Talk:Paleolithic diet

Flipping the content

this edit flipped the content that had been pored over in prior discussions, removing the caution and promoting the diet. Will dig up the archive section in a minute... here but do scan the archives; we have just been through a hell of a time with Paleo advocates here. Also if you read the entirety of the section Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects you will see that we already summarize the Katz source and the other sources here: "As of 2016 there is limited data on the metabolic effects on humans eating a Paleo diet, based on a few clinical trials that have been too small to have a statistical significance sufficient to allow the drawing of generalizations.These preliminary trials have found that participants eating a paleo nutrition pattern had better measures of cardiovascular and metabolic health than people eating a standard diet, though the evidence is not strong enough to recommend the Paleo diet for treatment of metabolic syndrome." Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The source is freely available at this link and it supports the original wording. The problem the other use seems to have is one of Cherry picking. Yes, the source supports his claim, but we are supposed to summarize our sources and report their overall conclusions whenever possible. Using this source to replace the claim that the diet may lean to nutritional deficiencies with one claiming it may have nutritional benefits is highly misleading. In comparison, if one wished to add the claim from that edit, instead of replacing well-sourced material with it, that would depend only on weight.

In addition, the removal of the phrase "The digestive abilities of modern humans are somewhat different from those of paleolithic humans, undermining the diet's core premise." under the rationale "delete b/c weakness of source and not relevant to efficacy or outcomes" is so fundamentally wrong as to cause me to immediately question whether the editor was being intentionally dishonest. Even if that is not the case, if an editor does not believe that the digestive abilities of modern humans in comparison to paleolithic humans is relevant to a diet based on hypotheses about what paleolithic people ate, then that editor has no business editing this article. The evolutionary history of lactase persistence is just one example of how human digestive ability has changed since the paleolithic era with respect to human diet. It would do any editor unaware of this well to read that and check out many of the sources used therein. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have an NPOV problem. Our article seems to be squeezing suggested benefits from slender evidence, while the - damning - BDA verdict isn't properly reflected. The BDA says this could be "an unbalanced, time consuming, socially isolating diet" and is "a sure-fire way to develop nutrient deficiencies, which can compromise health and your relationship with food." I'd like to see us more aligned with this top source. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree in detail with what you're saying, but I am concerned that we might push the POV too far if we make a concerted effort to align more closely with the BDA source. That source is written as advice for the average person, and while WP should be written for the average person, it shouldn't be written as advice. There are benefits to this fad diet, just like there are benefits to any fad diet. I think the BDA took the (wholly understandable, and arguably far more useful) approach of balancing those benefits with what they know about most people's method of implementing a diet. However, I'm not sure that approach is right for a neutral article intended to inform the reader about the diet. Note that I'm not arguing we shouldn't point out its dangers, I'm arguing that we should be careful how much weight we give to the dangers vs the benefits, and how we frame them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm fine with the article the way it stands, and would be happy to see it become a bit more skeptical of the diet (I would prefer to see "fad diet" put back in the opening sentence, for example). I just want to make sure we're careful if we start shifting the tone. There's been enough argument that we might go a little overboard, absent any real opposition. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)