Ketogenic diets extend lifespan, improve memory and health in mice

You have a peculiar need to label and sling

"Cult!"

"Fad!"

"Psuedoscience!!"

When I was young I tried vegetarianism, and certainly high-carb "food pyramid" type eting, I'm afraid it failed me. Maybe I didn't "get it right" bit not for lack of effort.

But I feel no need to get on every vegan/high carb thread and castigate and accuse and demonize them. I have friends who eat that way and do very well, in fact many of them can beat me in races. To each their own. I would just like people to know that if they feel things aren't right with their health, body composition, metabolism, etc., there are very well researched and proven methods of eating that most have never considered.

Just ask Tim Noakes, one of the most respected running physiology researchers in history, how he thinks his life would be if he had stuck to his original stance on carbs, fueling and health. Earlier this year he successfully defended the science of his recommendations before an panel of professionals, with over 5000 pages of evidence for his claims.

http://foodmed.net/2017/04/22/noakes-not-guilty-no-harm-proven-no-laws-broken/

O P wrote:

Get used to seeing more data pile up on the benefits of a ketogenic diet.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/biotech/sd-me-ketogenic-health-20170905-story.html

+13%= 7-10 years increase in human lifespan, with better health and lower obesity.

MICE! look up the number of studies that show positive results in mice and do not yield the same results in humans.

O P wrote:

Three types of posters on this thread:

-Those that have tried, tested and approve of the LCHF diet and fat-burning aerobic lifestyle, which is based on the straightfoward premise that if you want to burn the saturated fat that your body naturally stores, you should consume similar healthy, calorically dense saturated fats. The currency remains the same on intake and output for a consistent, clean-burning lifestyle.

-Those who are interested in the above.

-Those who quote biased pseudoscience and have NOT tried keto and never will, because dammit they love their bread and ice cream and pasta and chroic injuries, and will be staunch until they crumble arthritic, lethargic and highly adipose into their early grave.

It's not only question of macronutrient type, but is in relationship with life style. For example a food gives a reaction that brings a person to make more activity, then burn more calories, then less weight, then better health.

Elite or subelite runners eat 70% carb, but they do lot of km, and they seem in good health if they run a 10k a little under or above 30 minutes.

the problem of these studies on men, is that they don't consider the balance calorie in/out with different diets, and the different sensation of a diet in giving the boost for more daily activity.

O P wrote:

You have a peculiar need to label and sling

"Cult!"

"Fad!"

"Psuedoscience!!"

I used none of those words, except I referrred to you calling nearly all science 'pseudoscience'.

O P wrote:

Don't worry, you aren't a heathen, just a cute little lost hamster, running on your treadwheel and nibbling on your grain and fretting whether keto something is too "culty" for you to commit to.

I've been a member of the running "cult" for 45 years, and I'm still enjoying every step, every pain-free easy mile. But of course it will eventually "ruin your knees", "use up all your heartbeats", "kill you like Jim Fixx at an early age", just like LCHF will "clog your arteries", "ruin your race performance", "make you obsessive about food", etc. etc. .

My surmise is that people who hate running never did it properly, just like those who hate on alternative eating and training lifestyle.

No one said it's easy, just that it works.

LCHF. The antithesis of a healthy lifestyle. A chronic level of ketoacidosis that that persists over a long term period of time as far as i'm aware, has not been studied. My suspicion is that its not good. Kinda like Scientology, the true believers blindly follow. It would be interesting to review all the long term studies that show the efficacy of such a diet relative to actual mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular related disease. I'd be interested in the OP providing the links, as I'm too lazy to look for myself. Trouble is, there likely are none, nor any in progress. That being said, the short term (very) studies suggest a benefit relative to weight loss, HDL levels, and other biochemical markers. Trouble is, the studies, for the most part are made in comparison to diets containing a high proportion of simple carbohydrates (not complex), and the fat content reduction does not approach the levels required to effect significant change. For study purposes, low fat should be set at 10% to 15% of total calories max. Over the short term one would thus expect a more positive benefit of the HFLC approach, because the dietary approach used in comparison would not be expected to provide significant benefit, based on the flawed study design. This is not uncommon to see. I have done peer review for a number of studies with such flawed design that while the results supported the investigators hypothesis, the study design was set up to do exactly that. Not that the investigators were trying to commit scientific fraud, they just did not fully understand the concepts they were studying. I'm also still waiting for the angio evidence of Dr. Gerber's completely clear arteries... and that if so, that his diet was the primary driver.

Actually, the Atkins HFLC diet has been around for far longer, the MD, not so much. He died in 2003. Had a history of CHF, cardiomyopathy, hypertension and MI. And MI is still the largest killer in the US, average cholesterol for an MI patient is 220. In 40% of cases, the first symptom is sudden death. Primary risk factors are high serum cholesterol (particularly LDL and VLDL), smoking, hypertension and diabetes. Rampant in western, industrialized countries that consume high fat, high cholesterol diets. I had the opportunity to have a WHO investigator give a lecture at a facility was running quite some time ago, he was doing a longitudinal study on an island in Micronesia. It was inhabited by people that previously relied on a diet of fish and vegetables/tubers for years, were lean, very little cardiovascular disease or diabetes. The island is made up of phosphate rock, which was mined extensively in the 70's. This raised the per capita income of the island residents to one of the highest in the world, they then began to import their food............mostly processed meats, cheese etc from mainland Australia. After about 10 to 15 years, the population was obese, had rampant diabetes and were developing an epidemic of cardiovascular disease. The investigator had an interesting photo of the supply planes unloading huge cargo's of food on the island. I looked for the published study in my research files however in my advanced stage of Alzheimer's can't seem to find it. The contrast between their previous and current (then) condition based on their dietary change as i recall however was profound.

While he is a respected exercise physiologist, his dietary advice is based on lack of knowledge of sound nutrition principles. That's what happens in many cases when one begins to dabble outside of their primary area of expertise. Seen it countless times.

O P wrote:

Today I drove 10 hours straight through three states on only a cup of coffee. Now having my "primal" vodka/amaretto/cream as I chill for a cudly evening with my sweet young honeybun :) She is an MD and also eats primal/keto.

Methinks she might be the real reason for your somewhat smug (understanable really) feeling of satiety?

I'm not an expert on this issue but aren't we over complicating this?

What is wrong with a diet that eliminates simple sugars and includes protein and healthy fats? Why do we need to eliminate all carbs?

Dgjjkk wrote:

I'm not an expert on this issue but aren't we over complicating this?

What is wrong with a diet that eliminates simple sugars and includes protein and healthy fats? Why do we need to eliminate all carbs?

Well one might jump to that conclusion. The problem is that, particularly in the keto world, the exclusion of carbs is paramount. The replacement of of simple with complex carbs is the key, but the keto diet adds fats to a high degree. And contrary to popular belief, above around 15% to 20% of total calories, there are NO good fats. One popular myth is that the consumption of mono's reduces cholesterol. It doesn't. It has a neutral effect. But if you substitute mono's for saturates in a diet, the cholesterol goes down. That's because saturated fat up-regulates production of cholesterol in the liver and dumps more into the bloodstream. The mono's mitigate this effect and make it appear that the cholesterol drops. And while the consumption of poly's has been shown to reduce cholesterol somewhat, they have a powerful tumor promoting effect. The only real way to significantly reduce the risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease and cancer (that has a significant dietary fat related component, IE breast, colon, and others) is to reduce the total dietary fat consumption to 10% to 15% of total calories, complex carbs at 75% to 80% of total calories and the rest protein. And, BTW, once total cholesterol is in the ideal range, IE 100 plus your age, not to exceed 160, HDL is irrelevant. HDL acts as a reverse cholesterol transporter, from the artery wall to the liver, where it is excreted. But if there is no deposition, there is no reverse cholesterol transport required. I know, long response to a simple question, but one must understand the why's to see the full picture.

Ok so really the issue is over cholesterol. But why does the keto diet insist on eliminating all carbohydrates? Even complex carbs?

Dgjjkk wrote:

Ok so really the issue is over cholesterol. But why does the keto diet insist on eliminating all carbohydrates? Even complex carbs?

To drive the body into ketoacidosis. Not a good long term state to be in.

OLD SMTC SOB knows what he is talking about!Good points with the cholesterol, atherosclerotic vascular disease and cancer risks. People go "low carb" and stop eating desserts and extra sweets and they lose weight (some water weight initially as well). Well no duh!The diabetes is a worry as well. People focus on the refined sugar (which obviously is not good for high insulin spikes), but when excess fat is clogging insulin receptors that can become an issue...look at Noakes who gave himself type II diabetes and got in trouble in South Africa for tweeting out "medical advice." Then you have the issue of actually eating too much protein and causing strain on the kidneys. Of course these issues take time to manifest themselves though. The HFLC diet-lifestyle individuals may not see complications for another decade or two...

notMD. wrote:

Then you have the issue of actually eating too much protein and causing strain on the kidneys.

Maybe true with Low Carb in general, but too much protein will knock you out of ketosis, so people who go full keto don't eat that much protein.

Why are you so insecure about your eating choices that you must convert others to your way of thinking? It's the same reason people dislike vegetarians.

Even if you are right, nobody will ever respect you.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Dgjjkk wrote:

Ok so really the issue is over cholesterol. But why does the keto diet insist on eliminating all carbohydrates? Even complex carbs?

To drive the body into ketoacidosis. Not a good long term state to be in.

Does ketosis automatically lead to ketoacidosis? I was listening to a podcast where a guy has seen encouraging results with low-carb diets for Type I Diabetes patients. But he emphasized that they should not go all the way to ketosis because ketoacidosis is one of the leading causes of death for Type I Diabetes patients. I thought he just said that ketosis makes it impossible to monitor ketoacidosis, not necessarily that it lead to ketoacidosis. He wasn't clear on that and I wondered about it.

Just gotta chime in here to say - OLD SMTC SOB is the funniest poster on this entire thread. Honestly, I am thinking it has to be a pardoy of some kind. That or he is simply the least informed person on this subject to have posted on this thread, medical degree or not.So OLD SMTC SOB thinks the goal of keto is to get you to ketoacidosis? Or does he simply think ketosis and ketoacidosis are the same thing?!?

keto this wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

To drive the body into ketoacidosis. Not a good long term state to be in.

Does ketosis automatically lead to ketoacidosis? I was listening to a podcast where a guy has seen encouraging results with low-carb diets for Type I Diabetes patients. But he emphasized that they should not go all the way to ketosis because ketoacidosis is one of the leading causes of death for Type I Diabetes patients. I thought he just said that ketosis makes it impossible to monitor ketoacidosis, not necessarily that it lead to ketoacidosis. He wasn't clear on that and I wondered about it.

A quick google found this:

"Benign dietary ketosis resulting from restricting carbohydrates could, theoretically, cause ketoacidosis in persons with a predisposition to the condition. Carbohydrate-restricted, high-fat diets may have adverse metabolic sequelae when followed for protracted periods."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc052709#t=article

keto this wrote:

A quick google found this:

"Benign dietary ketosis resulting from restricting carbohydrates could, theoretically, cause ketoacidosis in persons with a predisposition to the condition. Carbohydrate-restricted, high-fat diets may have adverse metabolic sequelae when followed for protracted periods."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc052709#t=article

oops, link didn't work, here's the ref:

Ketoacidosis during a Low-Carbohydrate Diet

N Engl J Med 2006; 354:97-98January 5, 2006DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc052709