Ketogenic diets extend lifespan, improve memory and health in mice

Atherosclerosis is a disease of inflammation (particularly associated with polyunsaturated fat- processed vegetable oil- intake). Saturated fats do not "clog arteries" or cause CHD. Full stop, end of story. CHD was very rare in the west before 1920 and the introduction of processed foods and saturated fat consumption was much higher.http://www.zoeharcombe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CHD-deaths-women.pnghttp://www.curezone.org/upload/_D_Forums/Diet/Life_Expectency_Page_101.jpg

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Please. I've forgotten more then the sum total of what you know. That being said, I'm referring to atherosclerosis and the various manifestations, IE CVA, MI, etc. All cause mortality may or may not be lower, depending on mitigating environmental, genetic and other factors. And the question of dietary fat intake, low cholesterol and cancer has been debated for years with no resolution. An association does not imply cause and effect.

This "new science" (which was well established in the 1950s with regard to weight control, before the "low fat hypothesis" fad was pushed into U.S. policy), is not "funded by meat industry" (as if there was such an entity). If you want to chase down the rabbit hole of funding, look at statin research by big pharma while they grease the palms of the medical research industry. They would have you believe that cholesterol is the great satan, and that eating a piece of bacon will need to be chased by a handful of pills to negate teh lethal effects.And yes, I have restricted apples (loaded with sugar, NOT the apples of 100 years ago) and introduced bacon into my diet, with great improvements in my performance and health. Ancestral foods are the ones that produced the infrastructure of the world we have today, not the processed crap that sits in the aisles of your local grocery and convenience store. And certainly not "energy bars and drinks". They had plenty of energy off of simple foods, including meat, eggs and dairy, as well as healthy vegetables and low-sugar fruit.

Pidaho wrote:

Ah, yes. The new science! A lot of it funded by the mighty meat producers, who also control a lot of the FDA.

Does this new science say that fruit is not healthy because it has carbohydrates? Let me ask you, which is healthier: bacon or an apple?

Now these Keto diets suggest heavy doses of meat, along with lots of vegetables. But, over time, why not just get rid of the veggies (who needs them?). So, all we need to eat is meat! It's so healthy.

Does this new science track the effects of meat-heavy diets over decades? Because there is a lot of evidence to the contrary that they will have to overcome.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Please. I've forgotten more then the sum total of what you know. That being said, I'm referring to atherosclerosis and the various manifestations, IE CVA, MI, etc. All cause mortality may or may not be lower, depending on mitigating environmental, genetic and other factors. And the question of dietary fat intake, low cholesterol and cancer has been debated for years with no resolution. An association does not imply cause and effect.

I hope you're not one of those anti cholesterol docs? You're not are you? Please tell me you're not a statin doler outer?

BTW, this thread is nuts.

seefood diet obsessive wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Please. I've forgotten more then the sum total of what you know. That being said, I'm referring to atherosclerosis and the various manifestations, IE CVA, MI, etc. All cause mortality may or may not be lower, depending on mitigating environmental, genetic and other factors. And the question of dietary fat intake, low cholesterol and cancer has been debated for years with no resolution. An association does not imply cause and effect.

I hope you're not one of those anti cholesterol docs? You're not are you? Please tell me you're not a statin doler outer?

BTW, this thread is nuts.

Statins should only be used in people who do not respond to aggressive lifestyle modification, IE low fat, low cholesterol high COMPLEX carb diet, exercise, management of diabetes and smoking cessation.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

seefood diet obsessive wrote:

I hope you're not one of those anti cholesterol docs? You're not are you? Please tell me you're not a statin doler outer?

BTW, this thread is nuts.

Statins should only be used in people who do not respond to aggressive lifestyle modification, IE low fat, low cholesterol high COMPLEX carb diet, exercise, management of diabetes and smoking cessation.

Example............patient with genetic hypercholesterolemia. TC of over 400, LDL in the 300 + range. Young guy, huge risk for future cardiovascular event. 10% fat diet took him to 230 TC, around 150 LDL. Still high risk (mean TC for an MI patient is around 220). Added a statin, dropped the TC down to 170 and change..........now low risk, but the TC has to stay there over time. That's when a statin is beneficial, not to replace diet modification but as an adjunct if diet does not bring it down where it needs to be. In fact, most statins are much more effective when diet is managed aggressively.

You are not an anomaly. Go to 19:00 (whole lecture is recommmended):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWJQKaNpvvI&feature=youtu.be

If I were you I would focus more on markers of insulin/inflammation like A1c and fasting glucose. Also calcium score if you are over 40.

Low fat? Why? Cholesterol is essential for basic health. It is manufactured in the liver for that very purpose. Come on, get off the good and bad cholesterol myth, it's just a massive moneyspinner that's why it gets so much attention.

Jeremy R wrote:

This is anecdotal of my own personal experience:

I've always had high cholesterol- both bad and good- when I was a scrawny 130lb to 175 lb, it was always high.

I tried Keto to trim down and it worked amazingly. Similarly, it lowered my cholesterol to "healthy" levels. It was super weird, I literally ate just hamburgers and cheese and all sorts of "crap".

Eventually I got off of it because I was getting tired eating the same stuff and I started getting back into running. I just didn't have that spring in my legs like with carbs.

Now, I'm running more than ever, eating a "balanced diet", and my last cholesterol reading was once again very bad. The doctor was thinking of putting me on cholesterol meds! Idk. Still debating on going back on it.

You are not an anomaly. Go to 19:00 (whole lecture is recommmended):

Read more:

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

If I were you I would focus more on markers of insulin/inflammation like A1c and fasting glucose. Also calcium score if you are over 40.

If I were you I would focus more on markers of insulin/inflammation like A1c and fasting glucose. Also calcium score if you are over 40.

seefood diet obsessive wrote:

Low fat? Why? Cholesterol is essential for basic health. It is manufactured in the liver for that very purpose. Come on, get off the good and bad cholesterol myth, it's just a massive moneyspinner that's why it gets so much attention.

Of course it is, however we are not built to have too much of it, carried by LDL floating around in our bloodstreams. Above a certain "critical" level it begins to be deposited in the artery wall, mostly around bifurcations (like in the coronary arteries. the carotids, renals, femorals), and exacerbated by the addition of other risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes and smoking. The critical level is age related and starting around the age of 10, shouldn't be more then 100 plus the age, not to exceed 160. LDL should be below 100. These days, you can see evidence of atherosclerosis (fatty streaks) in kids as early as age 15 to 20......even younger if there's a huge genetic cholesterol component. And its no myth, I've been dealing with people who live with the ravages of vascular disease my entire professional life.

You need to watch the video I posted above, by a doctor who has dealt with this very successfully. You might actually learn something rather than pontificating from your high horse.

Sorry, I like it on my high horse. Mine is born of years of practical experience as well as original published clinical research. I have no tolerance for the 'flavor of the month".

And besides, I'm old and lazy. I'll read and evaluate clinical research, but I can't sit through a you tube lecture by someone I have never heard of. I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Besides, i'm at work. Sort of.

Not "flavor-of-the-month". Dr. Gerber (above) has been on the keto diet for 17 years and has perfectly clear arteries, as well as an open mind to new information. I would much rather listen to an MD that "walks the walk".

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

[quote]O P wrote:

You need to watch the video I posted above, by a doctor who has dealt with this very successfully. You might actually learn something rather than pontificating from your high horse.

[quote]OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Sorry, I like it on my high horse. Mine is born of years of practical experience as well as original published clinical research. I have no tolerance for the 'flavor of the month".

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Sorry, I like it on my high horse. Mine is born of years of practical experience as well as original published clinical research. I have no tolerance for the 'flavor of the month".

Aha! You admit you're part of the nefarious low-fat orthodoxy conspiracy! You are greedy and not trustworthy because you have credentials and get paid a salary to do research. We should only trust naturopaths who get paid directly by how many books and supplements they sell.

Don't trust people with credentials. Unless, of course, they are among the 1% of their colleagues who agree with me. Then they are brave and progressive iconoclasts who dare challenge the archaic orthodoxy. Their credentials do validate their opinion that is not shared by the other 99% who have the same credentials.

O P wrote:

Not "flavor-of-the-month". Dr. Gerber (above) has been on the keto diet for 17 years and has perfectly clear arteries, as well as an open mind to new information. I would much rather listen to an MD that "walks the walk".

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

[quote]O P wrote:

You need to watch the video I posted above, by a doctor who has dealt with this very successfully. You might actually learn something rather than pontificating from your high horse.

[quote]OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Sorry, I like it on my high horse. Mine is born of years of practical experience as well as original published clinical research. I have no tolerance for the 'flavor of the month".

Well, sorry to say that the "keto" diet is quackery. Just like the godfather of it, although an MD however was misguided, rest his soul. The fact that Dr. Gerber may have clear arteries may or may not have nothing to do with his diet. I assume he's had an angiogram that proves this? Do we have a baseline angio before he started it for comparison purposes? The only real test of a diet (or any other interventions efficacy for that matter) is to do a pre study angio, put a group on it, then do one after a specific time period of intervention and determine % change in imaged % stenosis. This would typically require much more than a years study. I suspect this has not been done, otherwise I'd hope i was aware of it. And if he 'walks the walk", wheres his research? if you can provide some links (not a video), I'd be more than happy to evaluate its voracity.

Post Hole Digger wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Sorry, I like it on my high horse. Mine is born of years of practical experience as well as original published clinical research. I have no tolerance for the 'flavor of the month".

Aha! You admit you're part of the nefarious low-fat orthodoxy conspiracy! You are greedy and not trustworthy because you have credentials and get paid a salary to do research. We should only trust naturopaths who get paid directly by how many books and supplements they sell.

Don't trust people with credentials. Unless, of course, they are among the 1% of their colleagues who agree with me. Then they are brave and progressive iconoclasts who dare challenge the archaic orthodoxy. Their credentials do validate their opinion that is not shared by the other 99% who have the same credentials.

I'm not involved in any grand conspiracy I can assure you. I and my colleagues were challenging the established orthodoxy of the AMA, their dietary guidelines and cholesterol recommendations well before you were out of HS (or earlier) I suspect. But contrary to most that just flap their gums, we did the research and published the data. And the cash for the research was raised privately, with no funding from any government agency or corporation. You publish good solid research, well founded in science, I'll take an unbiased look.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Post Hole Digger wrote:

Aha! You admit you're part of the nefarious low-fat orthodoxy conspiracy!

I'm not involved in any grand conspiracy I can assure you. I and my colleagues were challenging the established orthodoxy of the AMA, their dietary guidelines and cholesterol recommendations well before you were out of HS (or earlier) I suspect. But contrary to most that just flap their gums, we did the research and published the data. And the cash for the research was raised privately, with no funding from any government agency or corporation. You publish good solid research, well founded in science, I'll take an unbiased look.

I think your satire detector may be out of order.

if it quacks wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

I'm not involved in any grand conspiracy I can assure you. I and my colleagues were challenging the established orthodoxy of the AMA, their dietary guidelines and cholesterol recommendations well before you were out of HS (or earlier) I suspect. But contrary to most that just flap their gums, we did the research and published the data. And the cash for the research was raised privately, with no funding from any government agency or corporation. You publish good solid research, well founded in science, I'll take an unbiased look.

I think your satire detector may be out of order.

Perhaps :)