3 ms·

There is a fair bit of science behind it: * British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and

• itchyouch 11y ago
  The other thing that the keto proponents really don't promote (or know offhand) is that one can still reap the benefits of keto in a mild nutritional ketogenic state. Dr. Terry Wahls in her book, "The Wahls Protocol" points out research that shows that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) manufacture more ketones per calories than other fats. This allows for a higher uptake of carbs & protein, but with the body still generating a mild excess of ketone bodies. MCTs are basically the richest in coconut oil and palm oil, so a MCT Keto Diet tends to be far more adoptable than a fully keto diet.
• yodsanklai 11y ago
  Some studies say the opposite. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ "Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed." It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current consensus (given by government guidelines). What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically, replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".
  • ehsanu1 11y ago
    But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me, especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here. A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb diet only last a few weeks - whereas it takes a few weeks for humans to adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump before making any conclusions. Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more details, I'd recommend you get the book.
  • itchyouch 11y ago
    Discussing/researching nutrition/diet is like doing computer performance analysis. Performance gains & losses by flipping some switch is magic to those unfamiliar with the mechanics, but obvious to those with an understanding of the lower-level mechanics. (e.g. loop unrolling being faster...) There has been a tremendous corpus information that has been accruing about nutrition and metabolism, unfortunately the information is not in vogue and thus relegated to the dusty corners of libraries or the internet. Many times the data or factoid is conflated with sensational information and loses its credibility. There are definitely several caveats that participants are usually not cognizant of when adopting a higher-protein/higher fat diet, but they usually end up making generally correct decisions which lead to the desired benefits. The caveats to keep in mind are: * consuming oxidized fats (through high heat: fried foods) would severely increase cardiovascular risk. These fats tend to not be easily broken down the way other fats are. Restaurant oil is being constantly filtered and reused makes for highly oxidized fats. Going ketogenic with deep-fried bacon would probably accelerate the inevitable heart-attack. * hydrogenated oils are were modified to be stable as it acts as a preservative in foods and increases shelf life. However, the stability of hydrogenated oils compared to regular oils means that the body can not easily break down the hydrogenated oils. These fats are also not good for the body to consume. * Most oils & meats are rich in omega 6 fats, but it is the omega 3 fats that are carido-protective. Grain fed cattle & fish (farmed) skew very high for omega 6 with very little omega 3s negating their benefit for consumption. Grass fed and wild-caught fish have around a 50/50 omega 6/omega 3 ratio, which is the ideal ratio to target. Carbs can be just as filling as protein & fats and lead to weight loss. However, carbs heavily rely on fiber to not spike glycemic load. The glycemic load of carbs will spike insulin and all the other bad effects of prolonged insulin exposure. Since glucose gets stored as glycogen in the muscle & liver, once the glycogen stores are filled up, glucose tends to not have anywhere to be stored. Excess fats can be stored inertly, indefinitely and in almost limitless quantity. Glucose doesn't have this benefit, thus it must be quickly taken up. Insulin & Hypocretin/Orexin appear to have an inverse relationship. Insulin release shuts down the hypocretin/orexin neurotransmitters which are responsible for wakefulness and hunger. The extended insulin spike brings on drowsiness, but once the insulin goes away from lowered blood glucose levels, wakefulness and hunger return. Orexin is what is responsible for waking one up in the morning when the eyes start receiving sunlight. The insulin spike and orexin going back and forth become a non-virtuous cycle of hunger followed by eating, followed by more hunger, so on and so forth. People who have depleted their muscular glycogen (e.g. person running marathon, lifting heavy objects, fasting) can take a huge spike of sugar/glucose and there will be a large amount of glucose uptake possible in parallel by all the glycogen-depleted muscle cells. In the agrarian society, this used to not be much of an issue as the manual toil tended to use up the glycogen available, but in today's office society, smaller muscle mass (smaller glycogen stores), along with sitting all day tend to keep insulin spiked way longer, which overworks the thyroid's generation of insulin and leads to insulin resistance. It used to be that diabetes and obesity went hand in hand, but the increasing prevalence of skinny type-2 diabetes points to a similar problem as obese type-2 diabetes. Blood glucose & insulin are spiked too high for too long with no where to go. Ironically, many obese people tend to have a decent amount of muscle underneath their fat from carrying all the fat around and end up being able to consume the glucose faster than the skinny type-2 counterpart. High fat, high Protein, low carb tends to cut out the high-glycemic items (junk food, soda) and the surrounding culture ends up promoting more vegetable intake, thus the benefits can get generally realized by the adopters of low-carb lifestyles.