Talk:Paleolithic diet

POV, strawman

I have concerns that this article is biased against the subject, and that this undermines the credibility of sourced material in the article.

Knowing nothing about Paleo whatsoever I immediately notice: A. The introductory paragraph derides the subject of the article B. The views of proponents are being synthesized in a vague and unfair way (see: strawman) rather than citing the proponents directly C. Criticism precedes content chronologically. D. Persistent synthesis of academic works

There's no need or excuse for this kind of bias and it leads readers to disgard the entire article and go elsewhere for their information. 1.136.109.33 (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so. Any actual specific examples of problems with regard to the WP:PAGs? Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the criticism that some of the introductory material feels straw-manny. Mainly this bit: This evidence undermines a core premise of the paleolithic diet – that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time. It's true that critics have claimed this is "a core premise of the diet," but I'm not sure the diet's proponents would universally agree, nor am I convinced that the cited article backs that up.

To the contrary, the article makes it clear that S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner have acknowledged that the human diet has evolved since the Paleolithic: Yes, Konner said in an interview, there is more research that humans have evolved recently. ... “This is a challenge to the Paleo-diet claims — including mine and Boyd Eaton’s over the years. ... [But] I don’t think it’s much of one.” For one thing, he and Eaton say, the newly discovered genetic differences between Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and modern humans are not very numerous.

In other words, some prominent Paleo advocates, including at least the two people the cited article focuses on, do not claim that the human diet has "remained essentially unchanged over time." They do, however, contend that changes to the human diet have outstripped the pace of evolution. Obviously that claim itself might not be true, but the Paleo position is a bit less absolutist than the article's phrasing suggests, and, in balance, I do think that sentence reads like original editorializing rather than a completely fair summary.

I'm going to walk just that one sentence back a bit (and potentially expand on it / add a few more citations) while still making it clear that this is a very common piece of criticism leveled at the Paleo diet. Xiboliya (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. These days Cordain is the master of the paleo diet, and yes he very much says it is the one true diet for humans. More to the point, reliable sources say this too and so what we have is good. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, which I do believe was well-sourced and reasonably phrased (and which I did my best to explain in detail, being as I'm aware this article is controversial). While I'm happy to workshop it, I don't think reversion was justified; I'm hopeful we can reach a consensus here. I'll address what you wrote:

• While you might believe that Cordain is the "master of the paleo diet," I'm not convinced that claim is supported by the article's sources; he's played a very prominent role in popularizing the diet and trademarked the phrase "The Paleo Diet," but the linked WaPo article (and many other sources) discusses the Paleo diet without reference to him. In fact, his name isn't mentioned in that source once! (which, before I added additional sources, was the sole citation for that claim)
• As I noted, that WaPo article does not really support the sentence as previously/currently written. It's significantly more moderate in its description of Paleo advocates' claims. I'm trying to avoid writing an obnoxious wall of text here, but I'm happy to go into specifics if need be.

Now, obviously, that's not to say that what I wrote was necessarily perfect! I'll say off the bat that I waffled quite a bit on "critics contend," which is pretty weasel word-y. To reiterate, I don't believe reversion was justified, and I do believe my wording was justified by the sources, but I'm happy to chat about this and reach a consensus. Xiboliya (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We as editors don't need to reason out what the central premise of the diet is, as cited RS tells us (even without mentioning Cordain, as you note). The diet assumes people are "genetically programmed" to thrive on (supposed) paleolithic foodstuffs and that the human genetic constitution has changed relatively little in the last 40,000 years. This WP:FRINGE proposition has been debunked (see the article body for discussion). The lede must summarize the body, and since we're in the realm of pseudoscience the mainstream science must be prominent.

This has been discussed to death already on the Talk page (for example[1]) so in lieu of some startling new sourcing on the table I think there's little chance of anything changing. Bon courage (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Politics?

Under the Popularity section/tab

"Politically, the paleolithic diet has found favour with the alt-right as a point of opposition to what is seen as more left-wing veganism."

Is there any need to bring politics into a food diet? Does it add anything of interest? Would many people even consider this? It seems a bit of a stretch to me and I think it could be off putting for some. 143.159.217.31 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, source is not great. Removed. Bon courage (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article written so negatively

Like, I'm trying to learn about a topic and every five seconds I just read about more bitching about the paleo diet. Its really annoying. I'm trying to read a purely neutral and plain description of what the paleo diet is, and usually that's what wikipedia articles offer, but not this time! What gives? Safyrr 16:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

we just follow the sources, and they tell us what nonsense the diet is, so that's what we say. simples. - Roxy the dog 16:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Limitations section

The Paleo Diet, often termed the "Caveman Diet", emphasises a return to the eating patterns believed to have been followed by early humans during the Palaeolithic era.

The premise behind Paleolithic Diet is the notion that many modern diseases and health issues, including obesity, stem from the agricultural revolution and Western industrialised consumption patterns. The diet is framed within the epistemological assumption that there exists a singular and "natural" way of eating which has developed through the course of evolution. Advocates for the diet associate the rise of modern diseases with a departure from Paleolithic eating patterns. However, critics argue that the diet perpetuates a type of food classism, intensifying socio-economic and racialised inequalities. While advocating for authentic and natural food consumption, the diet often overlooks the socio-economic disparities influencing who can realistically adopt such a lifestyle. Anthropologist Ashley Reeves argues that the discourse can inadvertently alienate those unable to access or afford certain foods, and risks overlooking broader systemic issues, such as global food inequities. By romanticizing the diet of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, relationships between food producers and consumers become commodified, often neglecting the historical and socio-political complexities surrounding food production and consumption. As such, while the Paleolithic Diet raises valuable concerns about modern food habits, it also necessitates a broader discussion on its social implications and limitations.

Catie Gressier attributes the popularity of the paleo diet to two key phenomena – the desire for teleological explanation for periods of decline in health (especially mental and emotional health) in a society that prioritises diagnosis and treatment based on symptoms, and a religious-like moral complex present in such diet regimes. Gressier argues that dissatisfaction with biomedical approaches to disease and individual difficulties within the medical system may be a driving factor in why people choose to follow a Paleolithic lifestyle. The foundations of the Paleolithic diet are rooted in the belief that high-calorie and nutrient-poor diets, and a reliance on medicine and technology are responsible for increasing rates of chronic illness. This provides a moral framework for followers which allows them to experience a form of redemption through strict adherence to the diet. This mindset allows followers to, in their eyes, redeem themselves from the “morally bad” while attaining a sense of moral virtue through strict adherence to the paleo diet. It also provides followers with a way to explain their periods of suffering, attributing it to phenomena they view as societal failings.

Individual body experiences are subjective and constructed through the social body, influenced by the dominant era's health culture epistemologies. Therefore, the Palaeolithic diet demonstrates the hunter-gatherer era as being the dominant epistemology. Furthermore, 'natural' and 'authentic' bodies are seen as unhealthy if they do not fit the social norms of the Palaeolithic diet culture. Hans Baer suggests that sociocultural systems are all products of evolution and subjective experiences of individuals. Claire Cassidy suggests that often our bodies become the process of modification, suggesting the thought, 'What is a good body'? Cassidy also states that big bodies are desired in most cultures and that 'big' may be actually average or minor in some cultures. Hunter-gatherers' body mass indicates they were physically fit, twice as active as most Americans and those in post-industrial economies. The Body Mass Index is a mathematical calculation that says anyone registering a score over thirty is obese. However, critics have argued that this calculation is biased and does not consider the variables the individual experiences. Therefore, it tends to privilege the 'authentic' body, the social norm of thinness. Additionally, the Palaeolithic diet culture displays physically fit bodies that often shun those who deviate against their ideologies.

References

This is a recent expansion by a new editor. I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not clear that all the refs are usable, the use of Wikipedia's voice is questionable, and I don't see any solution beyond a complete rewrite. - Hipal (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

And corresponding paragraph from the lede: --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several limitations and social consequences of the Paleolithic diet. Gender stereotypes, the idea of the social and individual body, and the deviation from the norm underpin the ideology of the Paleolithic diet.

Some of the content is reliable, some is not and some of it is off-topic, like this source [2]. Some of the cited journals are not that good. For example, this [3] is a weak source "Contingent Horizons: The York University Student Journal of Anthropology". If the content is to be re-added we need to go through it all. I believe the author had good intentions by adding this content but not all of it is reliable content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

References