> 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.
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.