Talk:Carnivore diet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carnivore diet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Carnivore diet. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Carnivore diet at the Reference desk.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Health and fitness Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Carnivore diet.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

fad diet?[edit]

When you say carnivore is a fad diet, I would say that is false. Please refer to Dr Eric Westman who has worked extensively in a clinical setting with great success for many years. There are many other Doctors that had great success in the past so I don't think it is a fad diet. Hernance (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources WP:RS, not personal opinion. We have RS describing the carnivore diet as a fad diet. Eric Westman is an Atkins diet/low carb diet influencer - his views do not reflect mainstream clinical advice. No dietetic or medical organizations supports the carnivore diet. If you have any reliable sources please share them and they can be added to the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every diabetic organization recommends eating "healthy" carbohydrates for Type 2 diabetics. They also say it's a myth that you should not at all consume carbohydrates. All these "medical" organizations are the reason why we're in such a mess with the average weight of 170lbs for a 20+ y/o American woman. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY pounds. As such diabetic and medical organizations are not reliable sources. Wickedburn (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical organizations are not reliable sources? Ok sure, next you will be telling us the earth is flat. This talk-page is not a forum to promote your conspiracy theories. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article suggest them, otherwise cut this nonsense out. You do not need to keep creating new accounts either. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my only account. Your false accusations are disgusting. The fact that someone as biased as you are has the power to dictate what goes into this article is detrimental to public health. Wickedburn (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. The article is not about you or me it is about what the sources say and you have not suggested any improvements. There is a repeated pattern of disruption here. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This isn't a soapbox to promote conspiracy theories. These brand new accounts are all posting the same things as yourself GrumpyAlien74, Hernance, Kdemetter. This article talk-page has a long history of sock-puppetry. It is not "disgusting" to be suspicious about 3 new accounts posting within hours of each other typing similar stupid comments. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your unprofessional behaviour id despicable. There's no point discussing serious matters with you. I'll disengage. Wickedburn (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your bio:

“… I am a historian of vegetarianism. …”

I think you are biased and can’t keep maintaining this article in an unbiased way. Please excuse yourself from this task and let a new maintainer remove your biases from this article. Thanks! Hernance (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained, Wikipedia follows the reliable sources on this. Personal attacks on other editors are not a substitute for reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a vegetarian is biased against the carnivore diet is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. 87.208.55.108 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a statement of fact. It's an accusation. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally an argument from authority: "This dude here we have declared an authority says it is a fad diet therefore it is a fad diet". In addition, and since you care about dubious authorities, the British Dietetic Association defines fad diet so: "A fad diet is a plan that promotes results such as fast weight loss without robust scientific evidence to support its claims." This definition does not match with the carnivore diet does not promise fast weight loss, and it is supported by massive amounts of scientific evidence. 87.208.55.108 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) is when the 'proof' presented is only that "this person said it therefore it's true". That's not the threshold here. The 'authority' (expert) also has to present evidence/data/proof that the claim is valid in order for their claim to be accepted. Obviously it's not perfect, because in many cases even experts say stupid things using faulty evidence. But we have to go by the sources, and there are rigorous tests and rules to determine what is acceptable.

You also misunderstand the BDA's statement - the important portion being the two words such as. That means that what followed them is an example, not a proof or the only possible description. The quote is presented as a general example, not a rule. The scientific evidence regarding the 'carnivore' diet isn't massive - otherwise, you'd have linked to the studies you've found on NCBI that support it...you have researched the matter on NCBI, right? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of drive by IPs have used this talk-page to claim there is a lot of scientific evidence that supports the carnivore diet but every single time when you ask for this evidence to add to the article no peer-reviewed medical review is listed, there is not even any studies mentioned. The evidence is non-existent. There are only a handful of carnivore diet case reports, here is one [1] which found early development of atherosclerosis. Here another, scurvy [2]. There are no long-term epidemiological studies, no clinical studies, no systematic reviews, no Mendelian randomization studies, not even any mechanistic studies. All we know from the case reports is that carnivore diet advocates have high LDL which increases heart disease risk. There are about recent 5 case reports in total and an internet survey. There is nothing we can use that would pass WP:MEDRS. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be improved[edit]

Reliable sources are required for changes. No polemics or personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article seems to have a negative bias about the carnivore diet, and infact being way too limited on it.

Here's what should be changed : - It's not a fad diet and there's an active community of health care providers using carnivore to heal auto-immune issues. The article is falsely claiming that there are no benefits but there clearly are for many people.

- It should also explain that while the carnivore diet is a long-term diet for many people, it is for most people an elimination diet. The goal is to remove foods that people react to by cutting out everything at first, and then slowly reintroducing it

- This can't be explained well without the effects of anti-nutrients in plants, which is why elimintation plants works for a lot of people Kdemetter (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this. We have had about 10 new accounts saying the same thing. You have no medical evidence for your claims. Present a reliable source for your opinions. We need reliable sources for Wikipedia, we are not going to insert personal opinions. Anecdotal evidence is no good! My grandma lived to 162 on a vegan diet and used to run 20 miles a day until she was 127. Do you believe me? See, it's easy to make up stories. If you want to improve the article, provide a good reference. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is anecdotal. You're extremely biased against carnivore. Not a single reference from the article can be considered a reliable source. 74.12.67.5 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read our policy on what a reliable source are, WP:RS. The sources on the article are reliable, many of them were written by experts. For example [3], [4] and an article at Science-Based Medicine [5]. There is a strong consensus from the medical community that the carnivore diet is pseudoscience. The diet is only promoted by online carnivore diet grifters to make money. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Experts? Don't make me laugh. Just remove yourself from this discussion as you're clearly a biased ideologue. 74.12.67.5 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire medical community dismisses the carnivore diet because it is nonsense. There is no clinical evidence to support it. This has nothing to do with bias it is about evidence. Yes the sources are written by academics and experts on this subject matter. Carrie Dennett is a registered dietitian. Steven Novella is well known for his criticism of pseudoscience. You have given no valid reason to why the references are not reliable. Nothing you have said is supported by Wikipedia policy. This is again another unproductive discussion. You haven't listed a single reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]