Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:45, 21 December 2018

Astanton - Thank you for your recent additions to Ultimatum game and also welcome to wikipedia! Those studies sound really interesting, I had not heard of them. Do you have a citation for one? If so, if you could add it into the article or tell me where I might find it. Thanks! --best, kevin 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

articles on how the brain sees "utility"

Hi there, I would love to link some articles but most are not openly publishable for copyright reasons. However, I can give you a quick list of references and post later as my time affords. Here is a short reading list to get you started and these will lead you to others until I have time to sort things through: - "Physiological Utility Theory and the Neuroeconomics of Choice" by Paul W. Glimcher, Michael C. Dorris and Hannah M. Bayer (cannot find the publication so please Google it...) - "Functional Imaging of Neural Responses to Expectancy and Experience of Monetary Gains and Losses" by Hans C. Breiter at al. Neuron, Vol. 30, 619–639, May, 2001 - "Event-related potentials can reveal differences between two decision-making groups" by Tim R.H. Cutmore and Tammy D. Muckert. Biological Psychology 47 (1998) 159–179

Hope this helps and good reading!

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Low-carbohydrate diet‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Biomedical content

Hi! Please see WP:MEDRS, it is important that our sources conform to this guideline. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sorry, this is my first "talk" and I have no idea how to do some things, so I just write and I hope I am doing it right.

You wrote "...You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Low-carbohydrate diet‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." I am unsure how to discuss the situation. Hoping this is what you meant.

I have edited twice a statement "The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends a minimum intake of 130 g of carbohydrate per day." because this is incorrect. The RDA is 130 gr--see citation I took from here: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D5_Carbs.htm. RDA stands for "the recommended daily allowance" and doesn't mean that anything below that is automatically considered to be low carbohydrate diet. It is a misplaced understanding of the meaning of RDA. The citation for stating that the 130 gr represents a low carbohydrate diet comes from an academic article " Westman EC, Feinman RD, Mavropoulos JC, Vernon MC, Volek JS, Wortman JA, Yancy WS, Phinney SD (2007). "Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (Review). 86 (2): 276–84. PMID 17684196." that is not representative of the government's definition of what 130 gr carbohydrates means.

I didn't think this was a controversial edit, after all, I was (am) citing the government's definition of what 130 gr carbs means. _____

I also made changes in this section that looked like this after my edits: "However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes from a reduced overall calorie intake not from "metabolic hocus pocus".

• • Note "any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes from.." is not a scientific evidence in any shape or form and cannot stand alone. Also "hocus pocus" is lovely but is that a scientific statement worthy of Misplaced Pages?**

I**I added: However, another popular misconception is that adopting a low or very low carbohydrate diet is only for weight loss. The low or very low carbohydrate diets have successfully been used in clinical trials to reverse type 2 diabetes and thereby reducing obesity and cardiovascular risks."** the citations here show my screen capture and are thus out of range. But note that I added a valuable sentence with legitimate, published, clinical trial academic research showing facts the previous sentence labeled "probably" and "hocus pocus" to show what the real science is.

The statement "metabolic hocus pocus" doesn't represent (makes fun of) a nutritional approach that has clinically proven to reverse type 2 diabetes, obesity,and cardiovascular disease and is therefore a valuable tool for health conditions and also for weight loss.

The entry on low carbohydrate diets on Misplaced Pages is one-sided and insufficient for an informative, non-biased, and neutral scientific entry. To be a legitimate Misplaced Pages educational material, it needs to cover all sides of the story and as long as the statements are supported by valid academic publications, it should be held valid. The published material I cited with it was https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9 and here is another one: https://www.ajmc.com/focus-of-the-week/after-a-year-low-carb-diet-helps-many-patients-reverse-type-2-diabetes-lose-weight-and-stop-insulin or another: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2013290 and there are a ton more. This information needs to be represented in the details of the low carbohydrate diets to give a fair representation of what it is from both sides.

Misplaced Pages is not about the editors being right or wrong or their preferences--it is about the material it makes available to the public and students all over the world to learn and get informed. It needs to incorporate all sides of the discussion, whether the editors agree to the findings or not.

Thanks, Astanton

In general please discuss article content at the article's talk page. To learn more about how Misplaced Pages works please start at WP:5P. In particular note that Misplaced Pages does not feature "all sides of a discussion" but reflects accepted knowledge: see WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL. There is a lot of hype about low-carb diets (about all diets in fact, we have a constant problem with zealous diet fans) and Misplaced Pages will not buy into it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn I am thinking I am on talk--so responding to your comment above with respect to "Misplaced Pages does not feature "all sides of a discussion" but reflects accepted knowledge" which is not the case according to WP:5P2, which I copy below:

"Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view WP:5P2 We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The points I posted was not advocating either side. I advocate for a balanced view on all sides and studying up on Misplaced Pages's information about low carbohydrate diets I found in a dismal state, lacking information to guide and educated discussion. In fact, it seemed to be biased by whomever had done the editing before me toward anti low carbs and that defies the "multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context" requirements. Astanton (talk) 13:16, 19, September 2018 (PSDT)

This is your user talk page, which hardly anybody will see. To make progress on an article, you can discuss at that article's talk page. Your selective bolding of text from WP:5P2 misses the points about "major" points of view and "due weight", both of which lead back to a consideration of sources, which are the mainspring of evrything here. Anyway, for discussion on the article go to Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet. Please also be sure to WP:INDENT posts as a courtesy to other editors. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Low carbs diet edit

Funny that I just discovered this quote in the previous discussion with user:Alexbrn who wrote "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong" after I wanted to remove the sentence with the word "probably" and replace it with proper academic information and update. there have been about 70 clinical trials and various other longitudinal studies published in academic papers that explain how the low carbs diet work and why weight reduction has nothing to do with reduced calories. The "reduced calories" part is misinformation and the "probably" is definitely equal to "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong" which, as per this note, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

There is a discussion on twitter about the impossibility of Misplaced Pages edits as a result of editorial-sitters' personal bias. This article was now brought to Wales' attention. I highly recommend that an update is made and finalized to reflect real encyclopedia and not a useless, outdated, ambiguous page.

The areas of immediate concern:

"A popular misconception driving adoption of the diet for weight loss, is that by reducing carbohydrate intake dieters can in some way avoid weight gain from the calories in other macronutrients. However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes merely from reduced overall calorie intake.

A category of diets is known as low-glycemic-index diets (low-GI diets) or low-glycemic-load diets (low-GL diets), in particular the Low GI Diet. The low-insulin-index diet, is similar, except it is based on measurements of direct insulemic responses i.e., the amount of insulin in the bloodstream to food rather than glycemic response to the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. Although such diet recommendations mostly involve lowering nutritive carbohydrates, some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef)."

This sentence: "However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes merely from reduced overall calorie intake." needs to change. Citation 11 that is refers to is a book and not a scientific and peer reviewed product: Sizer FS, Whitney E (2008). "Chapter 9: Energy Balance and Healthy Body Weight". Nutrition Concepts and Controversies (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 341. ISBN 978-0-495-22011-4. According to comments on other edits--such as the removal of some people of late, with the argument that they only wrote a book and that it is not a scientific peer reviewed publication, if that is the general Misplaced Pages rule by which we go, then this citation is not a peer reviewed scientific publication and it should not be referenced. Furthermore, it is a reference from 2008, and now we are 10 years later--scientific research has not stopped in 2008.

That sentence should say: "The weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet comes from the change of metabolic process from glucose burning to fat burning, in which the body burns its own stored fat in the form of ketones" The two citations that are the most relevant:

The next part I highlighted with"...some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef)" makes no sense. Beef is not a low-carbohydrate food so listing it there makes no sense. Beef is meat. Furthermore, the citation is from 1997 and as such it is likely older than many of the editors. It should not be the only one referenced. If a reference is needed, use a modern one from banting or others. I can find more. N one is looking at the glycemic indec or load in the low carbohydrate diets. Astanton (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton

1. Hallberg, S. J. et al. Effectiveness and safety of a novel care model for the management of type 2 diabetes at 1 year: an open-label, non-randomized, controlled study. Diabetes Ther. 9 (2018).
2. Volek, J. S., Fernandez, M. L., Feinman, R. D. & Phinney, S. D. Dietary carbohydrate restriction induces a unique metabolic state positively affecting atherogenic dyslipidemia, fatty acid partitioning, and metabolic syndrome. Prog Lipid Res 47, doi:10.1016/j.plipres.2008.02.003 (2008).
3. Holt SH, Miller JC, Petocz P (November 1997). "An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 66 (5): 1264–76. doi:10.1093/ajcn/66.5.1264. PMID 9356547.