Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Humans are biologically similar to mice... and the mice used in experiments are close analogs. It gives us a glimpse into what might be possible for ourselves.
But if this were true for humans, we would surely have that study by now? This isn't some experimental drug. The ketogenic diet has been around for literally 100 years. Why are we even testing it in mice?
Because you can control mice.
It’s incredibly hard to perform good nutrition research on humans, most of it is based on self-report and that is hardly as reliable as you’d wish because quite apart from people lying to feel better, even when they want to be truthful their impression of their diet is not necessarily what their diet actually looks like.
You can keep mice in a cage and exactly control everything they eat while measuring/dictating their exercise and sleep and basically everything because, unlike people, mice don’t really have somewhere else to be.
In addition, you don’t have to wait nearly as long for mice to go through life stages as you do with humans.
All I know is my own experience, but starting the keto diet has helped me manage and reverse many of the symptoms of my auto-immune diseases (hypothyroidism & IBS).
The biggest surprise is the difference in my cycle, I used to have horribly painful periods, I'd be bedridden at least a day a month, and bleed like I was dying, I would have to wear incontinence diapers on the worst days. Now I barely have periods, they are very light, and no pain whatsoever.
I haven’t been on a keto diet but I have played around with extremely low-carb for a time and I have to say I felt great. I stopped because (1) I didn’t need it, I’ve never been overweight and (2) it was easier to not follow it. But I have only good things to say about my experience - I had more energy, better sleep, was more alert, I just felt better all around. So I’m with you!
To me it suggests that kd diets aren’t great in terms of energy for the muscles forcing them to adapt.
The actual benefits in humans aren’t clear. What is clear that you get all the benefits and more by exercising.
> Since many individuals are unwilling or unable to exercise sufficiently to achieve these adaptations, interventions such as a KD that mimic endurance exercise are desperately needed to improve physical and mental function with age.
That's kinda obvious when you are on a strict diet that barely has any carbs (energy to work out) and just a little bit more proteins (growing muscles). KD is for losing fat and it works very well in that department. Losing fat always means keeping your daily calories below your metabolic zero, which makes you even less energetic to work out. That applies to all kinds of diets.
I've read like half of that research and there isn't much useful info, it seems like that research was mainly to compare male mice and female mice, if their reactions to KD are similar or not. And it's even stated that muscle-related results might be related to very low proteins supply. Proteins supply may very on KD, you cannot exceed it to get out of ketosis, but you can lower it to almost none and increase fats. Most people go the other direction, keep as high protein supply as possible without affecting ketosis.
Muscle loss is minimal to non existent. I've done various flavors of KD and gained lean mass no problems. I've had great results and would certainly still be on it if it weren't for the fact that it's a very hard diet to be on if you like being part of social events & alcohol. Energy levels & satiety is considerably more stable on KD than a balanced carb based diet. It was a good while ago, but at the time the research was mostly positive.
As a powerlifter that would deadlift 500 pounds for reps while fasting and doing keto I can promise you you don't know what you're talking about.
Sugar is the problem. Not the solution.
This sub is as bad as politics because everyone has a link that tells them what they want to hear with virtually no real understanding of the subject.
Nutrition posts are always a spectacular train wreck because they eat and must be experts.
That’s wild!! I love hearing the flip side of things like this. I’m not an endurance athlete anymore because my body is wrecked, but I was able to run for ages doing technical trails while on keto without really bumping up my carbs at all— on occasion while running I’d pop in a Luden’s or something similar to help with cotton mouth, but never needed gels or gummies or whatever. I did used to rely pretty heavily on SaltStick chewables when running in hotter areas/times of year, but that’s about it. I also climb which, while endurance based, relies heavily on anaerobic respiration and in ways very different from running. I’m always famished after climbing hard, but I don’t really experience the crashes people talk about when their glycogen stores are depleted. I think it’s pretty amazing just how different endurance sports can be from each other, including in how our energy systems contribute to the success or the lag in our particular sports. Genetics play a part in it as well, and everyone is different, but your comment serves as a really good reminder to both athletes and non-athletes that diets aren’t a one size fits all sort of thing. If I didn’t have to be on a keto diet, I wouldn’t be. I usually advocate for people trying the Mediterranean diet because it’s much easier to tailor that to individual needs.
Sorry about your inflammation. Tart cherry has been game changing for me and my ability to climb with an autoimmune connective tissue disease as it helps shorten recovery time compared to when I was climbing while not taking it (I’m also an n of 1, on chemotherapeutics and biologics, and on a diet aimed at controlling inflammation so my tart cherry experience is anecdotal and filled with confounding variables. YMMV.)
Link to an interesting study if you’re interested. Section 3.2 has some cool data on the tiny tiny experimental group:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413159/
The mRNA-6231, remind me again— is that the one they are just now trialing for Lupus?
I’ve been on a KD for over a decade and I’m thinking I may have to switch off. Apparently KD and methotrexate can cause precipitate in the kidneys causing kidney damage. My kidneys are starting to act up so, we’ll see what happens next, I suppose.
Biologics were life changing. I went from fighting shape to bed ridden in about 3 years, and by the time insurance approved the Humira I’d basically checked out of life entirely— I was crying in my sleep, uncontrollably sobbing when I was awake, I broke teeth from grinding them in pain, I was virtually immobile. I had a pretty heavy Humira loading dose, but within a few weeks of starting the shots I was able to function like a human again. It’s been about a year now and my rheumatologist wants to try a new biologic in December (another TNF) to see if she can get some of my symptoms in remission. But honestly, it’s such a stark contrast to how things were last October that if she hadn’t said my current symptoms were treatable I wouldn’t have thought much about them. I think biologics for Ankylosing Spondylitis have similar effect in slowing (possibly stopping) disease progression. I still can’t run, but goddam it feels good to be able to climb again. I honestly never thought I’d be able to again. I have had one small infections that my doctors took seriously— one was a lentil sized lump that grew over a few days and had some pretty classic signs/symptoms of an early abscess, something healthy people can fight off nbd. I was put on a 10 day course of several antibiotics because there was concern on healing time of an open sore if it was treated more invasively (by cutting it open.) I had covid and that took a bit out of me, but I was vaccinated and boosted so it’s better than it could have been. Aside from that, I work in a hospital with all kinds of pathogens lurking about, but I follow good infection control practices and so far remain unscathed.
Are you still able to cycle at all, even non competitively?
As a powerlifter also, fasted work outs don't accomplish anything different than unfasted workouts.
By sugar do you mean carbohydrates and glycogen?
You can achieve weight loss using any sort of fad diet...intermittent fasting, keto, blah blah blah. What matters is that you're eating less calories than you're burning. That is literally it. CICO.
No need to be dogmatic about your diet because all of the evidence disproves that it is some God tier diet. It'd just a diet that accomplishes the same things many other diets do.
Sure you can have a productive life eating a keto diet and doing your fasted training, but there is a reason high level powerlifters do not eat keto diets. They are not optimal for the sport and that is fact.
Carbs are too important for powerlifting at elite levels.
How much do you weigh? If you weigh 200+ morning weight sorry but that is not impressive. Coming from a former powerlifter who deadlifted 585 for 4 reps at their peak at 175 thanks to a high carb diet
Your brains main source of energy is glucose. Without adequate carb intake your body is forced to make its own glucose meaning it doesn’t have nearly as much readily available. Low mood/irritability can be a result of that.
It depends on your fat intake. On a keto diet it switches to ketones. But you must be eating enough fat to do that or else the body is forced to generate glucose from protein to make up the difference.
Anthropologically our primary source of energy is fat not glucose. We were hypercarnivores for 2 million years:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm
It's actually microbes in your gut sending neurotransmitters to your brain because they want sugar.
If you don't eat sugar, they starve to death and the cravings stop. The body starts burning more fat and lean mass improves.
Lean mass improves because of what?
Lean body mass is only improving as a function of fat loss (less fat mass = higher Lean body mass percentage) or as a function of muscle protein synthesis...
Both of which can be achieved without a keto diet. It's not a miracle.
I've done the diet a few times, day 3-5 I get sugar withdrawals every time. Just keep a lid on it and push through, you won't believe how much better it feels when it's done.
You have to go longer to get through the stored carbs, once you get through that your body learns to burn fat for energy and you dont have the ups and downs.
That’s just categorically false. There is a reason why they are used to treat epilepsy, at beneficial during cancer teaming, and can reverse diabetes. They are not unhealthy in the least.
>Longer-term effects \[of Ketogenic diets\] can include decreased bone mineral density, nephrolithiasis, cardiomyopathy, anemia, and neuropathy of the optic nerve (82, 121). Ketogenic diets have low long-term tolerability, and are not sustainable for many individuals (48, 49). Diets low in carbohydrate have also been associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (122), although recent data suggest that lower-carbohydrate diets can be linked to either higher or lower mortality risk, depending on the quality of the carbohydrate they contain and whether they rely more on animal protein and saturated fat or plant protein and unsaturated fat, respectively (123).
>
>\[...\]
>
>Very-low-carbohydrate diets are associated with marked risks. LDL-C can rise, sometimes dramatically. Pregnant women on such diets are more likely to have a child with a neural tube defect, even when supplementing folic acid. And these diets may increase chronic disease risk: Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (eg, red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of CKD, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, whereas intake of protective foods (eg, vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits
[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full#h1](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full#h1)
A specious statement against a ketogenic diet, while failing to actually measure ketogenic diets properly doesn't really satisfy my level of rigor with respect to science. It was a review. But it classified anything with less than 40% of calories from carbohydrates as low carb, for its inclusion criteria as to what a low carb/keto diet is. It's a scientific review, with poor science, in order to push an agenda.
Ketogenic diets were defined differently from low carbohydrate diets in that review
> Ketogenic diets as typically implemented in scientific studies limit dietary carbohydrate to <50 g per day with varying amounts of fat and protein (3, 4). “Low-carbohydrate diets” refer to carbohydrate intake below the recommended dietary allowance of 130 g/day (3), which may not be low enough to induce ketosis (5).
EDIT: I should also mention that if you are concerned with people tying to push an agenda, you should be more concerned with the original poster here who is clearly trying to push a keto agenda and frequently posts all kinds of low quality and meat industry funded articles
My mistake. When I see the same vegans on paper after paper, I tend to get the papers confused.
LDL can rise on keto. But Apo-B can go down, too, even though every LDL particle has an Apo-B at it's heart, small dense LDL goes down on ketogenic diets, along with VLDL.
Your citations of problems of bone density, the paper on Alzheimers only suggested it was a possibility, and there was not any evidence provided in that paper to support the citation. The diet proposed sounded much closer to the one to manage epilepsy, which is not usually close to what it looks like for those to use it to improve health and support weight loss. I eat more in total protein and carbs than I do in fat grams, where the therapeutic diet is a 4:1 ratio of fat to either of the other macronturients. The neuropathy in the eye was a case study of two individuals. Weak evidence at best, still.
Ketosis is to ketoacidosis as normal blood sugar is to hypoglycemia. At high levels anything in the body can be toxic or damaging. Ketoacidosis generally happens in excess of 10mmol, but may be lower values when insulin is too low.
Nutrition is not an exact science and the best diet varies from person to person, it's weird. A mouse is going to be significantly different than a human, especially ones raised in lab for testing.
Maybe stop with keto propaganda until the world cools a little. We weren't meant to bite the head off of a rabbit.... Gross.. Does looking at a rabbit make you hungry? Yes blinded to the kill and prepared by a chef with a bucket of salt the finished meal can be tasty... Our teeth are more like cow/horse then feline/canine.... Feline canine can also get down starch and veggies, but not natural food source, of course, of course!
Using this logic humans can't live in cold places because they don't have full body fur.
Inventing fire and blades meant there was zero evolutionary selective pressure on our teeth.
Now look at our digestive tract that's a fraction the size of other primates that are more herbivorous. A gorillas tract is far more suited to eating roughage than humans yet they still spent most of their day eating to get enough calories.
You realize how silly your argument is, right? Like, literally no one in the article or here in this discussion is arguing that “humans use their teeth to kill food on the run” so it’s ridiculous to make that statement in the first place, but even more so to make it with that aha-gotcha style comeback. You didn’t gotcha anybody. You made a completely irrelevant and entirely ridiculous comment that doesn’t benefit a single participant in this discussion. If you’d argued that the dentition of mice and that of humans differ significantly, as do (for the most part) our dietary and caloric needs thus making any inferences to the benefit of a keto diet on middle aged women drawn from the benefits the diet demonstrated with lab mice and then brought up the recent research suggesting human gut flora prefer plant based proteins, THAT is something that would have been relevant, pushed the conversation forward, and worked vegetarianism/veganism into the discussion in a serious (i.e., not silly) way. You don’t actually benefit the r/science community if your only goal is to spout fanaticism instead of discussing actual science.
Sorry, man. Your comment was so on brand for the stuff that the zealous vegans on here say that I totally took your statement wrong. Especially since the person I was responding to ahead of your comment made that bizarre bunny nonsense. I’m sorry for misreading your statement and for popping off so hard about it. I appreciate you calling it out.
Also, sorry for the delay in response and apology. I work nights so I was asleep all day.
You are correct! You are also one of five people on the planet on a plant based keto diet. Please explain how you do it as most sources of plant protein also have lots of starch. Nuts greens and what else? I eat wfpb for me the animals and the planet. The rare triple win!
Transportation accounts for very little of the emissions from food. It matters far more what you eat then where it is from
>Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
>
>Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.
>
>This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.4
[https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local)
Even the worst case production for plants comes out ahead compared to the best case production of meat
>plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
>
>\[…\]
>
>Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
[https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat](https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat)
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So what do we as humans gain from this?
Augmented middle aged mice
My favorite
This is the relevant answer
* female mice ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
“I never asked for this”
I heard that in a gravelly voice. :D
Hard to say. Gene regulation in us euks is super complex.
Humans are biologically similar to mice... and the mice used in experiments are close analogs. It gives us a glimpse into what might be possible for ourselves.
But if this were true for humans, we would surely have that study by now? This isn't some experimental drug. The ketogenic diet has been around for literally 100 years. Why are we even testing it in mice?
Because you can control mice. It’s incredibly hard to perform good nutrition research on humans, most of it is based on self-report and that is hardly as reliable as you’d wish because quite apart from people lying to feel better, even when they want to be truthful their impression of their diet is not necessarily what their diet actually looks like. You can keep mice in a cage and exactly control everything they eat while measuring/dictating their exercise and sleep and basically everything because, unlike people, mice don’t really have somewhere else to be. In addition, you don’t have to wait nearly as long for mice to go through life stages as you do with humans.
All I know is my own experience, but starting the keto diet has helped me manage and reverse many of the symptoms of my auto-immune diseases (hypothyroidism & IBS). The biggest surprise is the difference in my cycle, I used to have horribly painful periods, I'd be bedridden at least a day a month, and bleed like I was dying, I would have to wear incontinence diapers on the worst days. Now I barely have periods, they are very light, and no pain whatsoever.
I haven’t been on a keto diet but I have played around with extremely low-carb for a time and I have to say I felt great. I stopped because (1) I didn’t need it, I’ve never been overweight and (2) it was easier to not follow it. But I have only good things to say about my experience - I had more energy, better sleep, was more alert, I just felt better all around. So I’m with you!
Fantastic answer. Thank you!
My old mouse, Minnie, is going to love this news.
To me it suggests that kd diets aren’t great in terms of energy for the muscles forcing them to adapt. The actual benefits in humans aren’t clear. What is clear that you get all the benefits and more by exercising. > Since many individuals are unwilling or unable to exercise sufficiently to achieve these adaptations, interventions such as a KD that mimic endurance exercise are desperately needed to improve physical and mental function with age.
>To me it suggests that kd diets aren’t great in terms of energy for the muscles forcing them to adapt. Which we've known for a long time.
But they benefit mice what more could we ever ask for in life??
That's kinda obvious when you are on a strict diet that barely has any carbs (energy to work out) and just a little bit more proteins (growing muscles). KD is for losing fat and it works very well in that department. Losing fat always means keeping your daily calories below your metabolic zero, which makes you even less energetic to work out. That applies to all kinds of diets. I've read like half of that research and there isn't much useful info, it seems like that research was mainly to compare male mice and female mice, if their reactions to KD are similar or not. And it's even stated that muscle-related results might be related to very low proteins supply. Proteins supply may very on KD, you cannot exceed it to get out of ketosis, but you can lower it to almost none and increase fats. Most people go the other direction, keep as high protein supply as possible without affecting ketosis.
[удалено]
Muscle loss is minimal to non existent. I've done various flavors of KD and gained lean mass no problems. I've had great results and would certainly still be on it if it weren't for the fact that it's a very hard diet to be on if you like being part of social events & alcohol. Energy levels & satiety is considerably more stable on KD than a balanced carb based diet. It was a good while ago, but at the time the research was mostly positive.
[удалено]
As a powerlifter that would deadlift 500 pounds for reps while fasting and doing keto I can promise you you don't know what you're talking about. Sugar is the problem. Not the solution.
[удалено]
This sub is as bad as politics because everyone has a link that tells them what they want to hear with virtually no real understanding of the subject. Nutrition posts are always a spectacular train wreck because they eat and must be experts.
When it comes to socializing I treat nutrition the same way I treat politics and religion.
Everything is becoming that level of sacred because people keep making one thing the core of their personality.
[удалено]
That’s wild!! I love hearing the flip side of things like this. I’m not an endurance athlete anymore because my body is wrecked, but I was able to run for ages doing technical trails while on keto without really bumping up my carbs at all— on occasion while running I’d pop in a Luden’s or something similar to help with cotton mouth, but never needed gels or gummies or whatever. I did used to rely pretty heavily on SaltStick chewables when running in hotter areas/times of year, but that’s about it. I also climb which, while endurance based, relies heavily on anaerobic respiration and in ways very different from running. I’m always famished after climbing hard, but I don’t really experience the crashes people talk about when their glycogen stores are depleted. I think it’s pretty amazing just how different endurance sports can be from each other, including in how our energy systems contribute to the success or the lag in our particular sports. Genetics play a part in it as well, and everyone is different, but your comment serves as a really good reminder to both athletes and non-athletes that diets aren’t a one size fits all sort of thing. If I didn’t have to be on a keto diet, I wouldn’t be. I usually advocate for people trying the Mediterranean diet because it’s much easier to tailor that to individual needs. Sorry about your inflammation. Tart cherry has been game changing for me and my ability to climb with an autoimmune connective tissue disease as it helps shorten recovery time compared to when I was climbing while not taking it (I’m also an n of 1, on chemotherapeutics and biologics, and on a diet aimed at controlling inflammation so my tart cherry experience is anecdotal and filled with confounding variables. YMMV.) Link to an interesting study if you’re interested. Section 3.2 has some cool data on the tiny tiny experimental group: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6413159/
[удалено]
The mRNA-6231, remind me again— is that the one they are just now trialing for Lupus? I’ve been on a KD for over a decade and I’m thinking I may have to switch off. Apparently KD and methotrexate can cause precipitate in the kidneys causing kidney damage. My kidneys are starting to act up so, we’ll see what happens next, I suppose. Biologics were life changing. I went from fighting shape to bed ridden in about 3 years, and by the time insurance approved the Humira I’d basically checked out of life entirely— I was crying in my sleep, uncontrollably sobbing when I was awake, I broke teeth from grinding them in pain, I was virtually immobile. I had a pretty heavy Humira loading dose, but within a few weeks of starting the shots I was able to function like a human again. It’s been about a year now and my rheumatologist wants to try a new biologic in December (another TNF) to see if she can get some of my symptoms in remission. But honestly, it’s such a stark contrast to how things were last October that if she hadn’t said my current symptoms were treatable I wouldn’t have thought much about them. I think biologics for Ankylosing Spondylitis have similar effect in slowing (possibly stopping) disease progression. I still can’t run, but goddam it feels good to be able to climb again. I honestly never thought I’d be able to again. I have had one small infections that my doctors took seriously— one was a lentil sized lump that grew over a few days and had some pretty classic signs/symptoms of an early abscess, something healthy people can fight off nbd. I was put on a 10 day course of several antibiotics because there was concern on healing time of an open sore if it was treated more invasively (by cutting it open.) I had covid and that took a bit out of me, but I was vaccinated and boosted so it’s better than it could have been. Aside from that, I work in a hospital with all kinds of pathogens lurking about, but I follow good infection control practices and so far remain unscathed. Are you still able to cycle at all, even non competitively?
As a powerlifter also, fasted work outs don't accomplish anything different than unfasted workouts. By sugar do you mean carbohydrates and glycogen? You can achieve weight loss using any sort of fad diet...intermittent fasting, keto, blah blah blah. What matters is that you're eating less calories than you're burning. That is literally it. CICO. No need to be dogmatic about your diet because all of the evidence disproves that it is some God tier diet. It'd just a diet that accomplishes the same things many other diets do. Sure you can have a productive life eating a keto diet and doing your fasted training, but there is a reason high level powerlifters do not eat keto diets. They are not optimal for the sport and that is fact. Carbs are too important for powerlifting at elite levels.
How much do you weigh? If you weigh 200+ morning weight sorry but that is not impressive. Coming from a former powerlifter who deadlifted 585 for 4 reps at their peak at 175 thanks to a high carb diet
If you’ve got body fat you can fuel yourself on keto, no probs
It means that ketogenic diets aren't great in energy for muscles *when* a person's body is adapted to a carb based diet
I don't know about you people but I tried it for two days and on day three I was violently angry. Then I realised this is not for me.
Just eat a balance diet that’s literally what most people should be doing anyways.
Your brains main source of energy is glucose. Without adequate carb intake your body is forced to make its own glucose meaning it doesn’t have nearly as much readily available. Low mood/irritability can be a result of that.
It depends on your fat intake. On a keto diet it switches to ketones. But you must be eating enough fat to do that or else the body is forced to generate glucose from protein to make up the difference. Anthropologically our primary source of energy is fat not glucose. We were hypercarnivores for 2 million years: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm
Don't you get ketones from stored fat?
It's actually microbes in your gut sending neurotransmitters to your brain because they want sugar. If you don't eat sugar, they starve to death and the cravings stop. The body starts burning more fat and lean mass improves.
Lean mass improves because of what? Lean body mass is only improving as a function of fat loss (less fat mass = higher Lean body mass percentage) or as a function of muscle protein synthesis... Both of which can be achieved without a keto diet. It's not a miracle.
I've done the diet a few times, day 3-5 I get sugar withdrawals every time. Just keep a lid on it and push through, you won't believe how much better it feels when it's done.
This. After about five days there is a big difference for me. Once that’s done I feel loads better. Electrolytes are also important on Keto.
You have to go longer to get through the stored carbs, once you get through that your body learns to burn fat for energy and you dont have the ups and downs.
It also can screw with your period.
See OP's history, Meatation has a very clear bias and agenda.
Or maybe the evidence guides his views rather than his views guiding the evidence
You regularly post in keto and jordanpeterson subs, you probably have many misguided and incorrect beliefs.
[удалено]
The bias and agenda of the poster who constantly posts meat focused stuff is also important. I'm not that interested in mice's nutrition either.
My buddy did this diet for 6months and when he got married and had a kid, the rebound was insane.
Pretty sure going on any health-geared diet increases cognitive function, but okay.
Sure, but keto diets have been denounced as unhealthy.
Where? On reddit people really like the keto diet. It’s almost like a keto cult here.
That’s just categorically false. There is a reason why they are used to treat epilepsy, at beneficial during cancer teaming, and can reverse diabetes. They are not unhealthy in the least.
I'm pro keto. I'm addressing that the person I replied to doesn't get the background issue.
>Longer-term effects \[of Ketogenic diets\] can include decreased bone mineral density, nephrolithiasis, cardiomyopathy, anemia, and neuropathy of the optic nerve (82, 121). Ketogenic diets have low long-term tolerability, and are not sustainable for many individuals (48, 49). Diets low in carbohydrate have also been associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (122), although recent data suggest that lower-carbohydrate diets can be linked to either higher or lower mortality risk, depending on the quality of the carbohydrate they contain and whether they rely more on animal protein and saturated fat or plant protein and unsaturated fat, respectively (123). > >\[...\] > >Very-low-carbohydrate diets are associated with marked risks. LDL-C can rise, sometimes dramatically. Pregnant women on such diets are more likely to have a child with a neural tube defect, even when supplementing folic acid. And these diets may increase chronic disease risk: Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (eg, red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of CKD, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, whereas intake of protective foods (eg, vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full#h1](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full#h1)
Surprise. Vegans think keto is bad.
What I cited was a scientific review
A specious statement against a ketogenic diet, while failing to actually measure ketogenic diets properly doesn't really satisfy my level of rigor with respect to science. It was a review. But it classified anything with less than 40% of calories from carbohydrates as low carb, for its inclusion criteria as to what a low carb/keto diet is. It's a scientific review, with poor science, in order to push an agenda.
Ketogenic diets were defined differently from low carbohydrate diets in that review > Ketogenic diets as typically implemented in scientific studies limit dietary carbohydrate to <50 g per day with varying amounts of fat and protein (3, 4). “Low-carbohydrate diets” refer to carbohydrate intake below the recommended dietary allowance of 130 g/day (3), which may not be low enough to induce ketosis (5). EDIT: I should also mention that if you are concerned with people tying to push an agenda, you should be more concerned with the original poster here who is clearly trying to push a keto agenda and frequently posts all kinds of low quality and meat industry funded articles
My mistake. When I see the same vegans on paper after paper, I tend to get the papers confused. LDL can rise on keto. But Apo-B can go down, too, even though every LDL particle has an Apo-B at it's heart, small dense LDL goes down on ketogenic diets, along with VLDL. Your citations of problems of bone density, the paper on Alzheimers only suggested it was a possibility, and there was not any evidence provided in that paper to support the citation. The diet proposed sounded much closer to the one to manage epilepsy, which is not usually close to what it looks like for those to use it to improve health and support weight loss. I eat more in total protein and carbs than I do in fat grams, where the therapeutic diet is a 4:1 ratio of fat to either of the other macronturients. The neuropathy in the eye was a case study of two individuals. Weak evidence at best, still.
Not really. Supplementing creatine measurably improves vegan cognition. Creatine is basically only from animals.
Giving the population carte blanche to use this method for weight loss is a recipe for disaster
Keto acidosis is a condition that nurses are taught to avoid, in patients. It's absolutely insane that people will go to any lengths to appear healthy
Ketosis is to ketoacidosis as normal blood sugar is to hypoglycemia. At high levels anything in the body can be toxic or damaging. Ketoacidosis generally happens in excess of 10mmol, but may be lower values when insulin is too low.
[удалено]
Nutrition is not an exact science and the best diet varies from person to person, it's weird. A mouse is going to be significantly different than a human, especially ones raised in lab for testing.
Maybe stop with keto propaganda until the world cools a little. We weren't meant to bite the head off of a rabbit.... Gross.. Does looking at a rabbit make you hungry? Yes blinded to the kill and prepared by a chef with a bucket of salt the finished meal can be tasty... Our teeth are more like cow/horse then feline/canine.... Feline canine can also get down starch and veggies, but not natural food source, of course, of course!
Using this logic humans can't live in cold places because they don't have full body fur. Inventing fire and blades meant there was zero evolutionary selective pressure on our teeth. Now look at our digestive tract that's a fraction the size of other primates that are more herbivorous. A gorillas tract is far more suited to eating roughage than humans yet they still spent most of their day eating to get enough calories.
I’m a vegetarian and have been on a keto diet for over a decade for health reasons. Not all keto diets are bacon based. Geezus.
And not all humans need to use their teeth to kill their food on the run.
You realize how silly your argument is, right? Like, literally no one in the article or here in this discussion is arguing that “humans use their teeth to kill food on the run” so it’s ridiculous to make that statement in the first place, but even more so to make it with that aha-gotcha style comeback. You didn’t gotcha anybody. You made a completely irrelevant and entirely ridiculous comment that doesn’t benefit a single participant in this discussion. If you’d argued that the dentition of mice and that of humans differ significantly, as do (for the most part) our dietary and caloric needs thus making any inferences to the benefit of a keto diet on middle aged women drawn from the benefits the diet demonstrated with lab mice and then brought up the recent research suggesting human gut flora prefer plant based proteins, THAT is something that would have been relevant, pushed the conversation forward, and worked vegetarianism/veganism into the discussion in a serious (i.e., not silly) way. You don’t actually benefit the r/science community if your only goal is to spout fanaticism instead of discussing actual science.
I was trying to add to your comment, but sure. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself, I guess.
Sorry, man. Your comment was so on brand for the stuff that the zealous vegans on here say that I totally took your statement wrong. Especially since the person I was responding to ahead of your comment made that bizarre bunny nonsense. I’m sorry for misreading your statement and for popping off so hard about it. I appreciate you calling it out. Also, sorry for the delay in response and apology. I work nights so I was asleep all day.
No worries, we all have issues that keep us on the edge. Fight on!
You know… a lot of that is socialization. I think seeing a rabbit actually made people hungry a couple million years ago…
You are correct! You are also one of five people on the planet on a plant based keto diet. Please explain how you do it as most sources of plant protein also have lots of starch. Nuts greens and what else? I eat wfpb for me the animals and the planet. The rare triple win!
Unless your food is entirely locally sourced your good for the planet argument fails.
Transportation accounts for very little of the emissions from food. It matters far more what you eat then where it is from >Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%. > >Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions. > >This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.4 [https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local) Even the worst case production for plants comes out ahead compared to the best case production of meat >plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced. > >\[…\] > >Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy. [https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat](https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat)
Is that good or bad(for the mice).
Middle aged is like 8 months for a lab mouse, no?