Ketogenic diets extend lifespan, improve memory and health in mice

Hardy Boy wrote:

keto this wrote:

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

No offense but an 11 year old report on a single patient isn't particularly useful, although I am sure a certain someone here will say it is proof that keto diets lead to ketoacidosis. The reality is that ketoacidosis is an exceedingly rare thing for people eating keto, and essentially nonexistent for people with otherwise normal physiological and metabolical functioning.

If you are really interested in this topic, there is a vast and increasing volume of literature out there for your consumption. "Quickly googling" things is probably not the best approach.

Correct. Like I implied, I didn't think they were the same thing.

But O.P. wants us to be converted to the miracle of keto because of his n=1 experience and the key studies that journalist Gary Taubes cites are all small sample studies from 60 years ago, so it'd be hypocritical for keto folks to dismiss this concern because it's one person and 11 years old.

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.

Ha sorry ketosis not ketoacidosis. Although ketosis can lead to it, it's rare. Unless you're an uncontrolled diabetic of course.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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?

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.

Aside from his apparently unintentional conflation of ketoacidosis with ketosis (a "mistake" that requires that you add a word into the middle of another....??), this sentence is categorically wrong and entire books have been written as to why. Follow the advice of this ossified reptilian moran at your own peril.

Yes Steve O Vette,

Thanks for O Vetting some of the text here.

My goodness, the ignorance is rampant. I say do research.

Although I agree that there are some smarmy Ketogenic zealots out there promoting a trend, there is also a lot of new science and good hypothesis out there that tell us that a high fat, low carb, moderate protein and moderate fibre diet is healthier for almost everyone or for everyone.

It won't look the same for each person, as each human is an experiment of one. You have to find what works for you within the framework of LCHF..

What the science is now indicating and this is where many people are confused:

Fats do not raise low-density lipoproteins that carry cholesterol, they raise both the HDL and softer, less dense LDL together.

This science as I understand it is very new.

LCHF has been known to calm and or stop epileptic seizures and reverse obesity. This has been known for about 100 years now (old news).

There is research going on now about it improving the life of those who suffer Alzheimers and Parkinson's.

Possibly some cancers, possibly some skin issues.

Calms or reverses type II diabetes.

People who eat LCHF feel satiated sooner and longer, therefore are less likely to overeat.

There is also proof that LCHF is good for long endurance sports, preventing the dreaded bonk.

Now, what on earth is wrong with any of that?

So far, the only down side is it appears that one's V02max is reduced by 3%+/-.

If you need to race shorter and middle-distance races then you need more carbs. Everything over the half marathon is hardly affected. Also the more you train the more carbs you need, but you can still be LCHF just to a lesser degree. Certainly, LCHF with none or little of the CHO from refined sources.

I don't feel zealotty at all; I think it is all in the head of the detractors.

Here are some names to Google:

Dr. Phinney

Dr. Volek

Dr. Noakes

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Possibly some cancers,

Calms or reverses type II diabetes.

People who eat LCHF feel satiated sooner and longer, therefore are less likely to overeat.

There is also proof that LCHF is good for long endurance sports, preventing the dreaded bonk.

Dr. Phinney

Dr. Volek

Dr. Noakes

There is no evidence that LCHF combats cancer. It's just speculation:

It's not good for endurance sports:

Any strategy that helps you lose weight will help you fight diabetes:

I have a couple Phinney and Volek books. I've listened to hours of Tim Noakes lectures. I want to believe it, I really do. And I do believe keto or LCHF are valid eating approaches.

But the insulin hypothesis was wrong. There has been no evidence that it helps endurance sports performance. It might help you avoid GI problems in ultras. Potatoes also have high satiety. Any

As I keep saying, it's a valid approach. But it's not a magic key to all health and happiness. It's just not. The evidence is not there.

My sister has always been a health nut, but she started having health problems in her 50s and had high cholesterol. She went vegan and in 6 months lost 30 lbs and got off all her medications.

A friend recently went on the Eat Right For Your Blood Type diet (a b.s. diet from the 90s that is apparently making a comeback). He lost significant weight, his running greatly improved, his weightlifting improved, he says he feels 20 years younger and has become a zealot for the nonsense diet.

Both of them have testimonials that are at least as good as any keto testimonial. A diet that eliminates junk food and helps you control your calories will help you lose weight and feel better.

Keto/LCHF is no different. I've done it and was glad I did. I may do it again. But knock off the silliness about how it cures cancer and Alzeimers and makes all your dreams come true. Or at least wait until the science is actually there.

On Cancer, btw:

"This systematic review therefore presents and evaluates the clinical evidence on isocaloric KD dietary regimes and reveals that evidence supporting the effects of isocaloric ketogenic dietary regimes on tumor development and progression as well as reduction in side effects of cancer therapy is missing."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28353094

Don't be silly.

Anyone can find science, pseudo-Science, Hypothesis that look good etc to refute just about anything.

Global warming

Lydiard method of training

LCHF

Anything you want to refute, you can Google your argument and cite the counter evidence.

You can't give me your sister in law's example without all sorts of information that I am not interested in reading, like is she sedentary or was she or is she an Olympian or what other possible conditions or factors that we have to take in.

I also know people that have lost weight on stupid diets. Not a valid argument.

Good luck going on and off the LCHF diet, that's the wrong approach; I am sticking to it.

keto this wrote:

It's not good for endurance sports:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJn1EILUQAAN1s5.jpg:large

LCHF is "bad for endurance sports" because 10 race walkers didn't improve over a THREE-WEEK dietary intervention? After three weeks on initial keto I felt like crap, as my body was still in "carb withdrawl". I am surprised these hip-swivelers were even breaking even with this timeline. I gaurantee almost all of the guys were high-carb pre-study (it doesn't say), and one group gets to train under a normal regime they are already used to, while the guys who had their normal regime disrupted (to change to LCHF) and didn't do so hot. What a revelation.

Got to love these small-n short term "studies". They consistently show that 5K runners should all be doing nothing but HIIT protocols and show no evidence of improvement with longer distance running. Lets take those same guys and have one group do several sessions of speed work over three weeks while the other does 15-mile long runs instead. I assure you that the "conclusion" of these mental midgets will be that "Endurance performance suffers with long aerobic runs and benefits from short intervals!".

"Science!"

I do agree that many diets will improve body comp and overall health, Almost nobody can stay lean and healthy without some form of restrictions in our calorically overabundant/nutrient poor food landscape. The difference with LCHF is the often incredible ease of staying on it once you have made the complete adjustment (since you are rarely "hungry" in the sense of those who consume high carbs), and the phenomenal nutrient density. Eating once or twice a day becomes an easily accomplished lifestyle attribute, even under heavier training load. Also, energetically true LCHF deals largely the the exact form of energy that your body uses to store it's own energy, saturated healthy fat, so there is not the metabolic downside of trying to convert foreign energy sources (as with carbs) particularly glycation end-products, which can be quite toxic and problematic. Fears of the health effects high saturated fat consumption have been thoroughly refuted, and continue to be so.

As far as cancer, it is extremely early days in the research, but since it is clear that cancer cells of most types are insatiable for glucose, the mechanistic basis is clearly recognized :

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Don't be silly.

Anyone can find science, pseudo-Science, Hypothesis that look good etc to refute just about anything.

Global warming

Lydiard method of training

LCHF

Anything you want to refute, you can Google your argument and cite the counter evidence.

You can't give me your sister in law's example without all sorts of information that I am not interested in reading, like is she sedentary or was she or is she an Olympian or what other possible conditions or factors that we have to take in.

I also know people that have lost weight on stupid diets. Not a valid argument.

Good luck going on and off the LCHF diet, that's the wrong approach; I am sticking to it.

You are making my point.

There is no evidence of LCHF having the magic effects claimed. Yes, you can cherry-pick a few small sample studies that show that something might be happening, but the vast majority of science is against it. That's part of the whole LCHF belief system: that science is corrupt and biased against them.

The fact that you cannot make broad conclusions from my sister's example is exactly the point I was making. Just like you cannot make broad conclusions from yours or OP's experience. I think we'd both agree that the blood type diet is nonsense, yet you can find individuals who say its their salvation.

I went keto for three months. If that isn't long enough to be converted, what is? Are you saying it's a diet you have to be on for years before seeing any benefit?

Steve O Vette wrote:

LCHF is "bad for endurance sports" because 10 race walkers didn't improve over a THREE-WEEK dietary intervention?

Got to love these small-n short term "studies".

As far as cancer, it is extremely early days in the research, but since it is clear that cancer cells of most types are insatiable for glucose, the mechanistic basis is clearly recognized :

Ah, the old "n + 7". It's become a running joke in nutrition circles: "how long does it take to acclimate to a LCHF diet?" answer: n + 7, where n is the number of days in the last study that showed it didn't do anything.

No study of any length has shown a performance advantage for LCHF for events of any length:

I might try it for ultra training and racing where it theoretically could have some advantages, but the other guy said trying for months won't do anything, I have to be truly converted and commit my life to it.

Maybe it will prove to be a valid approach to cancer, but there's no evidence of that yet. The insulin theory or metabolic advantage had a mechanistic basis too, but it has not shown to be true in actual real life studies. I know, I know, n + 7 is needed. But Gary Taubes, to his credit, funded and was in on the experimental design of a study that showed the insulin theory to be false.

LCHF does have its benefits. It's made a lot of money for Gary Taubes and Jason Fung and Maria Emmerich and others.

I tried it for a while and started feeling so crappy on my runs that I was beginning to think I had seriously overtrained. My legs were completely drained. Particularly the quads. Went back to eating complex carbs and things went back to normal. Granted, I only tried keto for a few months.

Steve O Vette wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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.

Aside from his apparently unintentional conflation of ketoacidosis with ketosis (a "mistake" that requires that you add a word into the middle of another....??), this sentence is categorically wrong and entire books have been written as to why. Follow the advice of this ossified reptilian moran at your own peril.

I'm not ossified, rather well preserved if I say so myself. What I also find is that a lot of people, when they don't understand the research, the physiology or biochemistry..............or think they do (but really don't), resort to name calling and personal attacks as a defense mechanism. Matters not to me, I've debated many esteemed scientists at conferences where I was presenting abstracts of yet unpublished work about the same and other issues, never came out on the losing end as yet............except once, and that was due to my own lack of preparation :)

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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.

Isn't that true of most studies?

Deep fried mars bar wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

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.

Isn't that true of most studies?

Most if not all, have some design flaws. Some worse than others. However typically as long as the author can explain the issues to the reviewer, identify the flaws and perhaps some of the limitations (these typically then get incorporated into the body of the paper), they usually get published. Unfortunately even some of the reviewers aren't as knowledgeable about the topic as they should be and some seriously flawed studies get published, even though "peer reviewed".

I see this with running studies too. Results are analysed and a conclusion drawn. Often the authors' conclusion supports their hypothesis, when an obvious other conclusion can be drawn, but the title of the published study is the same as the flawed hypothesis. And lots of people fall for it.

Noakes is a bugger for doing this over and over. Watching videos of his lectures, he's a terrible attention seeker (my hypothesis). He laughs at his previous incompetence and just keeps on making the same mistakes. It's all a game to him.

Deep fried mars bar wrote:

I see this with running studies too. Results are analysed and a conclusion drawn. Often the authors' conclusion supports their hypothesis, when an obvious other conclusion can be drawn, but the title of the published study is the same as the flawed hypothesis. And lots of people fall for it.

Noakes is a bugger for doing this over and over. Watching videos of his lectures, he's a terrible attention seeker (my hypothesis). He laughs at his previous incompetence and just keeps on making the same mistakes. It's all a game to him.

All too common, unfortunately.

"Cherry pick"

"Belief"

Those are fighting words.

You can treat it as a "diet" a short-term fix for what is broken, but perhaps you need to look at your poor dietary habits over the long haul, so you don't need to fix them periodically.

Or whatever, it's your life.

But for me, as I have stated before, I am sticking to it, with minor adjustments as I get it exactly right.

There is nothing extreme about how I eat, unless massive salads, some berries, plain yogurt, various meats, seeds, nuts, and eggs is extreme.

I just cut out 100% of refined carbohydrates and most of the unnecessary complex carbs. Feels great, easy to do, tastes way better, some very minor incoveniences.

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

"Cherry pick"

"Belief"

Those are fighting words.

You can treat it as a "diet" a short-term fix for what is broken, but perhaps you need to look at your poor dietary habits over the long haul, so you don't need to fix them periodically.

Or whatever, it's your life.

But for me, as I have stated before, I am sticking to it, with minor adjustments as I get it exactly right.

There is nothing extreme about how I eat, unless massive salads, some berries, plain yogurt, various meats, seeds, nuts, and eggs is extreme.

I just cut out 100% of refined carbohydrates and most of the unnecessary complex carbs. Feels great, easy to do, tastes way better, some very minor incoveniences.

Other lifestyle choices are available.

Very true.

Other good ones, other bad ones.

After nearly a year of casual research, I settled on LCHF.

As this thread is now repeating itself, I am going to move on.

Cheers!