivore diet. I checked the citations, and only one case report mentions the subject being on the strict kind. Given that there exists exactly one case report, I would err on the side of not mentioning PKD at all. Feel free to close the RfC (or wait for responses). BecomeFree (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep it neutral

This change[10] and this one[11] makes the article appear less neutral. Saying that "there is no medical consensus" is arguably more neutral than saying "there is no evidence that the diet has any health benefits" (which can easily be construed in negative light, despite the absence of clinical or interventional studies). Likewise, replacing "is a monophormic diet" with "is a fad diet" (which is also a bad change, semantically) creates a similar impression. See WP:NPOV.

I also noticed that Alexbrn went on to begin removing the indigenous text[12], saying there is zero mention of "carnivore diet", which is an invalid reason, given that the term itself is used in the context of fad diet, and no scholarly sources describing indigenous diets involving exclusively animal products would use a fad dietary label. BecomeFree (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You are edit warring, again. The statement that "there is no medical consensus" is meaningless (consensus about what?) and unsourced. Your description of the diet as "monotrophic" (a fancy word which few readers will know) is unsourced, whereas multiple sources call this a fad diet - which it obviously is. You are making Wikipedia look coy about how silly this diet is. Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because you think "how silly this diet is" doesn't mean Wikipedia has to create such an impression. That is just covert WP:POV. Also, there is no clinical evidence for carnivore diet, neither is there any consensus on it. As there is no reliable source that indicates consensus on that diet either way (favourable or disapproving), it is appropriate to say "no medical consensus". BecomeFree (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)