Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 19 September 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)