3 ms·

I've been in the Keto community for years, until I realized that the whole community is full of quacks, indeed. There's no intelligent discussion to be had bec

I've been in the Keto community for years, until I realized that the whole community is full of quacks, indeed. There's no intelligent discussion to be had because the Keto “science” has been proven wrong repeatedly. At this point, I don't think it's worthy of respect, actually. And don't get me wrong, I don't want censorship or anything of the kind. People believing that crap will eventually realize that it hurts them, whereas a small minority will double down. The problem with the Keto “science”, and its arguments, is that the goal posts are moved, much like anything non-falsifiable, and the studies that are supposedly in their favor are cherry-picked, or misinterpreted. Whereas, they dismiss studies or reviews that prove them wrong, even if high quality (e.g., RCT, pre-registered), based on non-scientific grounds (e.g., not long enough, use of the wrong proxy markers, etc.). What's ironic is that we do have year-long, high-quality studies on nutrition. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease are understood fairly well, but they rarely attack those. They are also full of double standards, crying “conflict of interest” from the “sugar and oil industry”, while not observing the conflict of interest in their backyard, including the conflict of interest from those peddling the nonsense. And all the nonsense they spew on cholesterol is accompanied by a conspiracy theory involving Ancel Keys and his limited selection of countries to study. They conveniently ignore the facts that a selection had to be made post-world-war, as few countries had data available, and those studies are pretty good, actually, and his findings were replicated. Keto and conspiracy theories go hand in hand. When I made the comparison with anti-vaxxing or homeopathy, it's quite a literal comparison. They have conferences and are “science”-based too.

yieldcrv 3y ago
yeah unfalsifiable beliefs are always starting at an outcome and trying to prove that as opposed to starting at a hypothesis and accepting any result, and any future hypothesis and result modifies everything, the only question asked is whether it can be reproduced and how the reproduction went unfalsifiable beliefs have no capability of doing that, or, as you say, the goal posts keep moving. its just a flawed place to start from faith based belief systems are taking advantage of people that lack the mental faculties to understand that others aren't relying on beliefs, they're relying on reproducibility and acceptance of any outcome
NotGMan 3y ago
There can be no good studies on keto since it has only recently resurged. Also big pharma and big food won't be sponsoring it any time soon. You can find many examples of people who cured what their doctors told them "uncurable illness" by following keto or carnivore diets. You can find 105 pages of testemonials how keto/carnivore helped people: https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/ https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/
- stavros 3y ago
  Yes, but this is the best example of how the plural of anecdote is not data.
- sph 3y ago
  "But it's only anecdotal". Then one learns that most of nutrition research is nothing more than that. No one is doing double-blind randomised nutritional studies for any significant amount of time. Who's got money, time and patience to take thousands of people, lock them in a room and control everything they eat for 2 years? And how would you do double-blind food testing? Of course the entire field is dubious, and then there's the commercial interests. This is to say, actual success stories are probably the best we've got. In my experience, carnivore is excellent, albeit very restrictive for many.
sph 3y ago
There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it's not a conspiracy theory to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place. "We're eating too much" does not explain it either, and you just need to have read a couple papers after 1995 to see this is exactly where mainstream science is going. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not scientific rebuttal. Again, there is no discussion to be had where there's dogma, and painting everything with the same brush, and certainly not on a forum comment.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place I don't really know about keto, but the problem as widely understood with obesity is calories, not just calories from fat. And the easiest way to onboard calories without realising is to snack on sugary food and drinks. Also, your point relies on the idea that the population is doing low-fat dieting. They may not be in the first place. The only sensible diet I know of is the No S diet[0], which is so simple (and free) that it fits into the hover title of its web page. [0] https://www.nosdiet.com https://www.nosdiet.com
  - sph 3y ago
    I have banged on why calories doesn't explain the full picture probably a dozen times on this site, and I'm not sure I want to go into that any more. Yes, "thermodynamics". But we are not a simple furnace (which is by the way the very thing used to calculate the calories in food. A furnace). We are a complex machine with thousands of chemical pathways, feedback loops, some more efficient than others. You do not eat pure energy, you eat organic matter that is chemically turned into multiple forms of energy. Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out)
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out) I doubt that's true. The availability of Mars Bars and magic food diets (Fat is bad! No, now carbs are bad!) are more likely culprits. People don't fail to lose weight if they count calories. People fail to stick to their diets if they count calories, because it's a joyless activity; biology divorced from psychology.

yieldcrv 3y ago

yeah unfalsifiable beliefs are always starting at an outcome and trying to prove that as opposed to starting at a hypothesis and accepting any result, and any future hypothesis and result modifies everything, the only question asked is whether it can be reproduced and how the reproduction went unfalsifiable beliefs have no capability of doing that, or, as you say, the goal posts keep moving. its just a flawed place to start from faith based belief systems are taking advantage of people that lack the mental faculties to understand that others aren't relying on beliefs, they're relying on reproducibility and acceptance of any outcome

NotGMan 3y ago

There can be no good studies on keto since it has only recently resurged. Also big pharma and big food won't be sponsoring it any time soon. You can find many examples of people who cured what their doctors told them "uncurable illness" by following keto or carnivore diets. You can find 105 pages of testemonials how keto/carnivore helped people: https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/ https://carnivore.diet/category/success-stories/

stavros 3y ago
Yes, but this is the best example of how the plural of anecdote is not data.
sph 3y ago
"But it's only anecdotal". Then one learns that most of nutrition research is nothing more than that. No one is doing double-blind randomised nutritional studies for any significant amount of time. Who's got money, time and patience to take thousands of people, lock them in a room and control everything they eat for 2 years? And how would you do double-blind food testing? Of course the entire field is dubious, and then there's the commercial interests. This is to say, actual success stories are probably the best we've got. In my experience, carnivore is excellent, albeit very restrictive for many.

sph 3y ago

There are quacks in particle physics as well. That does not mean the field is hopelessly broken, a scam, or a pseudo-science, as you originally claimed. And it's not a conspiracy theory to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place. "We're eating too much" does not explain it either, and you just need to have read a couple papers after 1995 to see this is exactly where mainstream science is going. Calling it a conspiracy theory is not scientific rebuttal. Again, there is no discussion to be had where there's dogma, and painting everything with the same brush, and certainly not on a forum comment.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> to question the fact that since we introduced low-fat dieting, obesity has gone from being a circus attraction to common place I don't really know about keto, but the problem as widely understood with obesity is calories, not just calories from fat. And the easiest way to onboard calories without realising is to snack on sugary food and drinks. Also, your point relies on the idea that the population is doing low-fat dieting. They may not be in the first place. The only sensible diet I know of is the No S diet[0], which is so simple (and free) that it fits into the hover title of its web page. [0] https://www.nosdiet.com https://www.nosdiet.com
- sph 3y ago
  I have banged on why calories doesn't explain the full picture probably a dozen times on this site, and I'm not sure I want to go into that any more. Yes, "thermodynamics". But we are not a simple furnace (which is by the way the very thing used to calculate the calories in food. A furnace). We are a complex machine with thousands of chemical pathways, feedback loops, some more efficient than others. You do not eat pure energy, you eat organic matter that is chemically turned into multiple forms of energy. Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out)
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Nothing has been a better ally to the obesity epidemic than CICO (calories in, calories out) I doubt that's true. The availability of Mars Bars and magic food diets (Fat is bad! No, now carbs are bad!) are more likely culprits. People don't fail to lose weight if they count calories. People fail to stick to their diets if they count calories, because it's a joyless activity; biology divorced from psychology.