Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Chad's additions

Chad.brewbaker, Thanks for the additions. Two requests, if you can: 1) On your second bullet point, please provide more insight, or if you can, start an article about acid vs. base load. This leaves a big void in the article; 2) Please supply some info for the body of the article that ties 'free-range' animals to this article, otherwise the 3rd bullet point you made is, albeit true, out of context. In other words, your three other point refer to something already discussed in this article and therefore known to the reader. Thanks --Master Scott Hall 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

While it's important to have a criticism section, I find the one just added to be lacking. First of all, there are no sources cited. Secondly, some of the criticisms listed just don't hold water:

• Expense: "Were entire populations to attempt to eat this way, there may not be food to feed everyone." This is a problem of overpopulation, not a problem with the diet. 20,000 years ago everyone did eat this way and there was plenty of food for everyone, because the human population was a fraction of what it is today.
• Thiamine: According to this and this good sources of thiamine include such paleofriendly foods as: pork and organ meat (liver, kidney), egg yolks, fish, poultry, green leafy vegetables, Brussels sprouts, asparagus, broccoli, sunflower seeds, avocados, raisins, plums, and kelp.
• Protein: This section isn't a criticism of the diet, but a defense of milk.

--Angr (tɔk) 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You have my second. Much of this added criticism serves only to defend those practices and industries which would suffer indirect effects of a mass movement toward a paleothic diet. It also fails to take into account that the changes made to the practitioners diet would be wholesale. Piecemeal changes to one's diet would most certainly lead to certain deficiencies without supplements, but a complete shift to paleothic nutrition would result in a completely balanced regimine. Criticism needs to address what is wrong with the theory and the negatives effects on the practitioner. Economic effects are related, but secondarily. This article addresses only the theory and practice itself, not the longterm global socio-economic effects. These other issues could be addressed in a different article. Master Scott Hall 21:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism of the criticism, I will modify my submission according to your observations to be more neutral. I am aware that this is criticism that serves to defend foods that would suffer from the diet. That's obviously the point of it, as a Paleolithic diet is founded upon criticism of foods not in (and thus would suffer from propogation of) the diet. I do believe that observations regarding overpopulation and economy should be included here, but I will designate them as such Tyciol 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think the criticism section should focus on criticism of the diet per se. I know at least one paleodiet book I read mentioned that it has been criticized for containing too much protein, which can be hard on the kidneys, and others have pointed out that it has too much fat if people eat farmed meat rather than game. --Angr (tɔk) 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

These are some excellent points to bring up, please add them when you have the time. I'm sure we could actually find related Wikis to link to for this discussion, rather than debating it here. They are very powerful controversies apparent in modern media and diet debates. I personally don't believe there is anything harmful about excess fat or protein if they are adapted to by the body. Healthy kidneys would not be as harmed by protein as some others. There is nothing wrong with a high-fat diet, as long as the fat does not go rancid, the same would apply to cholesterol. The higher calories and cholesterol ratio would of course be risks, but could also be balanced by antioxidants to protect the fats/cholesterol, exercise to use them and rebalance the ratios, and HDL-raising food sources. I'm going to look for some sources for the criticism, but I respectfully request that the rest of the article be further sourced, as it seems to lack sourced defences of it.Tyciol 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed vitamin D purely as a typo. Paleolithic humans would have more than adequate vitamin D production from sun expoosure. Again, paleo practitioners are generally wholesale converts, getting adequate solar exposure for vitamin D. If all other aspects of the diet are healthy then sun exposure is not a high risk. Master Scott Hall 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that the contents of the diet will make sun exposure less of a danger. While I too have read theories on beta carotene in the skin, adequate antioxidants, protecting from skin cancer, there has been little evidence demonstrated of it. The mainstream medical opinion is that sun radiation exposure is a cause of a skin cancer, and this should be considered before forcing people into sunlight to get vitamin D.Tyciol 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The vitamin D section is bogus too. It's not at all unrealistic to expect people to get enough vitamin D (and calcium) without drinking milk. East and southeast Asians, for example, consume almost no dairy products after they've been weaned, without damage to their health. If they can do it, so can paleodieters. --Angr (tɔk) 06:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The health of East and Southeast asians has not been widely or extensively documented compared to that of North American and Europeans. There may be genetic factors to consider, and I believe differences in skin pigmentation make sun exposure less immediate and damaging for darker-skinned people. While they need more time in the sun to make adequate Vitamin D, the're also more resistant to skin cancer happening from rapid exposure. There may also be protective factors within East/Southeast Asian diets, so if they do have better health, it would be testament to their diets, and not the Paleolithic diet, which may not include these protective foods, or may include foods that they do not eat, which are harmful. My vitamin D criticism is based on requiring sunlight for it's manufacture, since milk and other fortified foods seem to be excluded from the diet and no other sources of the vitamin have been presented. I realize that whether or not the sun causes skin cancer is indeed a large controversy, but it should be alleged in refuting this that the paleolithic diet can only be embraced if one believes there is a medical conspiracy to sell sunscreens and give people skin cancer. Otherwise, that sunlight causes it requires another source of Vitamin D and for people to protect themselves as much as possible for health reasons. As for calcium, the source of it in these people's diets should be found. A comparison of bone densities should also be done, and recognition that say, if someone is doing weight training, they may require nutritional supplements if what they need is more than broccoli can provide. On the issue of 'acidifying' foods (as grains are labelled), many vegetarians have put this claim upon meat as well, as it and other high proteins produce uric acid. The Paleolithic diet contains a lot of meat, so excess calcium may be useful in countering this acidity.Tyciol 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This list should be truncated (with links to articles on individual issues) and put into a section called Things to consider. Some of these points are valid, but not as critcism. They are things that need to be looked at when considering a change of diet, as they are for most diets, but they are not valid criticisms of the theory itself. Also, terms like "all of humanity" and "society" are out of place. This article is about an individual's diet, not setting the world off balance. Master Scott Hall 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to find some articles on a lot of the issues that the Paleolithic diet confronts, as I have come across them in other dieting and social debate circle. As any diet is meant to be marketted to as many individuals as possible, and as people benefit from a stable society, and as many choose to be socially responsible, it is a factor to take into consideration. Realise that this is no bashing of the health claims though, just that if these changes are enacted without reasonable necessity, it would be damaging to society to spread the beliefs and everyone accepted them. The wording may be biased in some way though, you're right, so please amend it if you wish, I only ask that the criticism stand, and it's definately not an individual biological health issue, but an economic and social one.Tyciol 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I clicked on 'discussion' was because the crit section is such a mess of bad info. The protein point was confusing and pointless, the calcium section came off like milk industry propaganda. I don't know how to fix it aside from deleting it, I just wanted to weigh in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.246.187 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

More criticism

The criticism section has become overwhelming, unsourced, and highly argumentative. This is not the place to argue the fine points of each and every ingredient of this diet. A simple couple of paragraphs pointing out weak points (with citations to back them up) seems much more appropriate. A point by point list of all of the holes in the theory sounds a whole lot like a POV agenda to discredit the theory. If this section is not cleaned-up and sourced in a reasonable amount of time, I will support a major overhaul. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming criticism is not a reason to shorten something ;) I actually think the diet's a great idea, but any possible flaws should be treated. For example, there's nothing wrong with fortifying foods (like vitamin D in fish oil for example) which can be great for health. This is not arguing the ingrediants of the diet, but rather what it could possibly be lacking since it is in conflict with general government recommendations of diet. Point by point critiques are better than casual mention, since each topic has also included a reasonable counter-point made in support of the Paleolithic Diet. To shorten it would mean to eliminate the counter-criticism, which would make it more biased. As for sourcing, the proof is in the arguments and the wikis the words link to, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you tell me which phrases you think need sourced? Then I'll know what to look for. I definately want to work together with towards progress in this article's presentation and mutual understanding (revision leads to enlightenment). To be honest, I think having the Paleolithic diet as the 'default' diet would be a great idea for recommendations on human health. Then, you can try out other foods and see if we're able to digest them or if they're bad for us. You could do that with GMOs too. --Tyciol 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section should not predominate in the article, nor should it be based on things you think up that might go wrong with some version of the diet, but rather on published criticism of the paleolithic diet. In answer to the question you asked in your edit summary on the article page, AFAIK the paleodiet doesn't prohibit the cooking of anything, it prohibits eating vegetables that couldn't be cooked. Carrots can be eaten raw, so you can eat them raw or cooked. Potatoes cannot be eaten raw, so they're out. --Angr (tɔk) 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the new additions the criticism section is less than 50% of the size so I wouldn't say it predominates it. As the positive support gains even more size, it will continue to be diminished. Ah, dang, I kinda like potatoes. I wonder if you can eat corn uncooked... I know on the No Grain Diet, Mercola decides to classify corn as a grain... Anyway, I don't think criticism of an article needs to be published to be put up, since anyone can put up a web page 'published' criticism, this is just bypassing the middle man. It's not really an intense analysis, it can be summarized here, and discounted if someone provides an argument for why (the counterarguments are included in the criticism, and they're good ones, but criticism would still exist in the future without the counterpoints for them presented) --Tyciol 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is: most of the points in the criticism are (or should be) in independent articles within WP, and as such should only be referenced here. For example, the arguement for/against dairy as a source of calcium are/should be argued in more specific arenas like articles on calcium, dairy, casein, lactose, etc. and simply be refered to in this article, with links to those more specific articles, of course. Other things like vitamin or mineral fortified foods are best argued in articles about food processing, vitamins, and supplements. The Paleo diet is simply an assembly of other ideas which have arguements based on their individual merits/shortcomings and have/should be already argued somewhere else. I agree that it needs criticism, just make a short point or rebuttal and refer it to an existing arguement outside of this article.

As for sources:

• Expense:
  • "Eating a paleolithic diet ..." Who says this? Where did it come from?
  • "Were entire populations to attempt to eat this way, there may not be food to feed everyone." See Wikipedia:Weasel words.
  • "Some defend the diet by stating ..." I don't remember reading this in the support section.
  • "While there are no obvious negatives in health, ..." do a little research on this one.
• Food Storage: not a dietary issue—completely irrelevent to criticizing a dietary theory of any kind. Maybe a home-economics issue.

Note: Cavemen (used loosely) lived shorter lives because they sustained injuries related to their lifestyle (i.e., gored by animals, broken bones, frostbite, etc.) "Many modern innovations (eg. cooking, pasteurizing and inspecting food quality) have contributed greatly to our health, longevity and well-being" only in correcting problems established by a agrarian society. Things like heart disease, tooth decay, bacterial infections, food-born pathogens, etc. were virtually non-existent before the development of agriculture and subsequent shift to modern practices. Cavemen were very healthy, but lived dangerously. Agricultural society allowed man to eliminate those dangers, but replaced them with other diet-related problems which actually shortened our lives. Never has an unearthed paleolithic person been found to have died of cancer. Only recently (the last 300 years, or so) have we reversed that process with medicine, pasteurization, Lysol, toothpaste, etc. Also note, I did not include this in the article because I have no source for it. It is just an accumulation of knowledge over a period of time. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any substantial research that indicates what the lifespan of a paleolithic individual was? More importantly, lifespan cannot be solely attributed to diet as indicated in the comments above. Furthermore, given the diversity the diet suggests, what is the likelihood that an individual living in the paleolithic era would eat a "balanced" diet in any given area?

Regarding disease and the like: see Life_expectancy#Timeline for humans. Yes, you don't hear about paleos who died of cancer, but there's not exactly a ton of modern people who die of cancer at age 20-25 either; especially when you compare them on a population-count basis. It's hard to make the case that agricultural food is the thing that induces modern illnesses (apart from overeating maybe) when it apparently requires an average of 2-3 times the average life expectancy of a hunter-gatherer for most of these diseases to manifest. CredoFromStart ^talk 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Raw meat

But what about raw meat? If we were to live on a purely "paleolithic" diet, shouldn't we be able to eat it without worrying about bacteria/parasites? If we originally evolved to consume flesh raw, why is it a problem now? Did our bodies evolve so fast to be so dependent on cooked meat so that we can't tolerate raw meat anymore?

Well, there are some foods that are indeed made of raw meat or fish (eg. sushi, rare steak), but we still need to get it inspected by experts throughly before eating it. I doubt paleolithic cavemen had health inspectors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum bird (talk • contribs)

No, but they did have fire. What makes you think the paleolithic diet requires, recommends, or even suggests eating meat raw? --Angr (tɔk) 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes... No... and, Correct. Here it is. Many of the problems with raw meat today are directly related to the way modern domesticated animals are bred, raised, slaughtered, processed, transported, packaged, transported again, stored, marketed, transported yet again, prepared, cooked, eaten. When looked at from that angle, it becomes very obvious that there are dozens of opportunities for meat to become infected/infested with numerous pathogens. Wild game and fish, on the other hand, is much, much safer—especially if you catch, kill, clean, and eat it right. There are still cultures today that eat this way, and are very healthy because of it. Raw fish, for example, which goes way beyond sushi, is eaten by millions in coastal areas around the world. As for evolving, its not quite that complicated. Your body builds up antibodies toward certain pathogens through minute exposures to them over time. If we are never exposed to them, mainly due to the cooking process, then we have no defense against them. A person can, very carefully and over a period of time, build up their immune system to deal with these microbes by very carefully adding more wild or range-raised meat to their diet while at the same time cooking it less and less. This, however, would never work with the vast majority of store-bought meat. If your going to try this, buy a book written by a professional. And, BTW, Angr is right. This diet does not suggest eating raw meat. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 22:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does suggest that eating raw game is okay.. that's still meat! :) But yeah, definately no storebought steak. I'd have to agree with you there, the stance on meat is pretty sensible. --Tyciol 04:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative, just clear. The article states:

"Foods in the diet ... Foods ... that can be eaten raw ... like meat (preferably game, ...)", then later, "Cautions about poisoning ... It should be pointed out ... that while it is necessary to eat only those things that can be consumed raw, it is not necessary or advisable to eat those foods raw."

By the way, any more thoughts about our previous discussion? Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 14:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Wrangham

A paper was just posted to the Paleofood discussion email list, written by Harvard Professor Richard Wrangham, which gives some strong evidence that food was cooked for hundreds of thousands of years, and thus our bodies are genetically adapted to eating cooked food (the paper includes some physiological examples of this adaptation). Thus, raw food is not a component of the Paleolithic Diet, and that should be removed from the Wiki page. (I would have simply removed it now, which would be obeying the "be bold" principle of Wikipedia, but I have discovered that the people who actually bother to spend a lot of time on Wikipedia get pissed off when anything is changed, especially by newcomers, so I am stating this in the discussion first.) Raw Food is a separate diet, and is discussed and dissected extensively in the beyondveg.com web site that is in the links. Tarl Cabot 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have rephrased the section to avoid implying meat should be eaten raw. Angr/talk 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion:The problem with meat

The problem with meat is really that the human body is practically incapable of digesting raw meat (It is easier for the body to digest fish, sure, but when we generally talk about meat, fish is not included).

The earliest anyone claims that humans have had control over fire is 1 million years ago. Even then fire use has probably not been very extensive. Considering that homo erectus started migrating around the globe 2 million years ago, this means that humans and it's immediate predecessors have not been able to cook raw meat (or other food) for the larger part of human evolution. This seems to indicate that meat wasn't a part of the human diet for the most part of human evolution. --Vuzman 19:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been some large shifts in the human genome and cell, it's not unrealistic to think that this may have also happened to the digestive system. While erectus may not have had fire, Neanderthal and Sapiens most certainly did. Most changes are indeed in gene regulation rather than actual complexity, but perhaps this is what gives us the versatility to eat meat? I'm largely critical of this stuff because it rarely looks at the actual digestive process and proof that we're not able to use it, when many people do incorporate the amino acids from meat. Tyciol 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum! [1] Chicago says we digest meat better than chimps, victory for carnivores? Tyciol 14:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that fish is not included..many vegetarians I know would be aghast at that statement.
Here's something that complicates the issue. 

Relics of fires from aboriginals and other "primitive" tribes show that the meat was not cooked for long..searing it on the outside and leaving the inner part raw..so maybe we DID eat meat mostly raw. On a personal basis I find it hard to believe that we are not adapted to eating meat raw or at least rare. Steak tar-tar has many equivalents in many cultures (Yuk Way in Korea) and we also have a certain enzyme specifically used for digesting meat.

Perhaps the fire was to destroy bacteria after storage of the meat?

There are of course the "raw paleodiet" groups(also see www.rawpaleodiet.com) and the carnivorous diet groups.

Categories

This article was overcategorized, for reasons stated in the edit summaries. Any comments? --CDN99 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for some. I added some categories before fully understanding how to categorize. I simply picked categories which had even remote relevance. I didn't make up any categories, just used existing ones whether they sounded like logical categories or not. I have no objections to the pruning. Thanks, Master Scott Hall | Talk 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take some blame too, I think they were deleted before and I added them back anyway, although I do feel somewhat justified because the deletion was without explanation. This one had explanation, and does warrant respect and consideration. Now...restricting it solely to Diets may be a little extreme though.

In diets that advocate the removal of various commonly recognized food groups, it is making claims about Nutrition which I think warrant it's consideration into the wing. This would also help attract those interested in nutrition to the wiki to help deal with advancing it. It also makes claims about health, regarding the toxic content of grains (and processed foods, but that's not a major concern of mine) even when cooked, so wouldn't health be application? The diet's primary purpose is, after all, for health, and not something like weight loss or muscle growth. History of the human diet is applicable as well, because it is based on what is supposed to be the ancient diet of humans that we are still assumed to be genetically suited for (and not the recent propogation of grain).

Dermatology, AIDs and Old World Stone Age I'd agree with though, they don't seem very applicable. My best guess is whoever added those originally thought the diet could reduce acne? I guess that's understandable, as toxins interfering with the body's systems are often blamed for the imbalances that cause acne, and the diet is supposed to remove such contaminants we have not adapted to, yes? Old World Stone Age is too generic, and vague considering only their diet is being addressed (no one is saying live in a cave). AIDS I have no clue, how's that relevant at all behind the vague concept of better health making one more resistant and able to bear various health maladies? --Tyciol 08:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason not to include it in Category:Nutrition and Category:Health is that Category:Diets is already a subcategory of Category:Nutrition and Category:Nutrition is a subcat of Category:Health, and in most cases an article shouldn't be in both a subcategory and a higher category. I think it would make sense to include this article in Category:Old World Stone Age if it were as much about the way people did eat in the Stone Age (based on archaeological/paleoanthropological evidence) as it is on a modern attempt to re-create that. Angr/talk 09:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right you are about the Nutrition/Health. I apologize, but I'm just now grasping the treeroot system of categories and how they work. I've noticed them misused in some places which has skewed my view of how they're used as all-inclusive rather than the tree-structure which does make a lot more sense. Although... perhaps I should create a new category for various kinds of diets? While health is obviously a concern while undertaking any kind of diet, diets like this have a special emphasis on health, rather than other things like weight loss (very common), ethics (vegetarians, vegans), religion (ethics stuff, cosher, fasting), bodybuilding and sports performance (high protein diets, high calorie diets), whereas this diet focuses on health, and classing it in with all other diets just doesn't seem to give it justice. This concerns me with other diets I'm monitoring right now too :p Health rocks --Tyciol 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a new subcategory of Category:Diets is needed. There are 72 articles in that category right now, which is a good number. A category ideally should have no fewer than half a dozen and no more than 200 articles. Angr/talk 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? Seems like a lot to purruose through to me, besides, vegetarian already has it's own section in there (as does vegan, I moved it within vegetarian). Well, perhaps instead of putting Paleodiet under a sub-diet I can put some of the other diets under sub-diets so they don't clutter the main diet section as much. Some are also vague and not really whole diets, just diet contents, like low-carb, hardly inclusive. Tyciol 19:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Compositional ratios of the paleolithic diet?

I was wondering, would there be a way to go into the ratios of macronutrients and various things in the diet? It seems that there's a lot of controversy and stuff about stuff like the fat content of meat, what parts of the animal hunter-gatherers ate, how much meat they ate, and stuff like that. I'm also wondering, is the blood type diet really related to this kind of diet? Anyway, www.mercola.com/article/diet/caveman_cuisine.htm this is the article] I'm referring to, which was apparently authored by Mary G. Enig, PhD from the Weston A. Price Foundation. Even so, having a PhD doesn't make you infallible and I'm sure big credentials from either side are making arguments, so it would be good to find the source of such arguments. Tyciol 06:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"having a PhD doesn't make you infallible". It doesn't??? Rats! Angr/talk 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah.... well :p because I want one (or many many many) someday anyway. Tyciol 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Loren Cordain responds to the Weston Price article here: http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.145.175 (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcedness

Thanks MasterScottHall :) Although 'shown' is pretty much like proven, so you could have kept proven I think, since you provided excellent sources. Tyciol 09:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

shown just sounded a little less emphatic or argumentative, but, its really not a big deal to me either way. If you like proven better, put it back. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits of "paleolithic diet" page: responding to criticisms

In March, I tried editing the "paleolithic diet" page to provide some responses to the criticisms. As a beginner contributor, I failed. I have now added those edits to the page. My responses echo many of those articulated in this discussion. --Anthony_Sebastian@msn.com User:TonySebas

I removed your responses to criticism both in March and again now. The problem is that once we start having responses to criticism, someone could come along and give responses to your responses, and then you could come back and give responses to the responses to your responses, and so on. This is an encyclopedia article, not a debate. If you think the article as it stands is too critical of the paleolithic diet, the best thing to do is to edit the main body of the article (from a neutral point of view, not from the point of view of advocacy, and citing reliable sources) to bolster the points about the healthfulness of the diet. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Angr's right and has done a great job in adding a bunch of support for the stuff here since I last checked, I wish I knew how to code sourcing and book references right :) Tyciol 05:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not hard. Read WP:FN and Template talk:Cite book. Angr (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Briton shift to Neolithic diet, Meat vs Fish?

[2] [3] Two articles about a rapid shift, second one mentions that the ones eating paleolithic were healthy. Might be a fish vs meat issue rather than the domesticated grain thing. Also might be a caloric restriction thing since the neolithics eat more, so they breed and age (bad bonify) faster. Tyciol 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

removed from vegetarianism

It is believed that the Paleolithic diet consisted of, by weight, roughly 2/3 plant products and 1/3 animal products.

it is generally understood that the human gastrointestinal tract is that of an omnivore.

There is much disagreement about how much protein humans need.

Heavy reliance on grains and legumes can be problematic. These have anti-nutrients which made them unsuitable for our Paleolithic ancestors to eat. Eventually humans discovered how to tolerate these grains by grinding and cooking them, which ended the Paleolithic era. But because we can tolerate them does not mean they are necessarily good for us, and their intake has resulted in another increased prevalence has been cited as a cause of increases in chronic diseases such as food intolerances & auto-immune diseases.

Some Vegetarians get much of their protein from soy. There is debate over the health benefits of soy. While women may be able to tolerate a certain amount of it, the high isoflavone content may make it unsuitable for men and children. Some suggest it should only be eaten in fermented forms (eg. tempeh, miso and tamari) and in small amounts.

Breastfeeding vegan mothers should take care to include vitamin B12 in their diet; a lack of B12 in breast milk may cause developmental problems in the baby.

Someone just removed a section of the article on vegetarianism on the paleolithic diet. I tend to agree that removing it was the right choice but wanted to leave that information here in case someone wants to merge any of this information into this article. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section is Way Off Base

note: I removed this section from the main page; I think it's better served here CredoFromStart ^talk 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is really off base for this topic. I am in the grass-fed meat business. We raise cattle and sell the meat. Our meats in effect are exactly like wild meats since the critters eat exactly what they would in a wild state. In many cases our meats are more genuinely wild since most wild game animals in the United States are capable of leaping fences and getting into farmers' grain fields. Our animals are never allowed to eat foods that are not naturally available.

Large-scale economic sustainability is possible. The main problem is that it hasn't been tried and everyone is in lockstep with current production methods which in most cases actually cost more and require more resources than the "natural way."

High farming expenses: To grow grain, first grass is grown then it's thrown away, then the seeds the grasses produce are kept to eat This is backward to the natural way things really happen. Grasses and veggies are the foundation foods for all animal life. Growing them in place of grain is easy, inexpensive, and just as productive if not more so than growing grain. Raising livestock on pastures where the animals harvest all their food (mostly grasses and green leaves) on their own is also less expensive than raising them in feedlots.

High food storage expenses: Real foods are more perishable than grains. But when folks eat real food they avoid, in most cases, chronic disease. So people can pay a little more for fresh food and save money big time because they'll need less for medical expenses and medical insurance. That doesn't even take into account the better quality of life from being healthier.

Calcium: There's more than one source for calcium and a big one is the green leafy plant and grass-fed meats! Also, calcium is just one component of bone so diary products are not needed for providing the necessary components for optimal bone health. Keep in mind that man is the only beast on earth that figures he needs milk past weaning.

Vitamin D: It takes minimal exposure to the sun to get the body's requirement for this vitamin.

Protein: Grass-fed meats are the only food group man can eat exclusively and still have optimal health. He can't have optimal health from eating just veggies, fruits, dairy, nuts, or grains. A case in point is the Eskimo prior to the arrival of the white man with his grain and other concocted foods.

Evolved: The idea that man has evolved enough to eat grains without damage seems to be pretty well discounted as stupid since all of the people around the world who have high grain diets experience almost universally one or more of the many different chronic diseases (mental and physical).

Ted Slanker http://www.slankersgrassfedmeats.com 903-732-4653

The criticism section in the current article is off-topic, unsourced and clearly not neutral. Right now it reads like a propaganda piece more at home at freerepublic.com in its rationalization of some very contentious modern economic and dietary choices. I don't see how it belongs in a serious wiki article on a nutritional theory and think it should be removed and written by a different author. Surely it is possible to cite some published scientific or medical criticisms of the paleolithic diet without the bullshit agenda. -- 66.241.74.2 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Large-scale economic sustainability" and "High farming expenses"

These seem like dubious criticisms to list in an article about the paleo diet specifically. The former could be listed under any article about modern agriculture, including our present system which requires abundant chemical nitrogen fixation. This process is precisely as "sustainable" as gasoline burning automobiles, given the requirement for fossil fuels. Heck if anything the paleo approach is more sustainable as it does not rely on (currently) inexpensive and plentiful oil.

The latter section includes this text: All stock-raising is energy-inefficient, and free-range meat fed with the animals' normal foods (as opposed to maize) is particularly expensive to produce on a large scale. First off, this sentence is inaccurate because the "maize" currently fed to livestock can in no way be considered wild - most varieties are modified to destroy their own genetic information after one planting (sort of a biological patent), guarantee certain maximum levels of insect damage, and even produce their own pesticide. Moreover these varieties of corn do not and cannot survive in the wild. They require humans to reproduce. Even then, it's a fallacy to claim that raising livestock on commercial maize is any more "energy efficient" than with natural grazing methods (see previous point about nitrogen). Also ignored in the cost of feedlot livestock is the fossil fuel cost to transport millions of tons of corn from huge farms to the lot, the cattle from a field to the feedlot to a meat packer, and the supplements and drugs from large commercial producers to the feedlot. Additionally, it ignores the cost to public health systems which must deal with mad cow disease and bacterial infection in meat (both caused by feedlot practices, the former by feeding "supplements" which is really other cow meat, the latter by unsanitary conditions), and the cost to develop newer and more powerful antibiotics because the required use of antibiotics in feedlots to keep the animals alive leads to rapid bacterial mutation. Finally and most strikingly it ignores the fact that the price of corn is artificially low due to government subsidies which reward its overproduction. The ruminant is a gift of evolution - able to sustain itself on grass and fertilize the field with no additional requirement for chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers (and thus fossil fuels), water, or man.

All claims above can be easily verified by web searches and references can be found in The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. --WayneMokane 03:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction of counter-criticism section

I have introduced a "Counter-criticism" section because people shouldn't have to search through this discussion page to find them. They deserve to be in the article. The section I created serves to put the stated common criticisms in perspective, not necessarily to refute them. It's up to the reader to weigh the evidence. David999

Thanks David, this looks like a great start to me. However, I'm unsure what the Wikipedia standard is for the "counter-criticism" style - whether it is to be listed with each individual point or together in a separate section as you have done here (I'll look into this when I get a chance). Also do you have an account or are you editing anonymously? If the latter I strongly encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia user account so your contributions are attributed to your name. --WayneMokane 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wayne. Thanks for your comments. I tried to list each point in a separate section but someone undid the changes. We could have sections on "sustainability", "archaeological and sociological evidence" and "health", in place of the current "criticism" and "counter-criticism" sections and "support" section. The support, criticisms and counter-criticisms could all be briefly mentioned and sourced in these proposed sections in a neutral manner (There is evidence supporting... but this has been disputed...). Phenylalanine 00:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made these proposed changes to the article. --Phenylalanine 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like 69.159.116.125 has reorganized this section but it still has issues. First, the Environmental sustainability section contains these sentences: "It currently takes 20 pounds of feed (usually in the form of corn) to make one pound of edible beef, while pork and chicken require 7 and 4 pounds respectively.". This completely ignores the fact that the Paleolithic diet does not advocate corn-fed livestock. Pure grass-fed meat has a minimal environmental impact and requires zero energy input. This point about corn-fed meat has no place in the article. It should be placed perhaps under Factory_farming but not here. --WayneMokane 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Wayne. I'll remove that sentence from the sustainability section and I'll mention in the "food" section that the paleolithic diet advocates consumption of grass-fed meet.Phenylalanine 14:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of the article

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 is a very good point, Kajerm. I will see what I can do. Thanks for your thoughts. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help (other than gripe and nitpick, although as you can see, I'm very good at that.) --Kajerm (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference

I removed the reference "Wild Food, by Raymond Mears and Gordon C. Hillman" in the section "Archeological and anthropological evidence" and added instead specific peer-reviewed citations for each type of food considered: tubers, cereal grains and legumes. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to Re-add a Criticism Section

I understand that the previous sections were extremely faulty, but that does not excuse the editors from NPOV. While this diet has substantial, proven benefits, there are a number of prominent criticisms of both its basis and specific content. A section like this need not list every criticism of every nutritional detail of the diet, but the more prominent ones should be mentioned.

It would also be important to include well-known criticisms of its scientific basis, including the following:

- The diet is based on Just-So Stories and teleologic reasoning.

- Paleolithic nutrient profiles would not necessarily prevent modern causes of death such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cerebrovascular accident, because these diseases all have their onset after the reproductive period, making them resistant to natural selection.

This letter [4] provides a solid source of criticism for the diet along with sources which explain criticisms in greater depth. --Kajerm (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive criticisms, Kajerm. I'll see if I can find the letter you mention at my local University library and I'll add the criticisms to the article. I have already mentioned some criticisms from those same academics in the "Health" section. The criticisms you mention may be valid, but if they are to be included in the article, they must be sourced. Regarding the POV of the article, it does include a number of criticisms in the "Health" section. I will include any other sourced criticisms I can find. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Hope I've been helpful. Kajerm (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New "Criticism" section

I have once again reorganized the article and reintroduced a "Criticism" section. Any comments or suggestions on this new section are welcome and can be made here. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC

Removal of theme for adhering to diet

I removed this paragraphe because some versions of the diet allow for tubers and other underground organs that are often inedible raw because they contain harmful bioactive substances that are deactivated by cooking.

"A practical, albeit imperfect, theme for adhering to a Paleolithic style diet is the following: if a food item resembles one that can be found in the wild, obtained with bare hands or simple tools, and ingested immediately without cooking, processing, and by simple preparation (i.e., peeling, cracking, washing, etc.), and cause the consumer no ill effects either during or after consumption, then it can be considered edible, and therefore permissible to eat. Any food meeting this standard can then be cooked and prepared by the simplest means that are practical and consumed in modest quantities." --Phenylalanine 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Category "Low-carb diet"?

Not all proponents of a paleolithic style diet advocate a low-carbohydrate approach. Staffan Lindeberg recommends no specific macronutrient ratios, arguing that a Paleolithic diet is not always low in carbohydrate. This is indicated in the article and so to place this article in the category "Low carb" is not justified in my opinion. Furthermore, Katharine Milton, who also advocates a Paleolithic style diet, (see section "Further reading") does not promote the diet on the basis that it is low-carb. Whether these are "major" proponents of the diet is arguable (they haven't published books promoting the diet), but they have written numerous papers on the subject. If you insist, I think it would be preferable to mention that Cordain recommends a low carb approach in the "Intake section", but not to include *ALL* approaches in the same boat. Thanks for your contributions! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is low-carb

My position is not only is it argued by many of the Paleolithic diet proponents that the diet is low-carbohydrate but that the Paleolithic diet is a de facto low-carb diet. The majority of the diet's supporters advocate the removal of wheat and bread products, beans, potatoes, manufactured sweets, etc., most of these are high-carb. The Paleolithic diet becomes low-carb whether or not its modern advocates believe in the low-carb approach. With the emphasis on meat (beef, poultry, fish, pork), nuts/seeds, most vegetables (all the preceding are low-carb foods), and fruit it has to be low-carb unless one primarily eats only fruit which is not what the diet advocates. Even many fruits are relatively low-carb (berries, plums, etc.) or are, at the very least, low glycemic, and they are not the major part of this diet. Phenylalanine, thanks for your work on this article. --Historian 1000 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all versions of the diet place emphasis on meat as mentioned previously and tubers are allowed by some advocates, including Cordain and Lindeberg (see "Practices" and "Criticism" sections). So one could be eating lots of potatoes and little meat and still be eating "Paleo" style. Regards. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, in addition to meat; the vegetables, nuts and seeds are also low-carb. Potatoes should not qualify as Paleo regardless of what some author may claim since they cannot be eaten raw without being toxic. Fire could be a scarce commodity for primitive peoples and many authors do claim that the food must be able to be eaten raw, which of course one can do with freshly killed game, etc. The real issue here is what Stone Age people ate. According to this article, canola oil is allowed, which is ridiculous in that it is entirely a manufactured oil. One final remark on potatoes, they are a New World food and were not available to the rest of the world's population until the past few hundred years. --Historian 1000 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this article is about Paleolithic *style* diets, not *Paleolithic* diets. The difference is very important. What advocates say is all that it's about. Cordain and Lindeberg include tubers because they were probably part of the Paleolithic diet after the discovery of fire. I think Audette's recommendations are along the lines of what you say. (You are right that many starchy underground organs are inedible raw.) So basically, it depends on which advocate you listen to. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article only became about Paleolithic style diets very recently with a questionable name move. Style should refer more to preparation (e.g. processed meats) than type of food. And since the Paleolithic era extends beyond the common use of fire, I suggest some of these authors brush up on some cultural anthropology. And once again, many of the popular tubers we eat were only available in the New World until the past few hundred years. "Non-Indian" peoples could not have evolved eating them and evolution is a pillar of the Paleo diet argument. --Historian 1000 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I too am not totally satisfied with name of this article, but I haven't found a good alternative. Again, this article is not about what Paleolithic people ate, but about what some "notable" authors recommend to promote health based on their understanding of ancient Paleolithic diets. They may be wrong in terms of their prescriptions or their understanding of stone age diets and some may be more right than others, but that is not a reason to sensor those we don't agree with, don't you think? With regards to tubers and other underground organs, some anthropologists have theorized that these foods would have had a major impact on human evolution [5]. Ok. I'm off to bed. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've enjoyed the exchange but the facts remain that most of the Paleo foods are low-carb, potatoes are a New World food and the rest of the human population did not evolve eating them, some tubers/roots are relatively low-carb, and I argue that the piece should be about the Paleolithic diet and its possible benefits/negatives, not what some author wants to make up as being Paleo. I'm closing my part of this discussion. I really did enjoy it. --Historian 1000 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that all advocates cited in the article have published papers on the diet in peer-reviewed journals or have published books on the subject, I consider their contribution to be notable and worthy of mention in the article, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I see no justification for including this article in the category "low-carb diet".

An interesting question is whether a diet consisting of limited amounts of animal foods and mainly of low-glycemic load plant foods is a low-carb diet. It depends where you draw the line for a "low-carb" diet. You have to look at the proportions of digestible carbs, protein and fat in these foods. Assuming that low-glycemic load plants contain more carbs than protein or fat, the net result would be a carbohydrate dominant diet, I think. Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The paleo diet is really much more appropriately termed a "high-protein diet" than a a low-carb one. The putative evolutionary basis for the diet requires an absence of refined carbs, sure, but a great many forms of this diet allow products that are starchy and/or sugary. The main difference is that these tend to have a much, much, higher proportion of dietary fiber and indigestible starch.

Insofar as carb-restriction is not a major goal of this diet, so much as a frequent outcome of its practical application, it's really misleading to call it a low-carb diet. It would be missing the point in the same way that calling the Atkins Diet a "high-fat diet" would be-- it's possible to maintain a low fat intake on the Atkins diet (with heroic levels of protein intake), but high fat is far and away the most common application of it. High fat in the Atkins Diet, like low carbs in the Paleo diet, is more of a secondary consequence of the diet than a goal in and of itself. --Kajerm (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Even Loren Cordain doesn't believe the diet is low-carb (see table and section "The Ideal Human Diet" (p.2) [6]). --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject of the article

Historian 1000 said (above): "The article only became about Paleolithic style diets very recently with a questionable name move. Style should refer more to preparation (e.g. processed meats) than type of food. [...] I argue that the piece should be about the Paleolithic diet and its possible benefits/negatives, not what some author wants to make up as being Paleo."

I suggest that this article deal with modern day approaches to Paleolithic diets and that the nature of ancient Paleolithic diets be described in the article "Paleolithic". --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I added some images. Let me know what you think about them. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AntiNutrients

I'm surprised there is no mention of Antinutrients, as mentioned in the following web page (one of the first on the net regarding the Paleolithic diet): www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html --Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Phytic acid and lectins, which are antinutrients, are mentioned as being potentially harmful substances in the "Health benefits" section. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research in the "opposing evidence"?

Is there any synthesis of published material serving to advance a position in the "opposing evidence" section?

From WP:NOTOR: Wikipedia:These are not original research [...]

• Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case because they require skills that not all readers possess, and involve a large number of steps that introduce the possibility of errors. [...]
• Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job with that section; it didn't strike me as original research. I don't see any synthesis; the section simply lists criticisms and sources, as it should. I would, however, change the section headings. Just call the main section "Criticism" and the subsections "Criticism of health effects", "Criticism of theoretical basis", and so on. =Axlq (talk)

Thanks for your time and kind words Axlq! I'm not sure if this is a synthesis since some of the sources aren't presenting the info as a criticism against paleolithic syle diets. For example, « Large seeded legumes were part of the human diet long before the neolithic agricultural revolution as evident from archaeobotanical finds from the Mousterian layers of Kebara Cave, in Israel. » I don't think the source for this statement is using it as a criticism against paleolithic diets. Nevertheless, I find this evidence very important to mention, which is why I named the section"Criticism and relevant evidence", to take this into account. "Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition."WP:NOTOR But I may be misinterpreting Wikipedia guidelines... --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this problem with the new layout of the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor problems

I am impressed with the work Phenylalanine has put into this article. It's well written and interesting. I do see some problems with this article, mostly in the presentation:

1. Aspects of the article read like an essay or term paper. This is partly due to juxtaposing two approaches to the diet (the sentence "This article deals with these last two approaches" signals that the article isn't encyclopedic, but rather limited in scope).  Done Phenylalanine (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Two or three sources are repeatedly quoted and referenced, as if these sources represented the entire body of knowledge on the subject. They clearly don't, given the number of references.  Done Phenylalanine (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
3. In an encyclopedia article, it's more important to discuss the subject than the sources. The article has a distracting shift of focus to book titles and authors and what they say. To me, it would be better to simply describe the various alternatives and views, and rely on the footnotes to reveal the sources. I can read the paragraphs in the "History of the diet" section while skipping over the book titles and still get the same benefit, so why include the book titles? For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph reads "Recent versions of a Paleoithic diet ... focus on eliminating all foods that were not available to human beings in Peleoithic times." Notice that where I put "..." there's a book title, totally unnecessary to the thrust of the sentence. This is a clear case of "less is more".  Done Phenylalanine (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
4. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. The sections about foods in the diet, and not in the diet, don't need the level of detail shown, especially with the detail of which author says what. See also WP:UNDUE. Some of those bullet groupings can be compressed and summarized.  Done Phenylalanine (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are presentational issues. Fix them, and this article is likely to pass the Featured Article tests. In fact, I think it may qualify as a Good Article now, and it should be submitted for review at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. I know from experience that Good Article reviews really help getting an article into great shape. =Axlq (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and constructive criticism! (1)I see your point about the article being limited to two approaches to the diet. Perhaps the "Low-carbohydrate diet" article could be a useful model to emulate in that regard. (2)Could you specify which sources you are referring to? (3)Good point. (4) Good point. I'll make these changes and then submit the article for review. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll send it for review right now and see what further changes could be made. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning (1), if there are only two notable approaches to this diet, then say so, but the article currently implies there are more and you're focusing on just two. Concern (2) seems to have been taken care of by your recent revisions; I guess I was seeing the same two or three names in parentheses over and over in the list of foods, which triggered my comment. Presentationally, (3) is the most important concern. The article's focus seems shifted toward the identity of the sources and their publications, and not toward facts about the diet itself. It's distracting. You fixed (4); looks much better now, concise and to the point. Good luck with the GA review! =Axlq (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could to fix the rest of the problems you mentioned. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Precautions

I think this is a synthesis of published research serving to advance a position. Although the info is reasonable, the sources must specify that these are precautions, not just mention them as facts.

Practitioners of Paleolithic style diets must be careful to get necessary vitamin D and calcium. Late Paleolithic humans probably got sufficient calcium from wild vegetables and from gnawing the bones of animals they ate, and cultivated vegetables have less calcium than their wild counterparts. --Phenylalanine (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)