The ketogenic diet has shown some promise as a non-pharmacological treatment for Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). This is good news! Any time you can stop or reduce the number of prescription drugs you consume the better. The added benefit is that if it works for you it will also save you money!
The results of our study are suggestive for a use of the KD as a possible therapeutic aid in PCOS, to be followed by a more balanced dietary regimen, but always with particular attention to the amount of carbohydrates. The duration of KD is still a question: there is no evidence of side effects in the short term, they are considered safe for short cycles. Less information is available on diets in the long term, but the experience gained in the field of epilepsy and GLUT-1 deficiency syndrome supports a possible use also for prolonged periods. It is plausible to hypothesize the setting of protocols to be repeated in cycles over time, interspersed with periods of balanced regime.
Professor Timothy Noakes is writing a series of articles to try to put the nail in the coffin of the modern western diet and dispatch forever the shoddy work of Ancel Keys.
This is why you should immediately distrust anyone that says, “The science is settled.” Science by it’s very nature is never settled. Those people saying these things are more likely than not just like Ancel Keys. Pushing their theories and searching desperately for studies to confirm their own bias.
This first article is a great read.
So when, in the late 1960s, Keys became one of the original beneficiaries of research funding from the newly formed National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), he discovered, to his utter dismay (and perhaps horror) that, far from supporting his claims, his brilliantly designed and perfectly executed test — the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) (6) — comprehensively disproved both his hypotheses. According to Karl Popper’s description that a real scientist is someone imbued with a “ruthless scepticism toward your own work,” had Keys been just such a scientist, this should have been the end of his hypotheses.
The MCE established that the replacement of dietary saturated fat with the polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) linoleic acid, which lowered average blood cholesterol concentrations by 15% to the apparently “safe” level of 175 mg/dL (4.6 mmol/L), had absolutely no effect on heart disease outcomes. Instead, “no differences between the treatment and control groups were observed for cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths or total mortality” (6, p. 129).
This finding fatally dispatched Keys’ hypotheses because the MCE established that, when tested in a rigorous and essentially flawless trial, using Keys’ dietary recommendations to lower cholesterol failed to prevent CHD as Keys had promised.
This is why we need to remain skeptical and not jump to conclusions and react out of fear and panic. Even doctors and scientists make mistakes because they are only human like the rest of us. As all those in the keto & low carb community knows, the government surely makes mistakes.
Nina Teicholz wrote an op-ed in the LA Times today that talks about the new analysis of scientific studies surrounding red meat and how there is no conclusive evidence, one way or the other, as to red meat’s benefit or harm. It’s important reading because it highlights what is prevalent in all science lately. The attempt to shout down the voices of those that don’t agree with the current “consensus”.
The answer is that many of the nation’s official nutrition recommendations — including the idea that red meat is a killer — have been based on a type of weak science that experts have unfortunately become accustomed to relying upon. Now that iffy science is being questioned. At stake are deeply entrenched ideas about healthy eating and trustworthy nutrition guidelines, and with many scientists invested professionally, and even financially, in the status quo, the fight over the science won’t be pretty.
If this article is true it is a testament to the wonders of the human body and mother nature. As human beings we over think everything and sometimes believe that we can circumvent nature and our own natural state. It’s easy to see that at our core we are just animals like the rest that roam the Earth. If modern life wasn’t invented we certainly would not be eating three meals a day and we wouldn’t be eating processed sugar. Our bodies are already adapted to this lifestyle. All we have to do is live it.
MIT biologists have discovered an unexpected effect of a ketogenic, or fat-rich, diet: They showed that high levels of ketone bodies, molecules produced by the breakdown of fat, help the intestine to maintain a large pool of adult stem cells, which are crucial for keeping the intestinal lining healthy. The researchers also found that intestinal stem cells produce unusually high levels of ketone bodies even in the absence of a high-fat diet. These ketone bodies activate a well-known signaling pathway called Notch, which has previously been shown to help regulate stem cell differentiation.
More promising news on the Ketogenic Diet and it’s potential for treating Alzheimer’s Disease.
The presence of ketone bodies has a neuroprotective impact on aging brain cells. Moreover, their production may enhance mitochondrial function, reduce the expression of inflammatory and apoptotic mediators. Thus, it has gained interest as a potential therapy for neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s disease. This review aims to examine the role of the ketogenic diet in Alzheimer’s disease progression and to outline specific aspects of the nutritional profile providing a rationale for the implementation of dietary interventions as a therapeutic strategy for Alzheimer’s disease.
This is something I only learned recently and the information isn’t getting any better for seed oils (vegetable oils).
VEGETABLE oils are highly unstable.
When they interact with oxygen, they release neurotoxic, DNA mutating chemicals which are known to cause cancer (at least). Recent improvements in measurement technology have now thrown a spotlight on the quantity of these chemicals released by normal use. And the results are truly terrifying.
Cheap vegetable oil made from seeds (canola, sunflower, corn, safflower, grapeseed, rice bran and soybean oils) is a new addition to the human diet. Unlike animal fats and oils made from fruit (olive, avocado and coconut oils), they’re very high in polyunsaturated fats and in particular something called an omega-6 fat. A recent study found that when seed oils containing these fats are heated at a normal cooking temperature (of 180 degrees celsius), they create highly toxic chemicals known to be involved in cancer causation.
This article is a must read. It showcases the difference between pharmaceutical research and nutritional research and how much more difficult the latter is to the former. Much of dietary research is dependent on surveys because it is next to impossible to have people captive while conducting a study. As a result it is difficult to know what people really consumed versus what they say or what they remember. In that type of environment there is no control.
Compared with pharmaceutical research, studies evaluating diet or dietary interventions for chronic diseases like obesity (to be distinguished from micronutrient deficiency syndromes like scurvy or rickets) have far greater challenges in terms of consistency, quality control, confounding, and interpretation. For instance, a placebo for an active drug can be easily prepared, but dietary assignment can rarely be truly masked. Moreover, diet is highly heterogeneous, with myriad interacting and potentially confounding factors. If an intervention increases intake from one food category, participants may well eat less from other food categories.
In addition, for any diet type, many possible variations exist. For example, does a low-fat diet include high amounts of sugar? Is a high-protein diet plant or animal based? Does a ketogenic diet have unrealistically low saturated fat content? Whereas a drug typically acts through one or a limited number of biological pathways, even discrete changes in diet (such as the ratio of dietary fat to carbohydrate) will directly affect numerous hormones and metabolic pathways involving many organ systems. The lack of uniformity across studies and the difficulty in establishing mechanisms make translation into public policy exceedingly difficult, a problem now being addressed by the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
I doubt that coffee is a super food just like I don’t believe in anything being a super food. Food is food and too much of anything probably is not good for you. But, at the same time, I like to drink coffee and I’m not afraid to have a cup or five during the day. Depends on the day and my mood. There’s nothing in the article about bullet proof coffee, a favorite of the keto community, but if coffee will help you cheat death than maybe bullet proof coffee will make you invincible!
We have to start here: A fascinating British study of 500,000 people found that habitual coffee drinkers were less likely to die than non-coffee drinkers over the 10 year span of the study. Not just less likely to die of certain causes: less likely to die of anything. As in, they literally cheat death. Find me a better argument than that! As for why, it’s a bit of a mystery. One theory is that since coffee contains more than 10,000 different chemical compounds that protect cells from damage, it might just inhibit many causes of death that scientists haven’t isolated yet.
Anyone that actually pays attention to reporting on the latest nutrition studies regarding eggs, wine, vegetables, or anything else concerning our diets knows that the “studies” are at best correlative. This simply means that someone did something and it just so happens that something else happened either at the same time or shortly thereafter. It does not mean that one caused the other. Other than a good conversation starter they are largely worthless.
Quite frankly, probably not. Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.” Other nutrition research critics, such as John Ioannidis of Stanford University, have been similarly scathing in their commentary. They point out that observational nutrition studies are essentially just surveys: Researchers ask a group of study participants — a cohort — what they eat and how often, then they track the cohort over time to see what, if any, health conditions the study participants develop.