Talk:Monotrophic diet/Archive 1

Origin

Lexico says the term "mono-diet" originated in the "1920s; earliest use found in Chambers's Journal of Popular Literature". This is not correct. The term was used earlier. Dr. C. D. Spivak for example wrote a paper on mono diets in 1907 and someone else in 1911 commented on them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Language

Calling any of these diets a "fad diet" (or some such other, pejorative term), without sources and without the addition of something like a "some call it", is a value judgement and has no place on Wikipedia. Rekleov (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that describe these diets as a "fad diet". There is no evidence for their long-term use. Sources are already on the article and many others could be found. Any diet that is limited to a single food source is obviously a fad (unscientific). Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The term is not pejorative, it's imply descriptive. The term has a pretty clear definition, as described in the fad diet article. Any diet that meets the definition can be characterized as such if reliable sources use the term. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Carnivore diet is not monotrophic

Carnivore diet can also include eating FISH. It is not JUST meat, and also includes dairy products.

It also is not a "fad" as it has been around as a way of eating for thousands of years - just has a name put to the diet.

It does not fit any of the guidelines for a monotrophic diet, and should be given its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.156.181.222 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a very much a recent fad diet and cannot be traced before 1856 in publication. The monotrophic diet can include single food groups, not just one item of food like potatoes. The carnivore dieters consume only animal products so it is a mono-diet, in the sense they do the animal thing and go nuts for anything animal but reject everything else.

Bernard Moncriff's book was published in 1856 and I just read it. He committed suicide after writing his book. It seems almost impossible to trace the carnivore diet to any other specific individual before his book in 1856. It seems modern day carnivore dieters are not knowledgeable or interested about the history of their own diet. On page 47 of Shawn Baker's The Carnivore Diet, he does list "meat-based diet pioneers", but most of his readers don't seem to want to know and Baker does not mention Moncriff. My research leads me to believe that Francis Egerton came close. He died in 1829, and his diet consisted of only boiled beef and potatoes (but that is not strict carnivore as you know). The only other individual was George Fordyce, who's dining habits were reported in several secondary sources but nobody ever published it as a thing. It looks like he ate nothing but meat, washed down with a tankard of ale so he may have been the first known individual to be practicing this diet. Unsurprisingly, he died of gout in 1802. Poor chap. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say over 150 years is longer than "a fad". Also, indigenous groups around the world have had meat based diets for thousands of years, beyond anything published. Meat and Fish are DIFFERENT groups, which makes the carnivore diet a multiple food group diet, not "singular".

Also, I believe fruitarianism should be added to the monotrophic diet, as that is MUCH MORE a "single food group diet" than carnivore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.156.181.222 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on the Inuit cuisine. The carnivore diet fad should not be confused with indigenous diets. Carnivore dieting is a recent fad. Inuit people do their diet for survival, they do not promote their diet as a science or sit online trolling social media platforms like carnivore dieters do or take silly photographs at the gym of their bodies. The recent carnivore diet craze is purely an attention seeking and neo-reactionary thing to counteract the opposite extreme, veganism. Even Moncriff's book was a reaction against vegetarian diets of his day, such as Sylvester Graham. There has been a consensus not to create an individual carnivore diet article, and more than four different users have redirected it to this one. As for fruitarianism, I agree it should be added, especially the grape diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You have avoided the fact that carnivore is not only meat, but also fish. Multiple groups of food in one diet, which does not match the definition of a monotrophic diet. Dairy is also a different food group to meat. This is NOT a monotrophic diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.156.181.222 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any carnivore diet publication promoting fish consumption, they have an obsession with beef mostly. If you look at Shawn Baker, Jordan Peterson their diet which they promote is pretty much red meat based, beef. But even if they did eat and promote fish that is animal-based. Last time I checked a fish is an animal and dairy comes from an animal. The carnivore dieters eat animal foods so it is a mono-diet, it is animal only. Right now this discussion is not going anywhere. Content here is about sensible suggestions on how to improve the article. You have not given any, so I will be leaving this convo to impress the ladies at my local gymn with my big meat. Psychologist Guy (talk)

If we are ignoring all food education and grouping dairy with meat and fish, as all "animal based", we should be adding veganism in here as well, because that is all "stuff that comes from the ground" in one form or another. Veganism also comes under a "fad". No bias here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.156.181.222 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Veganism has a lot more sourcing, sufficient for its own standalone article, and is also more than just a diet. You are welcome to propose a redirect at Veganism, but it will likely be a waste of time. If you think the vegan diet should be described as a fad diet, you will need sources to support that. Alexbrn (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I just want to support the notion that adding Carnivore as a monotrophic diet is the strangest thing I have heard in a long time. Nobody promotes a rib-eye only diet, not even Shawn Baker. Most people, in particular Paul Saladino MD, support a wide range of foods from eggs, organ meats, fats, dairy, steak, seafood and literally every part of the animal (nose-to-tail). Adding carnivore as monotrophic diet is completely false unless we define food groups as animal-based vs. plant-based. But then there would be only two monotrophic diets. Sources are for example and . Gorgos19 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Inuit / Nenets diet

I had added a line about the Inuit diet and Nenets people in the carnivore diet section, which was reverted. In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm opening a discussion here. Evidently I missed the part of the discussion above where Psychologist Guy comments on why this shouldn't be included. I partly agree and partly disagree with the reasoning.

One of the sources I cited[1] discusses the Inuit diet as a paradox with current medical views on the unhealthiness of eating a carnivore diet. That is, the Inuit are generally healthy on their diet.

In that context, it's highly relevant to any information about the fad diet. It deserves at least a single-sentence mention, or perhaps an explanation of how it's different from the fad diet (it seems that eating all of the animal parts including organs instead of just the muscle tissue, without overcooking the nutrients out, provides the nutrients needed for good health). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't want to compare this clearly dangerous fad diet to that of indigenous people who had their diet based on survival conditions. This would be an insult to the native populations. Skyisdeep (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

Add a "(25,4kg)" after "four stone" in the sentence "In 2008, it was reported that Charles Saatchi lost four stone from an egg only diet for nine months." for reasons of using metrification and easier understanding for readers not from the UK. 62.47.252.39 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done I have removed this silly factoid as undue. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy edits

DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was threatened with a block on my talk page all because of my recent changes to this page. All of them are copy edits, except for one change which mentioned Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Advocacy_of_exclusively_meat_diet. User Alex mass reverted them before leaving the block threat on my talk page. This user doesn't seem to understand wikipedia assume good faith policy. Could someone review these changes? I find their reasons for removal to be spurious at best. Regards. LizardMeat (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Watering-down the lack of evidence, scrubbing out the "fad" classification and revert-warring poor English like "The carnivore diet lacks clinical evidence of its safety and healthy benefits" is likely taking you towards a block yes, on top of the likely socking. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC) The lack of evidence remains as obvious as before if only more clear due to brevity. You are welcome to emphasize the "fad" classification if that is what you desire. I thought it was redundant as all monotrophic diets are fad diets anyway! You don't see the extra "fad" qualifier in the Fruitarian section below, do you? Of course feel free to improve upon my "poor English". After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. I don't think that being belligerent to new contributors, reverting any and all of their edits is conductive to a welcoming and inclusive environment. LizardMeat (talk) You've taken the edit-warring route. Repeatedly making bad edits and expecting other editors to clean up after you is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Well, sorry about that. If somebody else comes along and reverts it all like you did, I'm just going to get discouraged and probably not bother contributing to this site again. But I hope other editors try to look at this objectively, instead of taking a knee-jerk reaction. I don't believe editing on top to clean up things is necessarily problematic. This seems to be a strange take. In any case, my edits look reasonably fine to me. Even if there are going to be "clean ups" it will be very minimal. LizardMeat (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Other editors will surely notice you have removed the text about "no scientific evidence", removed the description of the diet as dangerous, removed the fad classification, added poor English, and added unsourced text about Vilhjalmur Stefansson, with an WP:EASTEREGG link. And then edit-warred to try to force these changes. Having to deal with this is something editors may well find "discouraging", indeed. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Additional sources declared unrealiable

I've added some additional information on climate impact from meat from the following sources. Those were

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g an interview with a livestock emission researcher, but with many other references included in the accompanying PDF.

2. https://www.sacredcow.info/book: A full book written on this topic with hundreds of references at the end.

Could somebody explain why this change was reverted due to 'unreliable sources' and what the requirements for sources are? Apparently a simple blog post without any references: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-05/carnivore-diet-of-meat-and-water/11757396 was sufficient as source (currently ref 15) in this article beforehand. Gorgos19 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Both junk sources, full of obvious quackery. Please see WP:MEDRS for the kinds of sources required for health claims. Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with health and only declaring it quackery is not an argument. Gorgos19 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Both sources are making health claims. We're not going to use crap/misleading sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added an NPOV dispute since this section is clearly not a fair representation of the science, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How_can_one_disagree_about_NPOV? as reference. Gorgos19 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: That is a non-sequitur. MEDRS is irrelevant to discussion about climate impact from meat production. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but when a source leaps of the screen as being full of quackery it rather disqualifies itself for anything. There are any number of other reasons why these sources are junk per WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please list those other reasons. Gorgos19 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gorgos19: If a source is unreliable about one major topic it covers, it cannot be trusted for other things.

Looking over the article, it seems we already have sufficient sourcing about climate impact already. Additional sources would have to be high-quality. I suggest that Gorgos19 review the references cited in those sources and use them instead. Junk sources often cite good sources to make themselves seem more legitimate, and they put their own spin on the good sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

'If a source is unreliable about one major topic it covers' - so I assume you mean regarding the health? Then you may be surprised to hear that the first source doesn't discuss anything about meat and health. The only thing is one small comparison of nutrients and water usage. And the second source also only shortly covers this topic and the only message in there is that adding some red meat to the diet may not be as bad as media sometimes calls it. Both these messages are very easy to verify (I'm happy to share more references on this if required). In general though I would recommend watching the video and reading the book in question. Otherwise it's me having a discussion with myself. Gorgos19 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For the first source the two PDFs are also a useful read (video references: https://www.patreon.com/posts/50493370 and further 55-page response with references to some of the dispute videos: https://www.patreon.com/posts/response-to-of-51285771) Gorgos19 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

By that definition the video is not accepted. That's fine, I'm happy to find direct sources instead. The book though should work. Gorgos19 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously not, since it's at the opposite end of what we want: independent, high-quality, reputable sources. Not dubious advocacy from boutique publishers. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

So the publisher of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study is not an accepted source? Should we remove all of the other references on Wikipedia to the China study? Gorgos19 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The China Study is generally not a reliable source for any assertions about science or medicine, no. It's a book which has attracted some sources writing about it, however. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rob Wolfe is a paleo diet advocate (although he eats dairy which is not paleo), he is not a carnivore diet advocate. The book you linked to does not promote a carnivore diet. It promotes alleged advantages of consuming grass-fed beef. Unfortunately it is very much a fringe source, see WP:Fringe. We should not be using this book as a reference. It is not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then I have two other sources which you can tell me if they are fine to use or not?

1. What about this third-party conducted study https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf

2. EPA about GHG emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Gorgos19 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Those sources do not mention the "carnivore diet". We can only cite reliable references that mention the carnivore diet specifically otherwise it is original research which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:OR). Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Why does it have to mention the carnivore diet? Those are links related to climate impact of meat. How is that not relevant? Gorgos19 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Because we have to stay on topic, we can only cite references which discuss a specific topic at hand. You are wanting to use references which talk about climate impact of meat which do not mention the carnivore diet. We have a Wikipedia article on that topic Environmental impact of meat production. The sources you linked to do not mention carnivore diet so they cannot be used on this article per no original research policy but you can try on the other one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither are any of the other references talking specifically about the climate impact of a Carnivore diet. Maybe the whole section 'Other Controversies' is better just removed? Gorgos19 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice catch. I should have seen it sooner but I did not even click on the citation until now, it does not mention carnivore diet - DietCokeFeast is back to his old tricks. I have removed it because it was original research. @DietCokeFeast: has been warned in the past for doing this on several articles. Users need to make closer examination of his edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Carnivore Diet

Possible sources for use in the Carnivore Diet section:

• They mock vegans and eat 4lb of steak a day: meet 'carnivore dieters'
• Here's what you should know about the latest carnivore trend.
• What I Learned from a Month on the Carnivore Diet
• Rational Wiki: Carnivore diet

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Such a gold mine! I will go over them when I get a chance. Thank you. Skyisdeep (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Skyisdeep is a sock-puppet of BecomeFree and has been blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You removed veganism when it satisfies the definition and leave things like carnivore diet that don't. Why? And don't tell me it is unsourced, that is a lie. You don't source a definition. JustANameInUse (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxford Academic Study on Carnivore Diet

The last revert is a bit strange. The reason given was that it's a primary source, but that alone is not a reason. It's noted here that '"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable".' While I do agree with the argument that a food questionnaire is very weak evidence, if it's the only evidence we have, then it should still be mentioned. In science you always go with the best available evidence. Gorgos19 (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to read MEDRS, the rules are different because we are dealing with biomedical content. WP:MEDRS applies "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 – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." We do not cite primary sources in this area. Also Shawn Baker who was involved with the data of the study has massive conflict of interest because he operates the "World Carnivore Tribe" Facebook Group. The study is a very weak food questionnaire from biased self-reported sources [2], not evidence for anything and certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. It is pure pseudoscience. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict anything I said. 'generally not be used' directly implies it may be used sometimes. And the best time to use it is when there is no better alternatives. It's only as much pseudoscience as every other food questionnaire study is, I even agree with you here. Nonetheless it's generally used as very weak evidence. As long as it's correctly phrased in the article, it should be included in my opinion. Gorgos19 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Those type of studies are often immediately reverted from Wikipedia because they are not strong evidence. You might want to check the history of this article, there have been many blocked sock-puppets for the last 2 or 3 years trying to add nonsense about the carnivore diet. I am not saying you are a sock puppet I don't think you are but all these blocked accounts were also adding weak primary sources and got blocked for it. What's the point? If you want to re-add the study go ahead, I will not edit war but I can assure you another editor probably an experienced editor will revert because we do not cite this type of weak study on Wikipedia. But you could always ask at WikiProject Medicine if you think I am wrong about this, and ask what experienced editors think. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The study was conducted within the social media carnivore fanboy bubble. The health benefits as well as the diet were self reported. This is like asking around your friends on Facebook if they think they eat healthy. You will most certainly get a 90% yes as an answer. CarlFromVienna (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"carnivore fanboy bubble" You mean a study on the carnivore diet included people who were actually on the carnivore diet... shocking. That is bad-faith framing. Surveys are a legitimate methodology for studies, especially when it comes to things like diets. ReadingRiot (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Weak journal (not MEDLINE-indexed); primary source; survey; fails WP:MEDRS. Unusable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What's with the anecdotes?

The "Other monotropic diets" section consists almost only of "person X ate only food Y for Z months". What is encyclopedic about that? I would delete the whole thing, but, well, "consists almost only of". --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)