Talk:Carnivore diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

RfC on PKD case studies

There is no consensus to include this material.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fringe

FYI, I have opened a thread about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 4 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)

We must follow the sources. No source reports on the state of "consensus" on this topic. Sources describe it as a "fad diet". We'll get there eventually. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The information on indigenous diets is interesting, but it is not connected to the subject of this article which is the fad diet being promulgated by Peterson and others. jps (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: - From [13] "Since the ostensible subject of this article is the carnivore diet as popularized by the faddish followers of Peterson, to investigate indigenous diets and claim connection when the sources do not is WP:SYNTH" -

First, the subject of the article is the carnivore diet, and not merely as it is popularized by any single adherent.

Secondly, the sources actually do claim that connection, which is also obvious to any discerning reader, for example, from the popsci source you removed (among others): That said, some groups of people have survived—even thrived—on an animal-only diet. Research suggests that traditionally the Inuit ate any number of meats, including seal, whale, caribou and fish. But they rarely, if ever, ate plant fiber.

Given that your diff message has no basis, would you go back and revert your changes? BecomeFree (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

the subject of the article is the carnivore diet. Let's start there. I am looking through the sources and the only sources which indicates there is a "carnivore diet" in relation to human beings are those that connect the carnivore diet with Jordan Peterson. Can you find any sources that show otherwise?

While it is undoubtably true that one can comment on the carnivore diet as popularized by Jordan Peterson and his acolytes by briefly mention of the diets of various indigenous groups, the quotes that you seem to think are indicating that the text I removed is fine are rather doing the opposite in proclaiming, instead, that these diets are unrelated to the fantasies being promoted by Peterson et al. If we want to indicate that these diets are unrelated to the carnivore diet, that's one thing. But the text I removed manifestly did not do that.

So either find some sources that indicate that there are more expansive ways to approach this subject, or be content with its whittling down and WP:FRINGE status. And stop misrepresenting sources. jps (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: - There is no need to keep bringing up Peterson (or his fantasies) into this. He is as much as a representative of carnivore diet as Steve Jobs is to fruitarianism. And yes not every source mentions Peterson; he arrived much later in the scene. Here's one source as an example[14].

The subject of the article, semantically, is an all-meat diet, which is termed carnivore diet or zero carb (per reliable sources). Semantically, those indigenous diets fall under that definition. I'm not misrepresenting the sources; you just haven't read them because other editors have trimmed down the article. From one of the previous sources, the connection is patently established:

There is some historical precedent to the carnivore diet. "You can see similar diets dating back hundreds of years with certain cold-climate tribes, such as the Inuit or Eskimos," explains Sharafeddine. "They'd live off of blubber and animal fat throughout the year with little to no plants consumed-but this type of diet is very specific for their climate with little to no vitamin D."[15]

I will concede however that we should not describe indigenous diets as 'carnivore diet', especially as indigenous eat higher-fat nose-to-tail (organs for example). Many proponents of protein-dense diets like this point to cultures that have historically eaten mostly or entirely meat. If they can be healthy, why can't we? Take the Inuit, for instance, who almost exclusively eat very fatty meats (though they supplement with berries in the short-lived summer). They're healthy on a diet of blubber and liver. But as it turns out, the Inuit stay healthy because they eat a wide variety of meats, most of which fad-dieters are not consuming. They stave off scurvy by feasting on collagen-rich, vitamin-C-dense whale skin and other fresh, uncooked meats. And the flesh they consume often isn't mostly protein—it's about 50 percent fat, much of which is of the healthier, unsaturated variety. The meat you buy in a grocery store is largely saturated fat, since that's the kind that develops on animals who get little exercise and eat mostly corn.[16] But given the strong and obvious connection, we should describe them in the article, and refer to it simply as all-meat diet, while emphasis the aforementioned difference as well. Not doing so would reek of WP:POV. BecomeFree (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Shawn Baker/Jordan Peterson/etc. It's all part of the same Intellectual Dark Web pseudoscientific fad diet scene. Mirna Sharafeddine is a registered holistic nutritionist and founder of Naughty Nutrition, so we absolutely cannot take her word for it that the carnivore diet is similar to those of Inuit or, as she puts it, "Eskimos". There is a general principle of WP:ONEWAY at work here. We can link to the discussion of diet in the Inuit if we would like, but only as a means to point out that these diets are not the carnivore diet (despite what the Mirna Sharafeddines of the world claim). If you want to mock-up some wording to that effect, cited to the popsci article, perhaps we can include a sentence in our article. But it should not be described as an "all-meat diet" or as anything else here. Inuit cuisine could simply be a "see also" link, and that would probably be good enough. jps (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also this source was restored but I do not believe it is reliable [17]. You can run a Google search on Georgia Ede, she is a proponent of the carnivore diet/keto and other alternative medicine quackery. She is not a qualified dietician. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get the information that Ede is a proponent of "other alternative medicine quackery"? Being a qualified dietician is not a absolute requirement for describing the food beliefs (i.e., what the adherents claim as their motivations) of the diet. Indeed if random journalists who are not dieticians (qualified or not) are allowed, then surely someone with professional background of B.A in Biology and M.D (currently a psychiatrist)[18] would be allowed as well, no matter what an editor's personal opinion of an all-meat diet is (no reliable source equates carnivore diet with alternative medicine or quackery). If Ede is used to make factual claims regarding the health effects, then that would be a different matter of course. BecomeFree (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have followed this field for over twenty years and those who support quackery are easy to spot, I could list many things but that is not the place here to discuss her non-scientific views. Ede has given lectures at carnivore conventions and she is not independent of the subject. Yes she is psychiatrist, not qualified on dieting. Per WP:RS, she should be removed. We should look for reliable independent secondary sources not be citing proponents of this diet which is obvious bias. BTW type her name in on Google, the first suggestion is "quack". She is not the sort of person that we should be citing on Wikipedia articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.. So, when a source is to be discounted as unreliable, it really depends on what it is used for. Like I said, we can easily agree not to use Ede for any factual statements regarding health effects, for example ... however, Ede's source is quite reliable and appropriate for statements describing food beliefs, such as the "Even though its adherents claim health benefits" phrase in the article. As for the Google suggestion, that doesn't prove that she is a "quack" - only that people are eager to know if she is (which she is not, as the actual results from Google's first page should readily indicate). BecomeFree (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No that is not the case, lol. A unreliable source is an unreliable source, we should not use it for any statements at all. Otherwise we would be citing creationist sources and flat earth sources for statements on Wikipedia. But just to point out that I did not remove that source, it was removed by another editor. I guess we should wait for others opinion, I will not remove it. On an unrelated note in regard to your account, this is the third Wikipedia account you have had, I missed that originally as I thought it was your second. I think you are very likely to be banned here, per policy (who else has 3 chances?). You say you wanted to avoid controversial topics this time around but you are editing them again. You have been on Wikipedia less than a month on your new account and you are editing controversial content here, nothing wrong with that but you must be sensible about editing in this area. Multiple users have left warnings on your talk-page about WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV but you are not getting it. I don't think much else can be done here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

BecomeFree has been blocked, he was using 3 other accounts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article was previously redirected

The user who revived activity on this article and originally added all the content to it has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Content about this diet can be found on the monotrophic diet article, which has been semi-protected because of the meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Never did I think that this innocent little redirect I started (the first edit of this article) would result in such drama. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User2083146168

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User2083146168/Archive

Off-wiki canvassing:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/carnivorediet/comments/ezishg/vegans_have_deleted_the_carnivore_diet_wikipedia/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/ezdrrw/carnivore_diet_deleted_by_vegans_on_wikipedia/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/ezlxxf/vegans_attacked_and_deleted_the_carnivore_diet/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/comments/ezeeub/wikipedia_article_creation_for_carnivore_diet/

As I sat down to my lunch (part of a lamb shoulder I slow roasted in a smoker over hickory last night) I was surprised to find that I am a vegan!

My favorite vegan joke (all in fun; I respect those who make that choice even though it isn't for me):

Q: Why don't vegans ever have protest marches?

A: They tried, but their hurt so much that they had to have a sit in instead of a march.

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Health dangers

Hi guys

I added more to the section. Is there anything else we are missing? Rodistron1 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not acceptable edits, you are adding original research by inserting your personal commentary on the article because what you added was not found in the sources. As well as adding unsourced content you also added sources that do not mention the carnivore diet. Please read WP:OR. We can only add sources that specifically mention the carnivore diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Environmental concerns

The article fails to link mass livestock raising to this diet with a small number of followers. That comes across as a baseless attack.

The common western diet includes meat and there are hundreds of millions more people eating the common western diet than following carnivore.

I am updating the article to remove the environmental impact unless someone adds reason to believe this small population has any environmental impact beyond the average western person Psud (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The content is well sourced, it doesn't matter about your personal opinion, we just cite what the reliable sources say. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

They're is no source linking carnivore to environment. Only meat eating

That is like saying emptying a bucket into the sea raises sea levels because more water in the sea (eg from glaciers) raises sea levels

I will agree with the inclusion if a source linking the current population of dieters to factory farming changes Psud (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

to add, I am not complaining about the "meat is environmentally harmful" content, I am complaining that there is no sourced text linking dieters to an increase in farming Psud (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you failed to respond to my point (are you a bot?) I shall edit to link the diet to the environment Psud (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Dude. "Factory farming of animals is also linked to antibiotic resistance in humans and is a huge contributor to the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. source. Next time, read the source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Primary source removed

This case report from 2000 [19] is a primary source and not on the "carnivore diet", it is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. The stuff about James Blunt having scurvy is unreliable [20] (see discussion in November 2020 on Blunt's article). Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Add in bold to end of first paragraph:

Such a diet can lead to deficiencies of vitamins and dietary fiber, and increase the risk of chronic diseases.[2][3][4][5]. However, contrary to common expectations, those consuming a carnivore diet experience few adverse effects and instead reported health benefits and high satisfaction.[6]

Here is the citation:

6. Belinda S Lennerz, Jacob T Mey, Owen H Henn, David S Ludwig, Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a “Carnivore Diet”, Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 5, Issue 12, December 2021, nzab133, https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzab133 https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894?login=false Nbbowen (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable medical source and it was based on self-reported data so it fails WP:MEDRS. See this discussion to why that paper is unreliable [21] discussed in June 2022. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain which of the reliable source criterion this source doesn't fulfill?Please be specific. Nbbowen (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look at WP:RS/MC which redirects to WP:MEDRS you will see how that source is not reliable, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". The source you cited is a primary source consisting of self-reported data from a survey taken from unreliable sources (a Facebook group). It is not good medical evidence, it is not a secondary source. We do not use primary sources to make biomedical claims.

The paper itself says "Using an online survey, we collected self-reported data from respondents who self-identified as following a carnivore diet for a minimum of 6 mo." There is also a conflict of interest issue, see WP:MEDCOI. The paper says "Respondents were recruited from open social media communities (World Carnivore Tribe)". In the Acknowledgments section it says "We thank Shawn Baker and Travis Statham for input in developing the survey instruments, online distribution of the survey, and critical review of the manuscript". Shawn Baker is the founder of the World Carnivore Tribe Facebook group and Travis Statham is its moderator. Which ever way you look at it, the source is terrible. It doesn't meet Wikipedia medical guidelines or any for that matter and in general it is very poor. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there are many sources on this page that aren't from medical journals, so that's not a roadblock here.

The source is cited by many other academic articles, so the citation can be presented as a secondary source easily, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2233757972193401206&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en. Is this correct?

The statement says "those consuming a carnivore diet experience few adverse affects. The source is determining how people feel when they adhere to the diet. Do you think that a group of people self-reporting they have no adverse effects from a diet is a medical claim?

Nbbowen (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the secondary source version (from the American journal of clinical nutrition) which references the source I am trying to include. What do you think of this?

"It is also important to bear in mind that consumers perceive many health benefits and report high satisfaction from meat eating (31)"

Faidon Magkos, Meat in the human diet: in transition from evolutionary hallmark to scapegoat, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 115, Issue 5, May 2022, Pages 1263–1265, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac041

(31) -primary source Nbbowen (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not listed any reliable sources. A source in this area does not always need to be published in a medical journal to be reliable. On the article we cite Today's Dietitian which is a magazine published for nutritional professionals written by Carrie Dennett a registered dietitian [22]. I am not aware of any registered dietitians advocating the carnivore diet because it is clearly quackery. The paper by Faidon Magkos is a primary source and is off-topic, it is not on the carnivore diet. Per original research we would not cite that, see WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad to know that the source doesn't need to be a medical jounral to be qualified.

Faidon Magkos is referencing the Lennerz article, he is not making this claim from his own research. That would qualify his claim as from a secondary source no?

Also, the Lennerz team are qualified nutritionists and endocrinologists. Don't you agree? See below. David S Ludwig is a professor in the department of nutrition at Harvard and he wrote co-authored the Lennerz paper.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6826-7762

https://www.childrenshospital.org/directory/belinda-lennerz

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/profile/david-s-ludwig/ Nbbowen (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

Under 'Health Concerns' Header

Let's incorporate where the purported health benefits may come from into this paragraph. Since this wiki article talks a lot about possible detrimental effects, it should be balanced out with possible beneficial effects as detailed below in this medical article.

"The purported benefits of the carnivore diet may be attributed to the consumption of organ meats that contain highly bioavailable essential vitamins and minerals, such as iron, zinc, copper, selenium, thiamine, niacin, folate, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K, and choline. Other dietary compounds that have demonstrated benefit for skin health and are predominantly found in animal foods include carnosine, carnitine, creatine, taurine, coenzyme Q10, and collagen." [1]

Any suggestions on acceptable incorporation?

Diet, Ketogenic. "Reexamining the Role of Diet in Dermatology." Cutis 107 (2021): 308-314. p4 on attached pdf. https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/CT107006308.PDF Nbbowen (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't quote mine without giving full context. That is a paper on diet in relation to dermatology, it is irrelevant to this article. The quote you cited is just a list of minerals and vitamins found in organ meats. The same paper you linked to gives some more context which says "there is no data to recommend the elimination of antioxidant- and micronutrient-dense plant-based foods. Rigorous clinical research evaluating the efficacy and safety of the carnivore diet in dermatologic patients is needed. A carnivore diet should not be undertaken without the assistance of a dietician who can ensure adequate micronutrient and macronutrient support". So the paper you are citing notes there is no clinical data and is not recommending the diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The paper is about how diets have dermatological implications and it explicitly discusses the carnivore diet. Of course that is relevant to this wiki article. It's not simply a list of nutrients, it's a statement about the origin of possible benefits, which again is relevant to the wiki page. The secondary statement explicitly discusses dietary compounds found in the diet that have demonstrated benefits for skin health.

In the header of this wiki article you already highlight the potential downsides. I am only omitting that part because you have already covered it.

To address your last sentence, I am not claiming in my proposed edit that someone is recommending the diet. Nbbowen (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The requested change looks like an attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. Furthermore, the fad diet generally doesn't involve consumption of organ meats. That's what makes it different from Inuit cuisine, as the article already states. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This article contains only potential downsides to the carnivore diet, despite lack of clinical evidence. Exclusively focusing on potential downsides while refusing to acknowledge potential upsides (as claimed in the Lennerz paper) is certainly biased.

Every article on the internet discusses the purported health benefits of the carnivore diet (even if they are dismissing them) with the exception of wikipedia, which doesn't make any mention of them.

There should be room in this page to discuss the purported benefits, as does every other article about the carnivore diet Nbbowen (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There are not any 'upsides' to the diet according to the reliable sources apart from bringing about possible weight loss (all fad diets can do that). We have references by registered dietitians including Abby Langer [23], Kate Patton [24], Carrie Dennett [25] and science writer Jonathan Jarry [26]. They all dismiss the diet as pseudoscience and a danger to health. The risks far out-way any benefits which have not been shown and there is no clinical evidence just personal testimonies which do not hold weight in evidence-based medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Essential nutrients can be derived from animal foods only

Add in bold prior to the last sentence in the first paragraph

Essential nutrients can be derived in sufficient amounts from animal foods [1], although such a diet can lead to deficiencies of vitamins and dietary fiber, and increase the risk of chronic diseases.[2][3][4][5]

[1] Source: Lennerz, Belinda S., et al. "Behavioral characteristics and self-reported health status among 2029 adults consuming a “carnivore diet”." Current Developments in Nutrition 5.12 (2021): nzab133. Nbbowen (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. A claim like that would need a source that qualifies as a WP:MEDRS; that is, a survey of multiple studies. Citing one study about people self-reporting their status seems far from qualifying. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This claim is referencing this source:

34.O'Hearn A. Can a carnivore diet provide all essential nutrients?. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2020;27(5):312–16.

Should that be referenced instead?

Where does WP:MEDRS reference a requirement for a survey of multiple studies? Nbbowen (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes is a poor journal to be citing. The author of that paper L. Amber O'Hearn is a carnivore diet advocate who goes behind the name "KetoCarnivore" and also runs a carnivore website. I have addressed why this paper is unreliable back in January on the Jordan Peterson article, it has been removed from Wikipedia [27]. It is a primary source. We wouldn't cite it per our WP:MEDRS policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

People who tried it out

@Bon courage I don't mind if we just summarized this section, instead of listing everything. Keeping the references and people's names, in one paragraph. Moniony (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention any of this. And especially not claims that the diet "caused" anything (good or bad) without proper scientific sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim is not that the "diet caused anything" but that the "diet had these effects on these people [as reported by reliable sources]". I think this corroborates well the 'Health effects' section. Also your revert removed existing content from Joe Rogan and James Blunt. I've summarized the whole thing now in a paragraph, keeping the reliable source references. ~~~ Moniony (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This new account is likely a sock-puppet of Zalgo [28]. He has been here many times before, i.e. [29], [30], [31], it is exactly the same editing pattern and edit summaries. The same user turns up on Wikipedia every year to obsess over this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Inuits tried it out for many centuries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.0.153 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't. This is explained in the article if you bother to actually read it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, also the traditional Inuit diet includes seaweed, tubers and berries (crowberry) as well as Muktuk. It is very different than the modern carnivore diet fad which seems to be built around steak and eggs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Muktuk is whale skin and blubber, not a plant. Carnivores such as polar bear eat whale skin and blubber when they find a dead whale. We can agree that polar bear is a carnivore.

Inuit ate seaweed, dug out and ate tubers when meat became scarce.

Yes, traditional diet of Inuit is different from modern carnivore diet but is equal to it in its animal tissue content, both are exclusively based on animal tissue being consumed. They differ because Inuit diet developed at the Arctic where cows, pigs and poultry were not available. It also developed long time ago following natural progression. Modern carnivore diet is a diet developed by dieticians and uses meats available outside Arctic and not being sourced by hunting animals.

If one insists on finding and underlining differences, one could easily find differences between Italian Mediterranean diet and French Mediterranean diet and make the point that they are not the same. However, and we could agree here too, that these two dietary regimes can be described as Mediterranean diet that differs from traditional North European diet.

As far as Inuit eating some plants is concerned, this could occur only during short periods of arctic summer and was necessary due to low availability of animals to be hunted. Also, I used past tense when describing Inuit diet, because only a miniscule number of Inuit are still following the ancestral diet today. This is due to contact with non-Inuit Europeans who "modernized" their diet. This modernization has lead to high number of Inuit suffering from ill health and diseases such as diabetes. You can read about traditional Inuit diet and how it changed after European colonization in this reliable source: The Changing Landscape of Arctic Traditional Food 24.225.161.193 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording

A 'diet' cannot be 'pseudoscientific'. This is a category error. Not all adjectives can apply to all nouns; in this case, the noun refers to a set of foods which one eats, but (pseudo)science is concerned with theories of causation. The rationale for a diet may or may not be pseudoscientific, but this is not identical to a 'pseudoscientific diet'.

You might say instead that, eg, 'some contemporary advocates make pseudoscientific health claims', or find some other way of describing causal theories as pseudoscientific, and not the food category that they inspire, because again, a set of foods is not pseudoscientific. Restricting one's food choice to a certain diet is also not pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience only dscribes asserting that science supports such a diet's merit.

If I were to eat a carnivore diet because I think meat is tasty, it would not be a 'pseudoscientific diet'. 73.69.253.197 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Per this source [32] it is more accurate to say it is a fad diet known for making pseudoscientific health claims. I have corrected this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure invoking a source was helpful there, but it's good someone corrected something

While we're here, you can't say that the carnivore diet is also called the 'zero-carb diet' and then go on to say that it includes milk.

This article seems to have been extensively victimized by terminologically confused editors 73.69.253.197 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The user who added the above poor wording is a banned user Zalgo [33], he's had over 20 sock-puppets on here and related articles and most of his edits have been reverted. However, the zero carb diet claim is accurate as another name for the carnivore diet, especially the meat only version which is obviously 0 carb. I would say that it does make sense because dairy is optional in the carnivore diet not necessary and most proponents of the carnivore diet do not eat it but some do. It's not worth obsessing over something like this, there are many other worthwhile things do be looking at on Wikipedia. This is a non-issue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Zero-carb does describe some carnivore diets, like ones which don't include milk, but not 'the' carnivore diet and, pertinently, not the one to which the idea is traced in the next paragraph, which includes milk; so it's not accurate. You might instead say that, eg, 'carnivore diets are sometimes zero-carb'.

I understand this detail might appear a non-issue to you; do you understand why your earlier improved wording was tweaked? 73.69.253.197 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Fad diet

“Fad” diet is not appropriate. The carnivore diet has been our ancestor's species-appropriate diet for 2-4 million years. Hardly a fad.

The only study available on the Carnivore Diet should be referenced to counter the bias of the Wikipedia author: Lennerz BS, Mey JT, Henn OH, Ludwig DS. Behavioral Characteristics and Self-Reported Health Status among 2029 Adults Consuming a "Carnivore Diet". Curr Dev Nutr. 2021 Nov 2;5(12):nzab133. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab133. PMID: 34934897; PMCID: PMC8684475. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slevdi (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A fad diet is just another name for a diet that makes pseudoscientific claims. The claims of the the carnivore diet are all pseudoscientific. Nobody in the medical community takes it seriously. We have very good references describing it as a fad diet. A good link is Dietitians Australia which gives some background on what fad diets are [34], as you can see they list the carnivore diet as a fad diet. Fad diets ban certain foods which they promote as causing ill health, promise quick weight loss and other undemonstrated health claims without any scientific evidence, ignore dietary recommendations and blame dietary guidelines for health and weight problems and recommend using a single food group as the key to the diet’s success. Fad diets use testimonials rather than evidence-based medicine for their alleged successes. The carnivore diet ticks the box for all criteria of fad diets. Its claims are little different to what Atkins diet and low-carb kooks have been promoting for years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As a physician who just recently attended several nutrition and metabolic disease conferences, I'm surprised by the claim that "no one in the medical community takes it seriously". Low-carb diets are the cutting edge in metabolic disease treatment and prevention, including zero-carb versions of the ketogenic diet such as carnivore. There is evidence of benefits for type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, obesity, and sarcopenia. Weaker evidence is increasingly reported for certain autoimmune conditions, and case reports are emerging in oncology. Calmakasha (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that ALL of the carnivore diet are pseudoscience is demonstrably false. Moderators in charge of this page need to remove this nonsense that eating only meat is a fad. There are numerous peer reviewed studies which demonstrate the validity of this way of eating for numerous diseases, mostly type 2 diabetes. It’s also nutritiously complete. As evidenced by the numerous people who have lived decades eating a carnivore diet. 122.150.77.143 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the profile of the Psychologist guy, we can clearly see that he has a strong bias against carnivore. This isn’t science, this is someone following a belief system. 122.150.77.143 (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What you are claiming is false, not supported by any evidence. Health authorities around the world do not recommend or support the carnivore diet. You claim evidence but do not link to it because all you have are anecdotes. "There are numerous peer reviewed studies which demonstrate the validity of this way of eating for numerous diseases, mostly type 2 diabetes", do you have a link to any of these peer-reviewed studies? None exist. The only study that carnivore diet advocates have repeatedly put on this talk-page is a food questionnaire study with conflict of interest by Shawn Baker. It is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bias

The labeling of the carnivore diet as a fad diet and its dismissal as being backed by pseudoscience are disappointing and seem to carry a hint of political bias. It would be more accurate to state that this diet is currently under investigation and any benefits reported are purely anecdotal. 84.248.163.69 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:GOODBIAS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Misinformed and biased

Horribly misinformed article. It does not cite the most important study conducted on specifically the carnivore diet, the Harvard study. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34934897/ Even if the consensus is biased still against the carnivore diets the article should be allowed to post some of the common arguments in its favor. There is no evidence that a carnivore diet causes any type of cancer and chronic disease, those are just assumptions and not corroborated by any study, (the studies that are cited against meat are merely observational and doesn't take into account the fact that most of those people are on standard american diets full of processed food) when it comes to chronic disease it is showing to reverse them. It doesn't show the 20th century experiments by Steffanson the Arctic explorer with meat only diets. Keto diets have consistently been shown to reduce depression, anxiety and different mental and behavioral conditionings, most of these benefits are seen in carnivore. But more studies have to be performed. While Vegans and Vegeterians have a much higher rate of depression according to countless studies. In short, a terrible article and bad for the credibility of Wikipedia. You should AT LEAST show that side of the equation. Talking of conflict of interest, you describe yourself as a "historian of Vegetarianism" and made it your goal in lfe. 212.186.129.82 (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You keep changing your IP address there is no need for that. Please check the archives, the study you mention has been mentioned about 10 times already it is not reliable. We have had countless sock-puppets on this talk-page mentioning the same study that have been blocked. It is a study based on self-reported data from a carnivore diet Facebook group, it fails WP:MEDRS. Nobody in the medical world takes it seriously, it is not good evidence for anything. Please read MEDRS, if you want to add biomedical content in regard to diet claims, you must add a reliable secondary source, i.e. a good systematic review or meta-analysis, content from an academic nutritional textbook or from medical guidelines etc. Citing self-reported data is not acceptable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Highly biased page. Don’t know where to start. Unprocessed red meat is not associated with increased cancer risks. 24.187.2.129 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is a strong medical consensus that both processed and unprocessed red meat increase colorectal cancer risk and other cancers:

• American Institute for Cancer Research "There is strong evidence that eating high amounts of red meat increases the risk of colorectal cancer" [35]
• World Health Organization "Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans." [36]
• National Cancer Institute "Red meat is associated with an increased risk of colon and rectum cancer, and evidence also suggests it is associated with some other cancers, such as prostate and pancreatic cancer. Examples of red meat include beef, pork, and lamb." [37]
• World Cancer Research Fund International "There is strong evidence that consumption of either red or processed meat are both causes of colorectal cancer". [38]
• Cancer Research UK "Eating lots of red meat may also increase the risk of bowel cancer" [39]
• American Cancer Society "Evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods" [40]
• National Health Service "Eating a lot of red and processed meat increases your risk of bowel (colorectal) cancer" [41]
• Cancer Council Australia "Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork, has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer." [42]
• British Nutrition Foundation "Evidence suggests that a high consumption of red and/or processed meat is linked with an increased risk of bowel cancer". [43]
• MD Anderson Cancer Center "Research shows that eating too much red meat can increase your risk of colorectal cancer. Some evidence suggests that excess red meat can increase the risk of pancreatic and prostate cancer as well". [44]
• Canadian Cancer Society "Eating red and processed meat increases cancer risk" [45]

Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of drive by IPs using this talk-page, I guess ban evasion as they are using open proxies which have now been blocked. 2A00:23C6:E08B:DB01:C113:8E53:357C:AAEB (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of health concerns section

WP:CRITS are to be avoided according to the Talk:Veganism talk page - I feel this should be consistent when looking at the carnivore diet. 82.16.132.36 (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no section here. Adverse effects are a staple of any article touching on biomedical issues per WP:MOSMED. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How can we suggest edits to this page

There's obvious bias in this page which I don't understand. Multiple references to being a "fad diet" and "pseudoscience". These are terms that don't belong in a non-biased encyclopedic reference. Then there's factual falsehoods, like carnivore not being nutritionally complete. But that's not even my suggestion for an edit.

The diet is referred "also called a zero carb diet" and this could not be more wrong. No one calls it this, unless they are misinformed. The diet should be "also called a plant-elimination diet". The goal of carnivore is simply to eliminate all plant-based foods, and the phytotoxins that are natural to all plants. Various phytotoxins are the source of many human allergies (peanuts, soy, etc.) and diet-related maladies like inflammation, skin conditions, and even mental health conditions. Then there's insulin resistance, diabetes, and so on.

Carnivore is not the way of eating that seeks to eliminate these. Please refer to FODMAPs. Any wikipedia article on carnivore should talk extensively about FODMAPs and inflammatory foods in general.

Even the word diet is not popular among those on it. They refer to it as a "way of eating", which is distinct from a "diet" which often has it's own implications, such as being temporary to achieve some goal. Rather, similar to veganism, or people with allergies, the reasons to eliminate foods goes far beyond people looking for temporary weight loss.

Is carnivore low carb? Yes, it is. Is that the intent? No. That would be keto. Carnivore is low carb not by design, but as a side effect owing to that most carbs are plant-based.

Is carnivore zero carb? No. This is factually incorrect. Dairy has lactose, which is a sugar. Therefore, milk and many cheeses have carbs.

In fact, it's interesting to point out that dairy is allowed on carnivore, but many people on carnivore avoid dairy because they are lactose intolerant. People avoid dairy for the same reason they avoid plants: what it does to their body.

Rather than say carnivore is low carb, it's arguably more important to point out that it is a high fat diet. On carnivore, the majority (some say 85%) of your calories should come from fat. Animal fats are healthy and the source of fat-based vitamins.

Any mention of carnivore should talk about the Lion diet, which is a variation to stick to grazing animals. There is debate within the carnivore community on beef vs poultry vs seafood vs dairy. Lions stick to primarily beef and encourage others with health issues to do the same. 2603:6081:2E40:5D72:4DB0:4069:1783:FB50 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

All WP:OR (original research). We need reliable references - that is the way this website works. Citing your personal opinion is irrelevant here. If you want to improve the article you must suggest reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

New studies to be added to remove bias on nutritional and health benefits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LDL cholesterol is emerging as less of a factor in overall cardiovascular health, instead triglycerides are emerging as an indicator of dangerous levels. A recent study comparing performance of Oreo cookies to high dosage statins showed that in lean-mass hyper responders Oreo cookies were far better at lowering LDL cholesterol when compared to statins. Proving that the lipid energy model (fats) is likely a better model for human nutrition studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38276308/#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20in%20this%20case,subject%20on%20a%20ketogenic%20diet.

Likewise, the recent studies showing those on carnivore diets improving overall health status (over 90% improvement) and reduced inflammation indicates that high LDL is not an issue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684475/

This article needs editing to seem less like a vegan wrote it, and more like a balance of what evidence is there to support a whole-food diet (elimination diet) whether this be vegan, carnivore, animal-based or somewhere in-between. This article has incomplete and inaccurate information that does not reflect the current body of evidence, or reflect sound science on nutritional benefits of elimination diets.

Additionally the reduction in inflammation from a ketogenic diet should be mentioned as all-cause mortality, mental health and reduction in Alzheimer's disease, they also use ketogenic diets in cancer treatment, as well as fasting and no-carb alternatives.

Carnivore is the same as vegan in that people can get all the nutrition they need - but statements saying that we need fibre are inaccurate. We only need indigestible fibre if we are eating all the other aspects of the 'standard diet'. When eating just meat, no fibre is needed .Vitamin C requirements also decrease where the trace amounts found in red meat (yes Vitamin C is in red meat) is sufficient to stave off deficiencies. No carnivore has ever had scurvy. Only the chicken guy and that is because he only ate chicken. Rieteklis (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Would need WP:MEDRS; these sources are not that. Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And the opinion pieces referenced in the current wiki article somehoe pass the WP:MEDRS?

How are those articles not compliant? The obvious tone of this wiki article is way off neutral and does not present the current body of science around ketogenic diets, carb free animal based etc. Even vegan or plant based articles are more neutral.

I'm not an advocate for carnivore but this article clearly reads as an opinion piece not a factually accurate representation of current nutrition science and ongoing research. That is what needs addressing. There is plenty more studies out there on nutrition of animal based societies vs plant based (Inuit etc) I just don't have the time to list them all. 1.132.108.108 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Per reliable sources this diet is a load of old crap, pushed by fools and charlatans. If WP:MEDRS is too long, try WP:MEDFAQ. Also see WP:FRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900721000319 1.132.108.108 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8755961/ 1.132.108.108 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13195-021-00783-x 1.132.108.108 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/ 1.132.108.108 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Primary research is generally not WP:MEDRS, and the only secondary source among these is PMID:35071677, which is a review in a not-very-good journal and which is in any case off-topic because it's about the ketogenic diet, which has its own article. Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

How is a vegan diet not the same as carnivore in concept though? Yet the vegan article is not as biased as this in terms of purported health effects, with veganism clearly requiring supplementation for some for nutrient deficiencies, but carnivore supporters don't seem to be needing supplementation. Based on that alone, the vegan article should mention the same potential nutrient deficiencies as this carnivore article does, and yet the tone is comlletely reverse. Vegans may choose not to eat any animal products, carnivores choose to not eat any plant products. The premise is the same. Some strict vegans do not eat carbs, dairy etc either, only plants. Carnivore diet seems to be based on the same premise. I don't care for either but there is a clear bias here. Vaganism is not touted as a 'fad' elimination diet, but technically they are the same in concept. I don't care for the tone is all. It is so far removed from scientific premise in just the tone, that the article reads like a daily mail piece or something on Lad bible. It doesn't belong on wikipedia in the current format and should be changed. 1.132.108.108 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Rieteklis, you say "No carnivore has ever had scurvy", you omit the fact that scurvy is rare to begin with. But there are case studies of carnivores who have developed scurvy. This one describes a man who lived in rural Appalachia who developed scurvy because he was only eating canned beef [46], [47]. Here is a case study of a child from Dubai who ate a diet of only red meat for 2 years and developed scurvy, he had severe bone and joint abnormalities. He was put on Vitamin C replacement therapy for 2 months and he was able to walk again. [48]. Please do not use this talk-page to promote misinformation. The stuff you are writing is not only stupidly wrong, it is harmful. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You also link to this carnivore survey which was based on self-reported data [49]. It's been discussed many times in the archives of this talk-page. The paper found that the carnivore diet elevated LDL-c and increased coronary artery calcification (CAC) by almost 50%. The paper is not a good image for the diet you are promoting, the diet will do harm long-term and increase heart attack and stroke risk. I suggest looking at healthy diet. No health authorities or medical organizations support a carnivore diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you emotional? The CAC score is actually lower after the diet in the paper linked, I suspect you are having an emotional reaction and not being honest, otherwise you would not make a false claim regarding CAC scores. 140.180.240.7 (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious you haven't read the paper. The CAC score went up by almost 50%, it's been highlighted here, look at Q3 [50]. Please do not spread misinformation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are pairs with more than 5% change in post-pre. For the entire sample the median went from 2 to 0. 140.180.240.7 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You forget to mention that most people in the study never had a CAC before and after. In the paper, only 15 people had a before AND after CAC score. And those who had both, saw a 50% increase in their CAC score. Let's be honest about what the paper shows. If you look at the median for pre-diet it is 55, if you look at the median for current diet it is 81. This is an almost 50% increase. This is alarming. It shows that people on average consuming a carnivore diet for 18months had an 50% increase in CAC. Your diet is not heart healthy. That's why the drop out rate is very high and nobody in the medical world takes it seriously. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Two cases of scurvy in the 20 years among carnivores seems like a lot! How many cases of scurvy among non-carnivores? It is factual by any reasonable standard that individuals on the carnivore diet do not have Vitamin C deficiency, based on the non-existence of cases of scurvy among them. 140.180.240.7 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's because nobody in real life doing the modern "carnivore diet" fad does it long-term, they all cheat and add fruit to their diet. The drop out rate is usually after a few months. If you look at all of the major "carnivore diet" influencers they all eat fruit and in reality are only 70% or 80% carnivore. Shawn Baker has admitted to eating berries and grains, Bart Kay eats all kinds of fruit, Ken Berry eats apples and grows his own vegetables, Amber O'Hearn nearly went blind on the diet and had to add fruit and potatoes. The Liver King also eats fruit. All these social media influencers are the main carnivore diet promoters but none of them are 100% carnivore. They get their vitamin C from berries.

Paul Saladino gave the carnivore diet up after one year as it gave him heart palpitations. He now eats 300grams of carbohydrates a day including fruit smoothies. That is a typical person on a "carnivore diet" fad. As stated, nobody does it long-term. All the mainstream millionaire "carnivore" influencers eat fruit so if they can't get it "right", nobody can. The fruit eventually enters the diet and we all know why. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That is just straight up lies about Baker and O'Hearn, I interact with them a lot and that is not true. What is the point of it? Why making wikipedia bad with your personal biases? 140.180.240.7 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It is easily to refute your nonsense. In 2022, Baker wrote in his own words he eats fruit and birthday cake on his own Twitter account [51]. Only yesterday Shawn Baker published a video "I added fruit to my carnivore diet" [52]. None of the social media influencers for carnivore do it 100%, they all eat fruit. Amber O'Hearn has admitted in her own words to eating potatoes [53], she also eats fruit. On her website she wrote "When I got home I tried using just potato starch, in case it was a resistant starch effect, and I tried two days of nothing but potatoes". Here is Ken Berry the most popular social media influencer of carnivore diet on his farm [54] telling people how to grow asparagus. He also grows and eats tomatoes, lettuce, apples and potatoes. As stated none of the main influencers of your carnivore fad diet are really carnivore. Nobody is going to dispute these "carnivore" influencers eat a lot of red meat, but nobody is doing it 100%. Everyone knows fruit and vegetables are required for health and sooner or later those on the carnivore fad go back to eating them.

We are getting off-topic here, this talk-page shouldn't be used as a forum. There is no reason to continue this discussion. You have not presented any reliable sources for the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LDL and Cardiovascular disease

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This meta-analysis contends that LDL in elderly populations is inversely associated (if at all) with both cardiovascular and overall mortality I would imagine this is considered a high-quality secondary source https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401

Here is a literature review which claims LDL does not cause cardiovascular disease I would tend to think this is also a high-quality secondary source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30198808/

These contradict the current claim in the article that LDL "increases the risk of cardiovascular disease" The currently cited source for that claim is a journalist making the point and which does not cite (for this claim) a specific expert, textbook, primary research, etc I struggle to imagine that a journalist making a claim with no evidence should be treated as more authoritative than a meta-analysis or scholarly literature review At the very least, a more authoritative source should be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:580:67D0:60BB:7F1C:B88C:4997 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meatinfluencers

Hello, I wrote a section in my sandbox on meatfluencers. I am wondering if anyone would be willing to give feedback and let me know if it could be a good fit for this page? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lvogel1/High-protein_diet#Efficacy Thank you!Lvogel1 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph source can be used, I tried to add it to the lead but it was reverted because the information was not put into the article. If you have any good sources you can expand the history section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Psychologist Guy, thank you for your edits and suggestions. You have been very helpful. I am wondering what the problem is with my other sources if we are talking about culture and history? Would they be acceptable for this article since it is not a medical topic? I am thinking that parts of my draft could fit well in the History section. Thank you Lvogel1 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources you have added are not reliable. We have already had a discussion at the high-protein diet talk-page [55] to why those sources fail WP:RS. The medical papers you added fail WP:MEDRS. We are not going to cite a single paper written by a carnivore diet advocate. We need medical reviews for such content. If you want a second opinion about the medical papers you are adding, ask at WikiProject Medicine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your main source was this [56], it is a recipe website from bonappetit.com which is hard to read because of the amount of adverts. The odd thing here, is that you seem to have confused this source with another article from the same website [57]. It is being attributed wrong with a different title. Either way this isn't a reliable website to be citing. If you are looking for a better source, this one might be more suitable [58] written by a registered dietitian. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. I appreciate the feedback. Lvogel1 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I further defined the lion diet in the introduction using the source from the Mayo clinic. I also added some information on meatfluencers to the history section. Any feedback is appreciated. Thank you! @Reagle: Lvogel1 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't include details that are not within the body of the article; I'm not convinced that the lion diet is sufficiently different from the carnivore diet to warrant inclusion in the lede at all. Also, 'curly-quotes' aren't allowed per MOS:CURLY, just fyi. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the material in the quote is largely duplicative of the statements a couple of sentences previous in the lede. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a mistake with one of the sources [59]. "High steaks diet: Followers claim it has left them thinner, healthier and happier, and it's on the rise thanks to an army of coaches and 'meatfluencers'", Telegraph Magazine. This source doesn't exist. I am guessing it refers to this source [60]. The source is cited on the article. No complaints if the source needs to be expanded but it is redundant to be talking about Shawn Baker because he is already mentioned on the article. We do not need duplicated content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Anastrophe:, thank you for your feedback. I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate the help and information! Lvogel1 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Psychologist Guy:, thank you for the suggestions and information! I am new and appreciate the guidance. Lvogel1 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)