Refute an Article

[jhilgeman]

Hi,

I'm looking for someone to counter an article that I've written/compiled from different sources. Due to the popularity of low-carb diets, I was originally under the impression that low-carb dieting was a positive, working idea, but the more I look up on the Internet about ketogenic / low-carb dieting, the more sources I find that suggest that it is unhealthy. Obviously, I'm striving for the truth in the article, so I need some people to refute it.

The article is at http://www.ketogenic.net called "What is Ketogenic?"

If you can't respond to/counter the article, if you could point me in the right direction, I would really appreciate it. Thank you!

(BTW, I'm posting this to a lot of different low-carb sites, so you might see this on another site forum.)

- Jonathan

[lkonzelman]

Hi Jonathan -

I looked at the site you posted and can't find the specifics like who wrote it and what their credentials are and where are the case studies are that this information represents.

Just linking to other reputable sites doesn't make this information reputable.

I have done much research on the net as well and have found nothing documented by case study that proves this data to be true and what you will find on this forum is much living proof of the effectiveness of living low carb. Effectively true life case studies.

And my own experience is that living low fat - high carb kept me constantly hungry and never losing weight even with much exercise and now I feel healthy, full and am losing weight at a reasonable and I think healthy speed.

Also - please look on the links on the right of the Studies linked to this site when you get a chance.

All the best.

[jhilgeman]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. I'm looking up case studies but those tend to be harder to find - but perseverance (and maybe some book purchases) will pay off.

However, I still believe in the effects stated because on many of the forums I've visited, I see people complaining about this or that, and their complaints and symptoms (reported from their mouths - I'm not a doctor) seem to correlate with the article's predictions. I could save discussion threads and link the different pieces of the articles to those threads for the time being.

Basically, I do see a lot of people complaining that the weight loss is not constant, that things slow down after the first onset of loss. I do see people complaining about even the smallest signs, like bad breath (from the acetone ketone bodies), nausea, etc... . All this just tends to make me believe a bit more in what the different sources say (I will set out to create a references section at the bottom).

In any case, I wouldn't doubt that high-carb and low-fat diets would be bad for you, too, although I haven't done the research in that area just yet. But here's another question - what about a nutritional diet that would be about equal parts carb, protein, and fat combined with regular amounts of exercise? So rather than stressing one point, just even them all out...?

It just all sounds... well... in my opinion, it sounds unhealthy to fake your body into thinking that it's starving when it really isn't.

- Jonathan

[tofi]

There are facts and there are "this is fact so something else must be true."

For example: a person in ketosis may notice a particular sweetish or metallic odour to their breath. That is a fact. But it is not a fact that this odour is dangerous or bad in any way. Nor does it indicate illness.

Fact: the weight loss on ALL diets is not constant. All diets result in an initial loss in the first week or two which is greater than anything the person will see again - even if they stay on a particular diet for years. But it doesn't mean anything except that that is how the body works - it loses water first. Even on a starvation diet, the body adapts and tries to conserve itself as much as possible.

Go and visit a Weight Watchers support site if you want to see the same complaints about slow loss or stalls.

Case studies that prove "a ketogenic diet is harmful" to someone in normal good health without kidney or other problems are going to be IMPOSSIBLE (not just harder) to find, because there aren't any. Dr. Atkins alone has publicly on television challenged the medical community to come up with even one case of harm from a ketogenic diet. NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. And if you have read his book, he advises people with EXISTING kidney problems that his plan is not for them.

The eating plan you describe sounds quite a bit like The Zone. You could click on the heading to the right of this thread "which LC plan is right for me?" to read about it. Protein Power Plan does not talk about ketosis at all, nor test for it. Neither does Sugar Busters nor CAD/CALP.

Ketosis is a normal and natural state which many people get into without knowing it. Could be a pregnant woman who has morning sickness and can't keep food down, or someone with stomach flu who can't eat for several days.

Where did you get the idea that ketosis is "faking your body into thinking it's starving"? HOW could it possibly think it's starving when there is a steady and generous supply of protein, fat and low-glycemic carbohydrates coming in?

I think your reading and research should start in our "Low Carb Studies and Research/Media Watch" forum (find it near the top of the pull-down menu). There are many articles from journals WITH REFERENCES, authors and case studies that may answer some of your questions.

One very important point to note: there is often confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosi IS a dangerous condition for a DIABETIC to get into. Ketosis is not dangerous to a healthy person. In fact, many of us feel better, and our blood numbers (cholesterol, triglycerides, BP & pulse rate) have improved with ketosis.

I hope this helps to get you started on finding out why that article may be full of "fact" but the conclusions are not valid.

[jhilgeman]

Hi Tofi,

> There are facts and there are "this is fact so something else must be true."

I realize this, and I realize that it is a flaw in good logic. However, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then chances are it's a duck. To make an immediate connection without first checking-for-sure is a worse error, which is why I'm here trying to find these types of gaps in my article, and not just leaving my article as-is.

> But it is not a fact that this odour is dangerous or bad in any way.

Depends who's on the receiving end. :D But seriously, I'm not stating that the odor itself is dangerous. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people on low-carb forums complaining of certain problems, and that these problems fit in with the existing article.

> Fact: the weight loss on ALL diets is not constant.

Obviously true. Otherwise long-term diets would be fatal. :) Also, not all diets offer rapid weight loss in the first couple of weeks. Simple regular nutrition (eating balanced meals - not ones stressed in anything in particular) plus a good amount of exercise does not usually pay off with rapid weight loss during the first week or two and then stop. Rather, this type of conditioning seems to offer slow, but healthy and sure weight loss until the body is at a point where weight can just be maintained.

Rapid weight loss (b/c of water loss?) only seems to be on specialized diets like these, whether it's Atkins or Weight Watchers.

> Case studies that prove "a ketogenic diet is harmful" to someone in normal good health without kidney or other problems are going to be IMPOSSIBLE (not just harder) to find, because there aren't any.

That's an assumption. I might never find one, but that doesn't mean it's not out there and that I should just stop looking before I've started.

Besides, I'm not even saying for sure that a ketogenic diet will directly cause problems. Obviously there's always the possibility that any diet could cause problems with any person - there's just too many factors to say things for sure. The only inference I could draw from this whole thing is that if the ketogenic diet turned out to be harmful after all, that simple unhealthiness might cause problems.

> Dr. Atkins alone has publicly on television ...

Eh, it's probably best not to start your paragraphs with "This man has stood alone..." - it has a connotation of a scam artist. Before you get upset, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist - I'm just talking about your wording. I'm not even attacking Atkins - all I'm doing is questioning low-carb diets in general. If the Atkins diet fits into that category, then... <shrug>

> The eating plan you describe sounds quite a bit like The Zone.

The medium levels of everything? <shrug> That was just something that popped into my head. Still, these types of diets seem to focus way too much on strict adherence and any wavering will cause failure. Our bodies are so complex that I wouldn't be surprised if trying to manipulate/control them chemically via food and dieting would be generally unhealthy. Maybe high carbs are good for someone on one day and low carbs are good the next day, and then the next, too. Maybe a variety (as long as it's not just variety in the "Value Menu") is what the body needs in addition to exercise.

> Protein Power Plan does not talk about ketosis at all, nor test for it.

But it does advocate reduced carb intake, which would theoretically trigger ketosis. Just because it doesn't talk about it or test for it...

> Ketosis is a normal and natural state...

I disagree at this point. From what I've read, ketosis is the state you're in when you are running on backup power. Going back to the analogy I made in the article to electric power, when the regular power goes out and suddenly you're on backup power, do you consider it a normal and natural state? You kind of wait for the power to go back to normal, don't you? If the mind was meant to be fueled primarily by ketones all the time, why isn't that the case?

Similarly, I would ask you why you would consider starvation via morning sickness and the stomach flu normal and natural. Both are certainly temporary, and a person would most likely incur serious health deficiencies if they had these problems every day.

Obviously, it's a good thing that you have a backup fuel source in your body, but I reiterate that I would think it would be dangerous to trick/force your body into using it instead of its preferred source.

> Where did you get the idea that ketosis is "faking your body into thinking it's starving"?

Because, as you said, ketosis is naturally-occurring. However, it naturally occurs when you're starving. By depriving your body of carbohydrates, you're simulating the lack of glucose you would experience during starvation. Perhaps you're not fooling the ENTIRE body into thinking that you really are starving, but you're triggering the criteria that is used by parts of your body to determine whether or not to produce ketone bodies.

> One very important point to note: there is often confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis.

I understand, but my article is dealing with ketosis, not ketoacidosis. Thanks for clearing that up anyway.

> Ketosis is not dangerous to a healthy person.

If everything in my article is factually correct, then I can't see why sustained ketosis would NOT be potentially dangerous to any person, healthy or not.

- Jonathan

[tamarian]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing you site with us.

I looked up all the opinions on your site and found not facts to refute, since they provide no scientific studies, just opinions and beleifs.

I respect you beleifs, whatever they are. But to claims that there are no clinical studies proving the a ketogenic diet is healthy, flies against a mountain of scientific and clinical studies, published here, and in medical journals (Clcik on Low-Carb Studies). In addition, it goes against the only diet we ever knew until recent times with the introduction of processed sugars and refined foods that coincided with the developments of all sorts of medical problems, diabetes, cholesterol etc..

It seems to me you started with the premise "Ketogenic" is unhealthy, so how can I find an analogy to explains it, hence questions about "What is a farmer had no rain for 10 years........"

If you are willing to accept the possibility that Ketogenic diets might actually be very healthy, you will easily find those facts. And we will gladly point to you and repeat those links from our list under Low-Carb Studies, if you can't find them.

Wa'il

[jhilgeman]

Hi Wa'il,
Believe me, I set out to write positive things on ketogenic diets. It was in my best interest to have a site that promoted them because I'm thinking of becoming a reseller of some ketogenic products and I wanted to promote myself through the site.

However, to try and remain as unbiased as possible, I searched with ambiguous terms so I wouldn't purposefully run into any site that hated ketogenic diets and I wouldn't run into any site that was pro-ketogenic diets, either. I wanted to start with something more unbiased and medical, and all the information that I found seemed relatively unbiased but said that while ketogenic diets were a good concept, they didn't work for weight loss.

Yes, the article was supposed to be easy-to-read, so I did take the concepts I read and tried to use analogies like the farmer gathering water. However, analogies aren't out to prove facts or anything - they are only there to make the article more interesting and help people understand the concept better.

> If you are willing to accept the possibility that Ketogenic diets might actually be very healthy, you will easily find those facts.

I did accept that possibility as a fact in the very beginning of all this. However, I did NOT want to go searching for biased information. I could easily go to Atkins' site and get all the supporting information I wanted (I was actually intending to request that Atkins link to my site once it was finished), but there is a big problem with this.

Atkins is trying to sell their products, so all of their information is obviously going to be nothing but good information about ketogenic diets. Thus, I'll have less chances of running into phrases like, "My diet is good, but there are some legitimate downsides to it." Even if there were phrases like that, they most likely wouldn't be in-depth.

Someone said there would be a lack of case studies against ketogenic diets - this is probably true. After all, case studies cost lots of money to organize and publish, so it would make sense for Atkins to have lots of case studies to sell their products. Likewise, it would make sense to have a lack of case studies against Atkins or any diet because there's no money to be made unless you're selling a competing brand.

I also tried to avoid any other competing brands that would have reason to bash ketogenic diets. If someone is not out to sell something to you, there's a higher likelihood that you'll get more honesty out of them on the subject. After all, it's not their product, so they have nothing to gain or lose.

You also implied that by starting with a premise of "ketogenic diets are unhealthy," that I was doing it incorrectly. However, starting with any premise of opinion is incorrect. Once again, unbiased information.

Finally, I -have- read some of the studies and am still reading them. I appreciate people pointing me to them, but I have to weigh out the total credibility of each study and try to read it from an objective point of view. After all, it's easier to see what you believe, right? :)

- Jonathan

[suze_c]

I found this website when looking for some evidence to give someone who was bashing my LC'ing... It has some very valid points...


in reference to low-carb ignorance & myths (click here) (http://chris.agenteight.com/archives/000145.html)

[jhilgeman]

I'm still reading this, but I thought I'd mention that this guy has no references, either. I just thought that was a bit ironic in this situation at this point (I am about 3/4ths done compiling a list of references for my article that I will put up soon).

- Jonathan

[Lisa N]

I have to say....

Ketosis is not just a state you are in when you are starving. It's a state you are in whenever you are burning fat. Fat metabolism produces ketones as a byproduct of that metabolism. So unless you are willing to say that all diets where fat is burned (and that would pretty much include all diets for the purpose of weight loss) are unhealthy, you might want to rethink your position on the danger of ketosis.
Furthermore, our ancestors that lived in hunter/gatherer societies lived in a state of ketosis for several months out of every year and did quite well on it. Inuits that follow a traditional Inuit diet still live in that state for many months of the year and have a much lower rate of disease then than their higher carb counterparts.
Being in ketosis does not mean that you are starving, although one could argue that all diets that produce weight loss through a negative caloric balance are simply a controlled state of starvation. Is this dangerous or desired for weight loss? If it's dangerous, then all diets that produce weight loss through "starvation" should be condemned equally. Personally, I get more than enough calories daily to support my basal metabolic functions (between 1,500 and 1,800 daily) and have still managed to lose 75 pounds over an 18 month period (no...my weight loss did not stop after a few weeks).
Finally, I have to disagree with your statement that a ketogenic diet can only benefit certain rare disorders. I wouldn't consider diabetes, especially in it's near-epidemic proportions, a rare disorder and low carb diets are certainly helpful in controlling that disease as well as insulin resistance.

[Kristine]

Hi Jonathan,

One section I have a particular problem with: ...depriving your body's natural homes and offices of their normal power source {glucose} and forcing them to run on backup power can create problems where problems did not exist (some sources even suggest potential fatality). What sources? What problems, exactly? I know you wanted to make this reader-friendly, but I think it sounds rather vague and could be improved with a more facts and sources. I happen to dislike analogies. Don't assume that the reader isn't intelligent enough to understand basic biology - provide the necessary facts.

Another point: "The time {ketosis} happens naturally is when you are starving." But it also happens naturally when you consume the same type of diet that humans ate for the majority of our *2,000,000* history - a protein and fat based diet. Grains were only consumed for the last 10,000 years. Our ancient ancestors were probably in ketosis much of the time, save for when they came across a fruit tree or managed to nab some honey without being stung by bees...

I do appreciate the fact that you didn't equate "low-carb" with "ketogenic." I have been low-carbing for quite a while, and I probably wouldn't have had measureable ketones once. But - it should be pointed out that no low carb program I've ever seen recommends being in ketosis for ever and ever, amen. It's a temporary state until you are ready to move to maintenance.

Ketosis doesn't mean that you're lacking glucose. Your body produces it - if it didn't, everyone on Atkins would be severly hypoglycemic and drop dead. Ketosis means you're burning your body fat - it doesn't mean you consume zero carbohydrates, or that there's any lack of glucose in your blood.

[rjakubin]

You said you wanted references or a name of a book. Read "Life Without Bread" by Christian B. Allan & Wolfgang Lutz" They explain ketosis very well and very simply. They also give references to some very big studies. I'd look them up but I won't. Your pickin on Atkins. Theres more than Atkins out there to explain low carbing as a valid life style. Pick on Schwarzbien and Perricone. These two doctors experimented on themselfs to get they're health back in order.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
but I have to weigh out the total credibility of each study and try to read it from an objective point of view. After all, it's easier to see what you believe, right?

This is too vague Jonathan. I don't see how you did any research on this topic.

Which scientific journals have you read, and which scientific journal study did you find biased? If you are willing to list them, then we will at least have something to discuss.

We've had many come here, and list vague references to studies, but they all share a common problem, then can't recall which study. That's just too convenient to support one's argument!

I was going to point you to some scientific studies, but if every study that doesn't match your assumptions is biased, then your are not really open to any facts, you made up your mind. That's fine too.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

Let's not forget Drs. Dan and Mary Eades who co-authored Protein Power and also use the low carb diet themselves and recommend it to their patients with no reported ill-effects to health long-term.
Then there's Dr. Richard Bernstein, a type 1 diabetic who has been using a ketogenic diet to control his diabetes for more than 40 years (with reversal of previous diabetic complications) and has been using it to control diabetes in his patients for more than 20 years. Again, no reported ill-effects to health unless you consider weight loss and a reduced (or no) need for medications to control diabetes an ill effect.

[seyont]

Jonathan,

Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills? It's a pleasant-looking site with nice, low bandwidth requirements. I like it. iCab will give you an 'HTML 4.0 Strict' smilie if you add the '!DOCTYPE' tag and not use the 'CENTER' and 'U' tags.

If it's meant as a cybersquat, you need far more outrageous content. Dr Ornish (http://www.ornish.com) might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" (http://www.google.com/search?q=anti-atkins) would also be a good start.

If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans, then perhaps we should wait until the paste dries. Some minor points, though :

In "What is Ketogenic?" you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs. Yes, Zero Carbs would technically be Ketogenic but the reverse is not necessarily true. Starting with this definition as the foundation of your site is risky, as everything else depends on people not noticing that what you are condemning does not actually exist.

Under "Side Effects of Ketones", you've done a good job asserting that the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms. If, however, ketones are the by-product of any lipolysis then this section gets pretty shaky.

Under "The Main Reason for Weight Loss" you should probably use another word for glycogen. Any reader who does a search will find that the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen. That would place the limit of ketogenic weight loss, acc. to your calculations, at 800 grams. Not much of a diet, eh?

The last two sections, "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.

Might I suggest turning "What is Ketogenic?" (http://www.ketogenic.net/whatis.php) into a personal study of the low-carb regimen? You have come to the right place...

[rjakubin]

(seyont) You're right about your body can only store 200 grams of glycogen. As a bicyclists I found out the hard way what a 'bonk' was. After riding my bike for an hour and a half to two hours I would suddenly slow down and expierence a type of brain fog. Doing some research I found out it was my glycogen stores in my body being used up and my body was switching to burning fat. Any bicycling web site will fully explain this phenomenon. It doesn't mean I couldn't finish the ride home - I did but as the cycling web sites point out in greater detail at only 50% VO2 Max. Let's say for instance one day Jonathan for some oddball reason was very busy and had very little to eat and went to bed. Would he wake up in ketosis???

[jhilgeman]

I will pick up this discussion tomorrow as soon as I finish some of the studies listed here. However, here are some quick comments (not meant to address the entire responses just yet):

First, remember that I've only started to study all of this. I came here with the intention of getting my article refuted. I say this because the wording of some of you sounds upset. I'm keeping an open mind here - I benefit from being re-convinced that the low-carb diet works, and am open to changing my opinion. I would appreciate it if you all would do the same and don't take offense. A critical look is sometimes frustrating but necessary to establish good grounds.

Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.

I never stated that weight loss via negative calories was bad. However, it all depends on how the negative balance is reached.

At this point, I haven't done any research into diabetes and low-carb, but I'll take your word for it that it would be another disorder benefiting from the diet. (Edited: I'm still planning on studying diabetic <-> low-carb connection, but for now, I'll take your word for it...)

Kristine:
You asked about the sources - I've since provided a list of references. I didn't want to shout the fatality thing to the mountaintops, so that was the only place I said it - in parentheses, prefixed with "potential." I figured it sounded a bit too drastic. I would think that the source (I can find out which one of the references said it) may have established a vague link between anorexic deaths and low-carb dieting, but that's a total guess.

Sorry you don't like analogies - they're not just there to explain things, though. I find them entertaining - reader's preference, I suppose.

I'm also guessing "*2,000,000* history" means 2 million years of history (based on your comment about 10,000 years of age, which would imply that you didn't believe in the common young earth). As stated above, there's really no way anyone could know what people ate 2 million years ago (assuming validity of the age). And if they're hunters/gatherers, wouldn't they eat fruit, too?

While I didn't explicitly equate low-carb and ketogenic, I would venture that they are similar, if not the same thing? If you drank a lot of water on the diet, you may dilute the amount of measurable ketones (or so says the "Theoretical Basis for Ketogenic Diets" - one of my sources listed at the bottom of the article).

I'll investigate your last comment more tomorrow before I make a comment on that.

rjakubin:
Fascinating - I'll check it out. Thank you! (But I'm not picking on Atkins specifically, even if I made some comments about Atkins in this discussion)

tamarian:
Just because I said I'd weigh the credibility doesn't mean I automatically discredit them. Don't be so quick to assume - it's a bad habit that I have. Go ahead and point me to the journals.

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

So do prolonged diets for weight loss of any kind, as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced. Low carb diets only produce ketosis for as long as necessary to reach a desired weight loss goal and then carbs are gradually raised until weight loss stops, at which point most people are no longer in a ketotic state. How long that takes depends on how much weight a person has to lose and how long it takes them to lose it. Most people are no longer in ketosis on a steady basis (as defined by Atkins) at anything above 50 grams of carb per day.


You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.

It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate, you will not be able to gather fruit or berries year round or green vegetable matter, either; only when they are in season which is only a few months out of the year. What you do manage to gather, dry and store will be a small amount that would certainly not last through the winter months and you must carefully guard it against marauding rodents and other creatures. BTW...people on low carb diets do often eat fruit; mostly berries and melons, but fruit today is bred for much higher sugar content than that of fruit several thousand years ago.
I also gave the example of the traditional Inuit diet which has been studied (see the writings of Stefansson) and was exactly as I outlined above. For the majority of the year, they lived on meat and blubber. Some types of Inuits ate no vegetable matter at all, even when it was in season, because of cultural taboos.

I never stated that weight loss via negative calories was bad. However, it all depends on how the negative balance is reached.

You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving. Negative calorie diets of all types are a type of controlled starvation...there's no tricking about it. Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation. Again, calorie deficit diets work in the same manner; they don't provide enough fuel for the body to function, so it turns to burning it's fat stores (and often its own muscle if protein is lacking as well as calories) to provide the energy it requires. If caloric intake drops below that which is required for basal metabolic functions, starvation begins. Low carb simply forces the body to burn more of its fat stores than it would if there were more carbs (the easier energy source) coming in. Since the metabolic pathways for fat metabolism require more energy than those of carbohydrate metabolism, a person who is losing weight via low carb can consume more calories than if they were losing weight via caloric deficit alone on high carb and still lose weight. It also controls insulin production which is key in fat storage and fat release (See Protein Power for a very thorough explanation of that process).

At this point, I haven't done any research into diabetes and low-carb, but I'll take your word for it that it would be another disorder benefiting from the diet. (Edited: I'm still planning on studying diabetic <-> low-carb connection, but for now, I'll take your word for it...)

If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Richard K. Bernstein in your research materials.

[rjakubin]

"I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty."
Lisa N - It sure was. Back then they didn't have pesticides so you can imagine the amount of juicy bugs an apple would have had. I read somewhere that the bugs provided a good protein source.

[Omega]

Originally posted by jhilgeman

Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.



Another thing to consider besides fruits are tubers (starchy, edible roots like potatoes and carrots). Here's an article that discusses that issue:

Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains? (http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html)

The debate in this article is whether it was the consumption of meat or tubers that allowed larger brain development. However, no one really seems to object to the idea that some prehistoric people may have consumed small to moderate amounts of starchy roots. The one thing that virtually everyone agrees to is that grain consumption wasn't much until about 40,000 - 10,000 years ago.

[suze_c]

The ketogenic diet can hardly be called unhealthy for certain individuals who have benefitted from it with severe epilepsy, where regular antiseizure medications have done nothing, yet this diet has been like a miracle for them... are you going to include them in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?

[Lisa N]

Absolutely, Suze_C...

It's also the diet of choice for women with PCOS because of the insulin resistance and high risk for diabetes associated with this syndrome (which I'd also like to note is another condition that could not be considered "rare").

[suze_c]

As far as finding evidence to the contrary about this way of eating being healthy, I am sure that you can... if a person looks hard enough, and reads things the "right" way, most anything can be refuted... The thing is though... why not look at all the maladies,the varying degrees of obesity from a few pounds overweight to morbid obesity and physical conditions,for lack of a better word at the moment, that ketogenic diets have HELPED! Browse this forum, and see the tremendous witness to the thousands, yes LITERALLY thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating... There will ALWAYS be the naysayers... because it is something that goes against the "norm". Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!? Our body physiology has certainly been thrown out of whack, by numerous conditions, and in most cases, do not respond to "traditional" means of losing weight, or "traditional" means of treating the certain conditions... and if time allowed me, I would go into more detail, but I have to get my son ready for school~ think about what I have proposed here.."think outside the box".

[agonycat]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.




How do we know for sure? Something called winter. Fruit bearing plants do not grow fruit in the ice/snow or cold temps.

Now our ancestors may or may not have figured out how to dry fruits or preserve fruits. I am willing to bet they were not proficient in this skill and gathered fruit when it was available in the spring/summer/fall months.

Plus the climate back then was a bit colder than what we experience now.

[jhilgeman]

So many posts to answer... still haven't gotten time to search for the studies... Let me begin answering posts, though.

seyont:
> Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills?
I appreciate the comments on my design skills. I like to learn about a wide variety of topics, so I'll pick a topic, and stick with it until I'm decent at it, and then go on with something else. I learned web design a few years back. However, this isn't the topic at hand, but thanks. (It's not a cybersquat - just another topic I've chosen because of the potential reselling of some ketogenic products)

> Dr Ornish might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" would also be a good start.
I haven't heard of Dr. Ornish nor of Anti-Atkins, but those sound a bit biased against the topic, so they weren't in my search criteria. At this point, they may come in useful in this debate. Most of you have probably already debated the points, so it would be easy coverage. I'll look at them later.

> If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans...
Again, it's not an attempt to discredit the diet plan. That's just how it came out.

> you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs.
I quickly re-read my article and didn't see that equation anywhere. I didn't equate that because from what I read, it was about low-carbs, not about no-carbs.

> the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms
This is something that I'm getting close to changing. From what I've gathered here, would it be factually correct to say that ketosis (aka lipolysis aka ketosis/lipolysis) happens at any time the body burns fat? If so, would the only thing that would trigger the burning of fat be the absence of glucose to use as fuel? And if so, wouldn't the state of ketosis only be extremely short/temporary, in which case the symptoms would not have a chance to appear unless ketosis was sustained?

Also, which of the symptoms would you consider to be factually incorrect when linked to ketosis? For sure, bad breath... which gives me another point to heckle with Atkins. I just finished reading one of their FAQs which stated that its not bad breath - just different breath. However, according to the numerous related posts that I've read on this forum, it's a bad different (which can be helped with those Listerine strips, which Atkins could sell on their site :D). Either way, it's these little wording things that just detract credibility points from articles written by people trying to sell their products. Personally, I would've stated, "Yes, it gives you bad breath, but here are ways around it..." rather than trying to "spin" it. But that's just me and that's just Atkins.

> the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen
On the Atkins FAQ I just mentioned, it stated that it can hold two days' supply of glycogen ("glucose in the form of glycogen"). A two days' supply is 200 grams? That seems a little small. Is there another term that would be more appropriate in that context?

> "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.
Just because of the analogies?

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa N:
>as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced.
But again, things like exercise might burn fat, but those ketones are not constant. In a low-carb diet, the ketogenic state is sustained / continuous. A prolonged diet doesn't necessarily have to be a continuous action of dieting - a diet plan could simply include a schedule of activities that burn fat - slowly but surely. At least this is what I'm reading into here.

However, you did bring up an excellent point that I had not heard about - that is, that people are not in a ketogenic state at any point they are on the diet, and that after the weight loss has been achieved, they increase the carb counts slowly until loss stops. At that point, they maintain their current weight and level of carbohydrates. Did I read this correctly? So what is happening chemically at that point? Are transitions into ketogenic states just more frequent than your usual non-dieting person, so some balance is achieved?

> It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate...
Heh - we're getting into evolution-istic area here, assuming cold climates and an old earth. Personally, I'm a Creationist (although you could technically have an old-earth-Creationist, but I think a young-earth-Creationist is more logical reasoning). So there's an obvious conflict there, but either way, there would still be no way of determining what the climates were like back then, nor would there be a way to positively say that certain crops were out of season at different points. If you want to get technical about it, you can look at it from an evolutionist's POV and ask yourself if man evolved so much over the millions or billions of years (depending on which evolutionist theory you subscribe to), why would climates and plants not have evolved, as well? This could get into a lot of areas that aren't really related to this topic, but for now, it would be safer to assume that we have no real knowledge of how things were thousands, millions, and/or billions of years ago. Someone sarcastically stated that there would be bugs in the fruit, but I would venture that the person has not grown up in a variety of settings including orchards and houses with a couple fruit trees, with and without pesticides. Trust me - I've lived the fruity life :D and that isn't a very valid argument against eating fruit back then.

I don't know about the Inuit diets, though, but I would also venture that a lifestyle change would also be in order with a diet change, so I'm not sure if that was studied, as well. If you happen to find the study online anywhere, please let me know - I'll keep my eye out, too.

> You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving
However, burning calories wouldn't necessarily be controlled starvation. Since starvation is not considered something we are normally in, and since we burn calories just by typing on a keyboard or walking somewhere, it would stand to reason that starvation wouldn't result just from normal burning of calories. Thus, a diet including a plan of scheduled exercise to burn more calories wouldn't be considered controlled starvation, as long as you're eating correctly.

> Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation.
You're right. It isn't - you aren't really starving. That's why I didn't say that you were starving yourself - rather tricking your body into thinking that it's starving, when it really isn't. That was my point to make. Also, you just said that all negative caloric diets would be considered controlled starvation, and low-carb diets do seem to offer lower-calorie balances (even though you say you're -allowed- to eat more), so wouldn't they be considered controlled starvation?

> If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution
I will take that into consideration. Thank you!

------- On to the next person -------

Omega:
Back to evolution again? Just out of curiousity, how many of you believe in evolution? Not to pick a fight - just curious... I'm not going to discredit it here - this isn't the proper forum for that debate.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (1st post on 2nd page)
> are you going to include [epileptics] in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?
Ouch - this doesn't seem like a very good argument from you, suze_c. There's plenty of "medicine" out there that is unhealthy for you, but it can offer treatment at the same time.

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa_N:
> I'd also like to note [diabetes] is another condition that could not be considered "rare").
I never said epilepsy was rare - someone generated that somewhere along the line. If I recall correctly, it affects 1 out of every 200 people. Ebola's rare to me. Not epilepsy. Neither is diabetes - I concur. And again, note that I already had an article up there on epilepsy and the benefits epileptics can receive from ketogenic dieting. I would've put one up on diabetics, but I wanted to do a little research before posting anything on that.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (2nd post)
> ...thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating...
I wouldn't doubt that it might work for many people. However, this isn't my point. Look at history and you'll find plenty of "solutions" that worked for thousands, even millions of people until someone found out that there were unpleasant sides to the solutions, at which point solutions get revoked. At this time, I've heard a lot of negative comments against ketogenic dieting that seem to make sense, and so I am trying to do a personal study into whether or not the comments hold water. There are lots of small signs that bother me, as well.

For instance, when new medicine is introduced, even revolutionary and provocatory medicine, the medical community tends to shun it for a few years, while they study it in secret, and then about 20 years later, you'll see it in use, or it'll just disappear. However, it's very unusual to have a treatment that gets introduced, gets shunned, and after a long period of time, it still has not been accepted by the medical community. To make it look even worse, a lone figurehead stands at one of the most widely-known varieties of the treatment. Lone figureheads, especially lone doctors, tend to turn out to be scam artists. Again, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist (at least I'm not saying that yet - you never know what the future holds). However, I am trying to describe the painting set before me, and what it's likened to, and the unusual circumstances I see. Now I'm just trying to clear up the negative commentaries to understand why it's all painted this way.

> Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!?
Actually... a couple of people implied it in this thread, I believe. But I think they were meaning physically intact (no physical disorders, diseases, etc).

> think outside the box
Not to sound egotistical, but I would classify people who would write an article like mine and then try to critically disprove it with a horde of opposing viewpoints as people who are thinking well outside the box.

Whew. I've already lost pounds typing all this.

- Jonathan

[jhilgeman]

One more quick thing. As I was reading through the "War" forum (a truly entertaining collection of threads - some people just can't argue and be civil...), I did notice that someone brought up something about a person named Phil Kaplan who was attacking Atkins and was promoting his own product. (Note, since he is attacking Atkins here, I'm just hopping along for the ride - my original intent is not focusing on Atkins alone - rather on general ketogenic dieting)

I glanced through PK's article and noted some interesting points, then came back to the intial thread that talked about the article. The basic responses were that PK was a "quack" and that he was out to sell his own product, but I didn't see anyone attacking his article. I'm guessing he probably makes points that everyone here disagrees with, but at the same time, is his information factually incorrect? One of the items that caught my eye was:

"1. Extended periods of ketosis affect the chemical composition of the blood in such a way that you increase risk of cardiac incident (blood ketoacidosis)."

I understand ketoacidosis is not ketosis, and that it's much worse than ketosis, but is it true to say that sustained ketosis increased the chances of progressing to ketoacidosis?

There were also some items about kidney stones being formed by many people on the Atkins diet. I'd have to some research on kidney stones, but wouldn't the presence of kidney stones indicate some deeper issues, or just an initial resistance to the diet? PK didn't pursue the issue of the stones much further, so not all of my questions were answered by his article.

It would seem questionable to just declare him a quack and discard his article because he's selling a competing product, IF he brings up any valid points. Even quacks might have good points. Any particular reason he's a quack besides that he's anti-low-carb?

- Jonathan

[agonycat]

Concerning your inquiry to Ketoacidosis.


http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26080&highlight=ketoacidosis

[jhilgeman]

agonycat:
Thank you, but that post you pointed to seemed misleading. All it did was describe what ketoacidosis was, and the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis. A summary of it looks like:

---
1. Ketosis doesn't lead to ketoacidosis.
2. This is what ketoacidosis is.
3. This is what ketosis is and epileptic kids use it to control seizures.
4. For more somewhat-related information, go here. (Nothing that talked about ketosis leading to ketoacidosis)

- Doreen
---

However, there's no support for #1. It's straw man logic. The closest Doreen gets is "Ketones don't cause ketoacidosis, but they are a result of it." But there's still no grounding for that argument/claim.

- Jonathan

[suze_c]

Let's just rename this whole part of the forum... "Let's Agree to Disagree" :lol: That sure seems like what is happening here... we all seem to have valid arguments for the most part, to support the way that we are thinking, and isn't that what a healthy debate is all about? As far as using a ketogenic diet to control epileptic seizures in cases where they cannot be controlled by the usual antiseizure medications... that to me is very important information, as my son suffers from a seizure disorder... I thank God above, that a change in medications was able to bring it more under control... But being in the "parent of a disabled child" *community*, so to speak, I do know of those with seizure disorders who were helped with a ketogenic diet... I don't plan on my *restricted* way of eating of being something that is going to last forever.... but it does show me how much of a "hold" that carbs have on me, and how much they affect me overall... when I do introduce more carbs back into my way of eating, they will be more natural ones and less processed and "man-made" ones,so to speak.To those who are carb sensitive, it is like a drug or a drink,... it so affects the body's physiology... in my opinion, asking someone to go back to carbage, i.e., the carbs unhealthy for them is no better than giving "bad drugs" back to a drug addict who has recovered,or alcohol to someone with a drinking problem who no longer boozes.

[jhilgeman]

suze_c:
This always happens - people don't want to argue anymore, so things stop at "Let's Agree to Disagree." To me, that's quitting and that's just room for more "naysayers" to come in. We are not at a standstill just yet, and I truly believe that all standstills can be resolved with valid persistence (rather than stubborness).

I can appreciate your situation and stance on the epilepsy issue, and I have concurred that the ketogenic diet does seem to offer a mystery phenomenon of seizure control. I am not debating its positive correlation to epilepsy - all research in this area seems to agree with each other, and seems straightforward. (There's still work to be done in the area since the correlation between ketones and seizure control is still unknown, though.)

What I -am- trying to do is clear the air of unsupported beliefs, and thus validate the foundation of a very popular form of dieting. If the foundation is rock solid, it will stand up to critical questions, and if it's weak, that will show, too.

- Jonathan

[doreen T]

"Ketosis-Lipolysis is not Ketoacidosis"
Maria C. Linder is on the faculty at California State University Fullerton, California in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. All quotes are from her textbook; "Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: with clinical applications", Maria C. Linder. pages 87-109. Chapter Eight: Nutrition and Metabolism of Protein.

There is a difference between starvation, prolonged fasting and controlled carbohydrate eating. There are similar metabolic mechanisms at work, but the differences are key to understanding the safety and efficacy of controlled carbohydrate diets.

"The whole process of muscle protein catabolism and liver gluconeogenesis is regulated principally by glucocorticosteroids and glucagon and a relative lack of insulin. Early in fasting glycogen reserves are depleted, and protein (mainly from muscle) becomes the major source of carbon for glucose production. Glucose is required in substantial amounts by blood cells and the central nervous system on a daily basis. There is also an initiation of ketone body production by the liver to provide a more water soluble form of fat-derived fuel."

... "A very similar adaption of protein and energy metabolism occurs in persons consuming diets very low in carbohydrates, where there is little or no glycogen reserve. However, in this instance, DIETARY PROTEIN largely or fully SUBSTITUTES for muscle protein in gluconeogenesis.

... "With reduced protein catabolism, urinary nitrogen excretion also declines. And there is a shift from the excretion of urea to a predominance of ammonia loss. This shift toward ammonia versus urea parallels the increased production and excretion of keto acids, and serves to MAINTAIN ACID / BASE BALANCE."

... "A parallel adaptation in the production and excretion of ammonium ions by the kidney neutralizes the increased ketone bodies (principally beta-hydroxybutyric and acetoacetic acids). Without the latter adaptation, such large productions of keto acids would cause a severe ketoacidosis, as well as a loss of large quantities of sodium and potassium ions (accompanying ketones spilled into the urine) Therefore, unless one is an insulin dependent diabetic or literally starving TO DEATH due to a lack of food, there is little or no danger from ketosis which is not characterized by a simultaneous RISE IN BLOOD GLUCOSE and BLOOD ACIDITY "

full article can be viewed at http://www.lowcarb.org/ketosis.html

Doreen

[doreen T]

For those interested, an accurate explanation of how the body maintains its acid-base balance in states of health AND illness is web-posted in The Merck Manual of Medical Information. You can read it here (http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_home/sec12/138.htm).

Doreen

[Lisa N]

I think you should do a bit more study on biophysiology. First...the ketones don't make the blood acid. The body maintains the blood Ph in a very narrow range which does not vary by more than a few tenths of a percent at any one time. Above that narrow range, you are acidotic with serious symptoms that require hospitalization and below that narrow range, you are alkalotic which again would produce serious symptoms requiring hospitilization. I have yet to see a person post on this board that they required hospitalization for either condition due to being in ketosis. I myself have been following a low carb plan for 18 months without any such problem and there are others here who have been doing it for much longer without such problems. I've also mentioned before Dr. Bernstein who has been living quite well on no more than 30 grams of carb per day for more than 40 years and requires his patients to do the same...again no mention of hospitilization for acidosis or alkalosis or heart attacks brought on by acidic blood. Heart disease, strokes and diabetes are virtually unknown among the Inuits who follow a traditional diet which is practically carb free. I'll leave it to you to research that for yourself.
Second...when you maintain that all a person has to do to lose weight is eat less and exercise more, you completely discount the effects of insulin production on fat storage and fat release. You also fail to take into account the effects of other hormones, medications and medical conditions that greatly affect how easily a person can lose weight even with reduced calories and increase excercise on a "traditional" diet as you call it. Many (if not most) of the people here on this forum, including myself, have tried that route and failed miserably but found success with low carb. Millions of Americans have diabetes which by its very nature means that they are insulin resistant and carb intolerant (hundreds of thousands more have the disease and don't even know it). Hundreds of thousands of American women have PCOS which, again, by its very nature means that they are insulin resistant and carb intolerant. You need to do more research on insulin resistance and how that condition develops; there should be plenty of references and studies for you to find on the web.
Since you're taking a creationistic approach, the Bible does mention seasons and snow. Paleontologists also have a pretty good idea what climates were like at various times by studying fossils for a certain time period.
Lastly...no, people who follow a low carb lifestyle do not live in a state of ketosis forever and ever, only until their weight loss goal is achieved. By the time that they have progressed through ongoing weight loss, pre-maintainanace and then maintainace gradually increasing their carb levels as they go, most if not all, are no longer in ketosis by the time that they reach maintainace. They have simply found the correct balance of carbs, fat and proteins to maintain their weight loss on a permanent basis. Many low carb plans don't even recommend going into ketosis at all (Protein Power, The Schwarzbein Principle); not because they believe it to be harmful, but simply because they don't believe it to be necessary for weight loss.
Fat burning occurs (assuming that you have a normal metabolism and no insulin resistance) when calories taken in are less than what the body needs for basal metabolic functions plus daily activities. You cannot choose when or how long that fat burning process will last even with exercise and lowered calories; your body will burn the fat when it needs more calories. Assuming that caloric intake in lowered calorie diets is evenly spaced in 3 meals and 2 or so snacks; negative caloric balance would be pretty much a continuous thing and therefore so would lipolysis. Starvation begins when calories taken in are less than what is required to maintain basal metabolic functions which freqently happens in most calorie restricted diets recommended today. For example, the diet recommended to me several years ago by a doctor was 1,250 calories a day...well below my basal metabolic needs. In effect, he was recommending controlled starvation for me and it didn't even work. If the body even thinks it's being starved, it responds by lowering metabolic rates to preserve what stores it has; so much for your theory of tricking the body into thinking it's starving through ketosis. Yes, people who are starving are in ketosis, but the reverse does not hold true. The presence of ketones are not what tells the body it's starving; the lack of sufficient caloric intake does which is why you will see frequent reminders to people on this forum to make sure that they are getting sufficient calories on a daily basis.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by jhilgeman Just because I said I'd weigh the credibility doesn't mean I automatically discredit them. Don't be so quick to assume - it's a bad habit that I have. Go ahead and point me to the journals.

Jonathan,

You have ignored my request to list the scientific journals and studies you claim to have read, and found biased.

So, I will wait for that list before I spend the time collecting the links posted here and on our website.

It is pointless to argue with someone who have already made up their mind, and refuses to share the scientific sources they claim led them to their beleifs.

As this is merely an unsubstantiated claim, this thread does not belong in the studies section. I will move this to the War Zone. If you list your supposed studies, we can move it this thread back to the studies section and discuss the actual studies, instead of your opinions. I still respect your opinion, but they're just opinions so far, and that's not enough as a scientific reference.

No disrespect, but I avoid arguments based on passion, and prefer facts.

Wa'il

[jhilgeman]

Doreen:
I glanced at the excerpts and will read the full article later. I believe this is what I was looking for with my question.

Lisa:
> I think you should do a bit more study on biophysiology
I never said I was studied in that area. That's why I was asking this forum if Phil Kaplan's concept was possible or not.

I will also look into the insulin issue. Sounds interesting.

You are correct in saying that the Bible mentions seasons and snow. However, if you look at all the contexts where seasons are used and also contexts with fruit, you should notice some irregularities that indicate that fruit back then was most likely very plentiful and withstood seasons. Even the incredible hailstorm that God sent to Egypt during the exodus was not enough to destroy all the fruit - swarms of locusts had to do that job. But again, that's not the topic at hand, and we only have so much reliable information to go on, since some people discount the Bible as not being accurate, and it's probably best in this scenario to use a common, agreed-upon source of information. Likewise, I don't agree that paleontologists come up with accurate results all the time. If we ever get to a point where all age studies agree with each other, then I might start to believe that cooperative study.

Re: Protein Power and plans that don't recommend going into ketosis - I thought I asked about this before. They still recommend cutting back on carbs, enough that a person would probably go into ketosis anyway. Just because they don't -recommend- explicitly that you go into ketosis doesn't mean that the person won't go into ketosis on that plan.

> Yes, people who are starving are in ketosis, but the reverse does not hold true. The presence of ketones are not what tells the body it's starving...
You stated this already, and I already noted that I never claimed the reverse. Ketones are the result after the body thinks its starving. I understand this.

Regarding the "regular" diets, once I get a chance to study insulin, I will probably have more questions related to this.


tamarian:
<frown>
I realize that you are probably a forum administrator, but I think you are way out of line with your comments. Your comments make me believe that you are getting annoyed and you've just decided to make me look like a trouble-starter. While it's not wise to attack a forum admin, I have to say that I don't really appreciate your condescending attitude. Everyone else on this thread has been very polite and respectful.

> It is pointless to argue with someone who have already made up their mind, and refuses to share the scientific sources they claim led them to their beleifs.

First, I have not already made up my mind - I have made it clear that I am open-minded about this, and I have made clear my purposes for asking critical questions.

Second, I have also made clear that this is information I've gathered from different online sources, not necessarily scientific journals, and I've also listed these sources at the bottom of the articles (something that leads me to believe that you skipped over some of my messages).

Third, I put together that compilation and I believe I am now quite valid in respectfully and politely discussing the article(s) with the people on this forum. The "War Zone" has a hidden connotation that makes its threads sound frivolous, and personally I don't think this discussion should be labeled frivolous.

So please don't feed me patronizing phrases like "I respect your opinion" and discard me. Yes, I have developed an opinion based from other listed sources, and now I'm quite freely offering the chance to discredit the information contained in my opinion.

- Jonathan

[tamarian]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
Second, I have also made clear that this is information I've gathered from different online sources, not necessarily scientific journals, and I've also listed these sources at the bottom of the articles (something that leads me to believe that you skipped over some of my messages).

Jonathan,

If you really beleive listing others who share your opinion constitutes enough scientific proof, then I rest my case.

I was annoyed, since you did make that claim that you have read scientific journals to substantiate your claims.

Now that you corrected that claim, and admit it is based only on other websites published opinions, then I'm no longer annoyed.

In our published list, we have a dedicates page for opinions against low-carb diets:

http://www.lowcarb.ca/newsmenu/opinionagainst.html

I have no problems with such claims, and I point people to them all the time.

I simply want to to make the distinction between science based on proven facts, vs. opinions. If you can't see the difference, I don't know what else to say.

Wa'il

[jhilgeman]

Tamarian:

I am holding in my anger from your words, but here's my attempt-to-be-calm response:

> If you really beleive listing others who share your opinion constitutes enough scientific proof, then I rest my case. ... since you did make that claim that you have read scientific journals to substantiate your claims.

Now who is making up things? Go through every single message I have written and I have never said that I have read scientific journals to back up my claims. IN FACT, here's one of the very first sentences in the thread:

> but the more I look up on the Internet about ketogenic / low-carb dieting, the more sources I find that suggest that it is unhealthy...

I never, ever stated that I looked up scientific journals, and I maintained from the beginning that I simply found sources online that talked about this. I never made claims saying that "This is the way it is." The whole PURPOSE behind this thread is that I found these sources online that went into the article, but I had some doubts, and thus brought my questions here because I thought people here would be respectful and would understand and would be willing to help with my purpose.

> Now that you corrected that claim, and admit it is based only on other websites published opinions, then I'm no longer annoyed.

This is the point that is angering me, though. Again, I made no such claim, and never "corrected" anything. The only reason you were annoyed to begin with is because you jumped to conclusions. My thread and questions should not be labeled and punished for that mistake.

- Jonathan

[suze_c]

First off, I apologize for the length of this post.That being said, I present the following for examination, from a search I done on ketosis vs. ketoacidosis. I could write a report based on my findings, had I the spare time; but I don't. My initial interpretation of the following articles is that ketosis and ketoacidosis are two entirely separate conditions, and ketosis does not lead to the latter.I merely present the facts here though and I leave it up to the individual to ascertain their own interpretations therof: (for those who may not know, the underlined materials are web links AND I apologize for any typoes, because KaeLyn woke up & I couldn't check for all the typoes :) )
Is Ketosis Safe? (click here) (http://www.ketosis-ketoacidosis-difference.com/) CYCLICAL KETOGENIC DIET,THE SCIENCE (http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=34&pageid=2) SURVIVING DIABETES & KETOSIS (http://www.survivediabetes.com/ketosis.htm) what is ketosis & how does it relate to low_carb diets? (http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/nutriquest/ketosis.html) KETOSIS:MYSTERY OR MISCONCEPTION? (http://www.bestlowcarbs.com/article1067.html) INCREASED PROTEIN & KETONES (http://www.afpafitness.com/Ketonesnot.htm) DIETARY ABNORMALITIES: DKA (http://www.embbs.com/cr/dka/diagn.html) DISCUSSION ABOUT KETOSIS VS. KETOACIDOSIS (http://www.healthboards.com/high-cholesterol/1979.html) 8. What is the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis?: Ketones are chemicals that your body produces as a by-product of combusting fat. They are excreted through your urine and breath. You can buy "Ketostix" which, when passed through urine, can tell you whether or not you are in ketosis. Ketosis happens during fasting, low carbohydrate diets, and pregnancy.Ketosis (what Dr. Atkins calls Benign Dietary Ketosis or BDK) should not be confused with ketoacidosis. Ketosis is a healthy state caused by using ketones for fuel and having "normal" blood sugar levels, brought about by eating a lowcarb diet. Ketoacidosis, on the other hand, is a dangerous state in which you are using ketones for fuel but have very high blood sugar. This causes the blood to turn acidic and harmful. Diabetics on a standard high carb, lowfat diet can suffer from ketoacidosis, because they are told they should eat complex carbohydrates to keep their blood sugar stable. For that reason, Ketostix were originally designed so diabetics could check their blood sugar levels.The next time someone warns you about ketosis, tell them this: Almost everyone enters ketosis almost every day, whether they're doing lowcarb or not. "Morning breath" -- that awful breath almost everyone wakes up with daily -- is pretty much "ketone breath". When you wake up in the morning, you've gone eight to twelve hours without food. Your body is no longer running on carbs, but on ketones: broken down fat. And that's true for EVERYBODY! You can't burn body fat without breaking that fat into ketones. There's no way around it; that's just how your body works. And it's a good thing (from http://www.lowcarbliving.net/FAQ.html)

IS KETOSIS SAFE?Ketosis is a quite safe state to be in, ketosis is simply when more ketones are in the blood than that of glucose or ketone concentration is higher than normal. Some people have ketosis (a normal and safe condition) and ketoacidosis (which will kill you) confused, or actually interchange the two. Well, KETOSIS AND KETOACIDOSIS ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Ahem, sorry. Ketoacidosis only occurs in those who cannot use ketones for fuel, namely diabetics. Production of ketones is usually controlled very well and except for in diabetics excess ketones are just excreted in the urine (which is why peeing on ketostix determines whether or not you're in ketosis). Remember, stated earlier is that when insulin drops, glucagon raises and you go into ketosis among other cool things. In diabetics, insulin secretion cannot occur so blood glucose can be high without any insulin. This in turn means ketones can be produced while blood glucose is high and consequently blood sugar rises extremely high from normal 8-120mg/dl to a whopping 300-2000mg/dl and blood pH lowers until ketoacidosis occurs and you die. This does not, however, happen in normal healthy individuals aND THIS IS INTERESTING:
KetoStix controversy:Another interesting fact that can unpleasantly surprise those who religiously aim to increase ketone bodies' concentration and who hold their breath while checking the KetoStix: increased ketone bodies concentration suppresses the fat burning! It happens because ketones increase the secretion of insulin and directly inhibit lipolysis in the adipose tissue. Physiological Ketosis ::As we've mentioned, suckling babies (high-fat diet of the milk) are in a natural state of ketosis. Another natural ketosis occurs after exercise, caused by the depletion of stored carbohydrate reserves (glycogen) in the liver. Yet another natural state, which less desirable, is fasting that is prolonged beyond 24 hours. All these situations have in common a low carbohydrate-availability status.The first event, after withdrawal of food (or carbohydrates), is a lowering of plasma insulin accompanied by stimulation of fat burning. However, for the first 8-10 hours, there is no increase in blood-ketone bodies. Once food is introduced back into the system (unless it consists of low-carb foods,) when insulin concentration rapidly increases and FFA concentration decreases, there's a parallel decrease in ketone bodies. If the meal consists mainly of fats with little carbohydrates, the liver senses a continuing decrease in plasma insulin and the concentration of ketones remains high. This is why the truly low-carbohydrate diets sometimes are called regulated fasting. Pathological Ketosis The best example of pathological ketosis is insulin-dependent or Type I diabetes. The changes in this condition are similar to those during fasting, but they are dangerously pronounced. Insulin is pathologically very low and therefore there is no means to restrain adrenaline, noradrenaline and glucagon from excessive fat burning that can actually cause the deterioration of tissue (AND LAST,BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST) Metabolic Acidosis [B] The ketone bodies acetoacetate and hydroxybutyrate are both strong acids, which makes them metabolically disadvantageous since they decrease in the blood pH. The symptoms of severe acidosis include depression, weakness, anorexia and vomiting, and may eventually lead to coma.To the contrary, even prolonged fasting, where the blood ketone bodies may reach 8-10 mmol/l, does not cause a serious disturbance of the acid-base balance because there are natural biochemical-protective mechanisms, including acetone conversion into glucose in the liver.

[tamarian]

Originally posted by jhilgeman

I never, ever stated that I looked up scientific journals, and I maintained from the beginning that I simply found sources online that talked about this. I never made claims saying that "This is the way it is."

Well, you should calm down a bit. You can easily find what you said by reading it:

Finally, I -have- read some of the studies and am still reading them. I appreciate people pointing me to them, but I have to weigh out the total credibility of each study and try to read it from an objective point of view.

If for some reason I misunderstood you, and you have not read any scientific studies on the subject, I apologize.

But in that case, why such a motivation to build such collection of articles for the public to read and be "informed", when you admit there's no science behind it?

I mean, which is it? And that's not meant to patronize you, I really want to know.

Wa'il

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by jhilgeman

> Yes, people who are starving are in ketosis, but the reverse does not hold true. The presence of ketones are not what tells the body it's starving...
You stated this already, and I already noted that I never claimed the reverse. Ketones are the result after the body thinks its starving. I understand this.



No. Ketones are produced when a person is starving. They are also produced when a person is in an advanced stage of alcoholism. They are also produced when a person is in diabetic ketoacidosis. They are also produced in the process of lipolysis. All of these conditions produce ketones but for different reasons.
In starvation, ketones are produced because the body has insufficient calories...even if the majority of the calories a person who is starving come from carbs, they will still be producing ketones. Because the body does not have sufficient calories, it turns to it's fat stores.
In alcoholism, ketones are produced because of liver damage and metabolic disturbance.
In diabetic ketoacidosis, ketones are produced because there is insufficient insulin to move glucose from the bloodstream into the cells where it can be used for energy, so the body turns to burning fat instead. The combination of high blood glucose combined with ketones in the bloodstream produces ketoacidosis. This does not occur in a non-diabetic person (and even in most diabetic persons) following a ketogenic diet because the blood sugars are kept within normal range.
In ketogenic diets, ketones are produced because there are not enough carbs for the body to use as energy, so fat is used instead, even when sufficient calories are taken in to support basal metabolic fuctions (the person is NOT starving, nor does the body believe it is starving if the diet is being followed properly); it is simply using an alternate energy source because carbs are not available. Furthermore, dietary fat and protein are inefficiently coverted to energy, so again, the body turns to its fat stores for what it needs. As I said before, the presence of ketones are not what tell the body that it is starving; the lack of sufficient calories to support basal metabolic functions are what clue the body in to the fact that it is starving. As long as caloric intake is kept above basal metabolic needs, the body will not believe it is starving or behave that way.

[Lisa N]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
I never said epilepsy was rare - someone generated that somewhere along the line.

It was generated by this quote from your own website:

"So Who Can Benefit?
Again, there are rare cases where a doctor can tell you that such a diet is beneficial to your condition."

If you don't consider epilepsy or diabetes to be rare conditions, why this statement?
In light of the evidence that a ketogenic, or at the very least, a low carb lifestyle (which you seem to equate with ketogenic) is helpful and indeed recommended for those who are diabetic, epileptic, insulin resistant, PCOS and hypothyroid (and those categories include millions of people), you may want to reconsider that statement.

[jhilgeman]

I have a short amount of time to respond, so I'm just responding to tamarian right now:

> You can easily find what you said by reading it:
>> Finally, I -have- read some of the studies and am still reading them...

You misunderstood. People pointed me to studies/articles that were on this site. I read a few of the articles and I was expecting to continue reading more of them after my post. However, these studies were not used as references in my article. I had never seen them until people pointed them out.

Appropriately, I then thanked people for pointing me to the studies, so I could read them. Logic with order-of-events tells us that I would not have used the studies in my article if I found out about these particular studies after I wrote the article.

My motivation behind learning about all this is simply my own desire for some education on this particular topic. Once I have gotten to a point where I can sufficiently agree that the information I've written is correct, -then- I will begin to submit it to search engines and the like and make it public. Until then, I've kept it private and have been having this discussion to try and find out what -is- correct.

However, simply because I have no scientific journals backing up the statements does not mean they are not there. It simply means that I have not found them just yet - I am assuming that there is probably some mentions in such journals. However, at this point the research is so preliminary that surface questioning was warranted, in my opinion.

At some point I will have reached a conclusion that is logical and true from all perspectives, and there will be scientific evidence to back it up. Once I have reached that point, I will look for people that are willing to attack those articles, and will continue this cycle. It's all about refining the truth to make sure what you have is correct and pure.

My apologies to the other two, longer posts here - I will try to respond later.

- Jonathan

[jhilgeman]

Lisa N:

> It was generated by this quote from your own website:
>> "So Who Can Benefit?
>> Again, there are rare cases ....

Ach! You're right - that was an incorrect implication upon my part - I will mark it down as something to change as soon as possible. My apologies and thanks!

- Jonathan

[Angeline]

This thread is really interesting but it's all over the place. Maybe it would be easier if you would stick to a couple of points you want to see refuted, listed in point form. Then we could discuss those points and cite references on both side.

Just a suggestion...

[suze_c]

I doubt that you are going to get anything more scientific than the reference to the Merck manual, in regards to ketoacidosis... I also have put some scientific evidence regarding the acid levels in the blood and how it affects both ketosis and ketoacidosis... You wonder why this thread was moved to the war zone... for practically every post submitted to this particuliar thread... you have a contrary opinion or idea or some evidence that you have found... Note that I did not say in every case, but by far, in most cases. We certainly don't like to see you bash-happy here... :bash: and it is not anything that is going to make you popular, but rather branded as a troublemaker....At some point I will have reached a conclusion that is logical and true from all perspectives, and there will be scientific evidence to back it up. Once I have reached that point, I will look for people that are willing to attack those articles, and will continue this cycle. It's all about refining the truth to make sure what you have is correct and pure FACT is... you are not going to find 100% evidence that the ketogenic diet is dangerous.. because there ARE going to be those instances where the ketogenic diet is not only beneficial to some, there will be MANY such instances...There are exceptions to the rules and Jonathan... this happens to be an area where there are many... so you will NEVER HAVE 100% correct and pure... no matter how hard you try~

[doreen T]

Originally posted by jhilgeman
(BTW, I'm posting this to a lot of different low-carb sites, so you might see this on another site forum.)hi there Jonathan,

What other sites have you posted to? I'm curious, and sincerely wish to know what other responses you've received to your questions. Perhaps the other sites have another slant on things?

Doreen

[quietone]

Hi, Jonathan...

I have always kept up with the latest medical studies. Have you seen the one that recently was reported on MSNBC about the findings that "oh, no...it looks like we were wrong...too much insulin production DOES seem to cause heart problems and cancer..." (I took liberty with that quote). :)

And, honey, that means all this disease we have is being caused by our freely available carb sources. We weren't meant to have constant, steady supplies of simple carbohydrates.

To make it short, from what I have read of your entries, it looks like your interested in finding....what?!

Let me give you this example of why the so-called good, eatin', low fat, moderate diet doesn't work. My ex-boss. He ate healthfully his whole life, he has exercised his whole life, he has never smoked or tried any kind of drugs, he has only drink an occasional glass of wine. He has a close-knit family, goes to bed a reasonable time, takes vacations, etc. etc. Everything that everyone is telling you is healthy....last year he was diagnosed with cancer. A very ferrocious kind. Now that was a confused man. And why shouldn't he be.

So, you see, for all you want of "studies" and "proof"...it isn't worth the paper its written on. As my Mom used to say: "the proof is in the puddin'"

There is no one, right answer. There is only the answer that is right for you. And for a lot of us, eating just normal portions of bread, chips, beer, potatoes, corn, beans etc. doesn't work. It is real obvious when you look at my husband and I. If wee both eat the same foods (except he eats cookies all day), I am overweight and he is not. If he eats the meats I like, his cholesterol would go up. I could go on and on, but the emphasis is: the medical community has long been trying to treat everyone as the same...and we are not.

[shandyAndy]

hi
It seems some of you guys get a little too emotionally attached when debating things that are close to your heart, which is fair enough but it will cloud your judgment...

How about this for an idea? Perhaps we should discuss the things we do agree on, if there is simply no real proof for what we follow as a whole.... There must be things that everyone agrees on and that can make small differences in the way we live and our health. I think artifical sweetners maybe one, or the way we cook foods?

To be honest, i never questioned evoltution until i read this message. I really was in doctrinated. It's hard for me not to believe in evoltion and from an evolutionary stand point its hard for me not to accept low carb is the healthiest way of eating. Two words, "ice age". Still i can see now that scientific evidence is the only real proof that we have.

I do have one question for thos devote followers of the evolutionary theory however; is it conseivable that some of the food introduced with agriculture may actuallty have a beneficial effect? Even though most can argue that there are many cons to these foods, is it also possible that for some, the pros out weigh them? Flavonoids for example. I have read these are very healthy and are found abundantly in many agricultural foods...

Thanks for your time...

[shandyAndy]

oh and this is quite interesting....Apiece on food and evolution, pro vegetarian, for those who are interested:

http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_vegetables.htm#Why%20do%20we%20eat%20vegetables

[Kristine]

Let's keep this thread to critiquing Jonathan's web site. You can always start a new thread to debate evolution...

Jonathan, another thing I wanted to point out: on your index page, it says, "We also provide a quick glossary of terms..."

Who is "we," exactly?

I think it would be responsible if you state who "we" is/are and what credentials you have. Legally, the disclaimer is good enough, but disclosure is the difference between credibility and the lack thereof, IMHO.

[tofi]

At the same time, ask who owns or promotes "Nature's Flavours" products and wants to sell them to LCers. And look for reviews of the products and whether any of the customers would EVER buy the stuff again after tasting it.

And when all this good information is posted here with references, does it end up on someone else's website? Hmmm. Why don't we all just ignore this thread from here on out?

[suze_c]

I got an email about another post on here, and was looking at it... then went to the first page, so I could get the url for jonathan's webpage, and tofi's post is gone! I didn't see where it was anything bad.... but anyhow... I went to see the website... and if jonathan is so against ketogenic diets, then why is he providing links to places that are selling products for those on ketogenic diets!? And I agree with Kristine... who is the "we" that is talked about?The time this happens naturally is when you are starving. When you don't take in any food, this whole process begins automatically to keep you from dying. I am sorry to disagree here... there are other times that a body is in ketosis without starving. Physiological Ketosis ::As we've mentioned, suckling babies (high-fat diet of the milk) are in a natural state of ketosis. Another natural ketosis occurs after exercise, caused by the depletion of stored carbohydrate reserves (glycogen) in the liver. Yet another natural state, which less desirable, is fasting that is prolonged beyond 24 hours. All these situations have in common a low carbohydrate-availability status.... as well as in pregnancy.

[Teuthis]

What is better? Spending twenty years starving periodically and then gaining weight back? Or finding a way to get the weight off and keep it off. I think I'll live longer, leaner. And I think I'll be much happier too.

All of you dietary dogmatists are carping and running scared because a simple principle has come to light. You had it wrong all these years and it is humiliating.

One basic fact. Eating a low fat/high carb diet is not evolutionarily sound for homo sapiens. We did not evolve eating flour, potatoes, rice, corn, or sugar as staples of our diet. We ate protein, fats, seeds and nuts. Agriculture as we know it is only at best, ten thousand years old. Considering our lifespans and evolutionary history, that is a blink of the eye. We could not possibly have, even under syncopated equilibrium, effected the mutuations to deal with massive carbohydrate intake yet. I think the rampaging obesity rates in this country demonstrate that quite well.

Write all the inane articles you want. Leaner is better, even if it takes some fats and meats to do it. Besides, if you knew anything about, say Atkins diet, you would know that it is not long-term, high-fat diet. What I will not be eating in the future is significant amounts of processed carbohydrates, or sugar. What I am already eating now are moderate volumes of protein, moderate volumes of fats, and moderate volumes of vegetables. I am losing weight at a moderate, but consistent rate. I feel ten times better than I did three months ago. How does one fault that?

If you are trying to lose weight on any plan, good luck to you:)