4 ms·
Maybe? What about rhesus monkeys? Note that ketosis != fasting; ketosis == low carb, which can also be induced without fasting (but only by eating a low (near
by tomp 2y ago
Maybe? What about rhesus monkeys?
Note that ketosis != fasting; ketosis == low carb, which can also be induced without fasting (but only by eating a low (near zero) carb diet). So are you sure you're not conflating 2 dimensions (how much we eat, vs what we eat)?
Funny enough, one of the reasons I respect Peter Attia, is that he's changed his mind several times, after new information came to light (i.e. he had an initial assumption based on weak evidence, then changed his opinion after he found stronger evidence). This is quite rare in general, an even rarer among the "influencers" (a.k.a. professional grifters).
The first time Peter Attia had to change his mind, is when his Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) collapsed. Long story short, his hypothesis was that carbs (or rather, the insulin response) make people obese, and that low carb diets drastically improve health. NuSi funded proper experiments to test this, i.e. they provided calorie-matched low-carb and non-low-carb diets. They failed to confirm the hypothesis.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition-science-crusade-fell-apart/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition...
- garytaubes 2y agoSince you showed up on a Google alert (I co-founded NuSI with Peter) I'll respond. NuSI funded two trials that could test the energy balance hypothesis. (This is an important point: these experiments tested the null hypothesis, which was energy balance, although the experimental tests were based on predictions made by the carb insulin model.) One trial, led by Kevin Hall and Eric Ravussin, was a non-randomized pilot study that they interpreted as consistent with the energy balance hypothesis. That interpretation was challenged by David Ludwig who led the other trial, an RCT that Ludwig interpreted as inconsistent with the energy balance, calorie-is-a-calorie model. Hall et al challenged that interpretation. If Peter changed his mind, which his book suggests he did, it could not have been based on the results from the NuSI-funded trials because their interpretations were contradictory, as experiments in science often are. Peter cares deeply about scientific method so I'm sure he understands this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]