4 ms·

> Once people realize they have to literally drink heavy whipping cream [..] the medications don't sound so bad. sounds great tbh

deeviant 5y ago
Sounds great until you realize that although some health markers improve on a ketogenic diet, all cause mortality significantly increases: https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases...
- staticassertion 5y ago
  > Regarding the mechanisms underlying the correlation between low carbohydrate diets and death, Professor Banach noted that animal protein, specifically red and processed meat, has already been linked with an increased risk of cancer. He said: “The reduced intake of fibre and fruits and increased intake of animal protein, cholesterol, and saturated fat with these diets may play a role. Differences in minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals might also be involved.” I wouldn't be surprised if most people doing keto have way, way less fiber than they should.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Another crappy diet study. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. etc. It’s well known that these sorts of studies have innate problems, but they are easy to do, and the researchers get a published paper out of the deal, so why not?
  - deeviant 5y ago
    > Another crappy diet study. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. etc. It’s well known that these sorts of studies have innate problems If you think scientists don't know that correlation does not imply causation, I'm happy to report to you that they, in fact, do. Separating out incidental correlation from causation is actually kind of the point of science, and by extension, medicine. The primary population that gets it wrong is the people that read a single study, and immediately conclude something based on that one study, like "oh hey ketogenic diets reduces bad cholesterol, it must be super good." And it's simply intellectually dishonest (at best) to state that the motivation of the researcher is only to increase their paper count with presumable producing junk science, without presenting a shred of evidence to support such a claim(talk about bad science).
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      All this sort of study can do is to point to where there might be connections to follow up on by doing the real research: randomly assign people to diets and watch the results. But that step never seems to get done. Instead we have this endless series of “studies” which show us absolutely nothing. You said that all cause mortality increases on a ketogenic diet, and this study shows no such thing.
      - deeviant 5y ago
        > You said that all cause mortality increases on a ketogenic diet, and this study shows no such thing. ... > The risks of all-cause and cause-specific death over an average 6.4-year follow-up rose with each fall in carbohydrate intake (see table), and remained significant after adjusting for all available factors that might have influenced the association (Model 2 in the table). Quoted from the study. It suggests exactly that thing. I suggest you read the study again.
      - esyir 5y ago
        You know why these don't get done? Because that means that you're grabbing a large cohort of people, fixing their diets, and following them until a good number of them die. The timescales required here, not to mention the cost, means that such studies are virtually unfeasible.

deeviant 5y ago

Sounds great until you realize that although some health markers improve on a ketogenic diet, all cause mortality significantly increases: https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases...

staticassertion 5y ago
> Regarding the mechanisms underlying the correlation between low carbohydrate diets and death, Professor Banach noted that animal protein, specifically red and processed meat, has already been linked with an increased risk of cancer. He said: “The reduced intake of fibre and fruits and increased intake of animal protein, cholesterol, and saturated fat with these diets may play a role. Differences in minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals might also be involved.” I wouldn't be surprised if most people doing keto have way, way less fiber than they should.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Another crappy diet study. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. etc. It’s well known that these sorts of studies have innate problems, but they are easy to do, and the researchers get a published paper out of the deal, so why not?
- deeviant 5y ago
  > Another crappy diet study. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. etc. It’s well known that these sorts of studies have innate problems If you think scientists don't know that correlation does not imply causation, I'm happy to report to you that they, in fact, do. Separating out incidental correlation from causation is actually kind of the point of science, and by extension, medicine. The primary population that gets it wrong is the people that read a single study, and immediately conclude something based on that one study, like "oh hey ketogenic diets reduces bad cholesterol, it must be super good." And it's simply intellectually dishonest (at best) to state that the motivation of the researcher is only to increase their paper count with presumable producing junk science, without presenting a shred of evidence to support such a claim(talk about bad science).
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    All this sort of study can do is to point to where there might be connections to follow up on by doing the real research: randomly assign people to diets and watch the results. But that step never seems to get done. Instead we have this endless series of “studies” which show us absolutely nothing. You said that all cause mortality increases on a ketogenic diet, and this study shows no such thing.
    - deeviant 5y ago
      > You said that all cause mortality increases on a ketogenic diet, and this study shows no such thing. ... > The risks of all-cause and cause-specific death over an average 6.4-year follow-up rose with each fall in carbohydrate intake (see table), and remained significant after adjusting for all available factors that might have influenced the association (Model 2 in the table). Quoted from the study. It suggests exactly that thing. I suggest you read the study again.
    - esyir 5y ago
      You know why these don't get done? Because that means that you're grabbing a large cohort of people, fixing their diets, and following them until a good number of them die. The timescales required here, not to mention the cost, means that such studies are virtually unfeasible.