The Fat Fueled Brain
 

The Fat Fueled Brain:

Preferred by more zombies!

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...r-advantageous/
Same old story -- different twist :)

I wish it were more Scientific. One article teaser claims human origins were VEGETARIAN.

Started reading this article that unfortunately is the type of biased article that today characterizes Scientific American. Yes, eating in a ketogenic way does get one into fat burning mode, but it doesn't "mimic starvation," as it simply allows one to have dual energy sources with timed eating that mimics how humans are supposed to eat and ate before we had an abundance of food and snacks that now are being consumed multiple times during one's waking hours. It's pretty simple, and one can eat healthy vegetables and even some fruits that haven't been altered to produce more fructose to satisfy someone's sweet tooth resulting in fueling the food addiction that is so prevalent today. Enough said.

Just read the article and actually - except for the necessary disclaimers that "there's no scientific proof yet" and "don't try this without your doctor's approval," it is POSITIVE about ketogenic diets.

Mostly the article points out all the potentially positive benefits of keto, both for those suffering from various neurological diseases and for healthy people. The author even concludes by saying "As the science behind this age-old dietary therapy gradually comes to light, social issues such as low adherence and public prejudice will need to be resolved. In the meantime, to those neuroscientists interested in studying keto: pass the bacon and I VOLUNTEER!"

Yes, it is written for a lay audience and is light on actual science but the author does mention preliminary studies that have suggested positive benefits and she does so without pooh-poohing the studies, the scientists who did them, or their results.

I suspect that we may hear a lot more from Shelly Fan. As a PhD candidate in neuroscience who clearly has an open mind towards the benefits of a keto diet, she may eventually wind up in our pantheon of keto-heros.

That article is 5 and a half years old. Keto has been studied a lot more since then.

I agree: she was evenhanded and even enthused. But the article itself was (undoubtedly edited) with so much flippin' caution about what is, undeniably, a human ability with considerable human research behind it.

We have this metabolism mechanism. Okay, what is it for? What does it do? What do we know? Instead of accepting it as something the body values or it would not have gone to the millennia of trouble to develop it, it is treated as though it might as well have HERE BE DRAGONS stamped all over it in large red letters.

Consider the "Bacon Will Kill You" headlines based on mice cells in a test tube. Or the breathless "this could lead to a new drug!" speculations extrapolated from far far less.

Ponder how the entire Western world kissed Ancel Keys' behind and revamped their entire food structure and medical training on what boils down to jiggered data and clever politics and tons of potential profit.

There's the difference. There's a cosmos of contrast there.

Shelly has become a very prolific author.

https://singularityhub.com/author/s...4101i1lp932n8cq

But the dismissal by authorities has not changed a bit!

Very true!

Yeah, I should have checked the publication date. Five years ago, I could better understand the caveats.

And, to better understand Singularity and its direction, I recommend viewing the documentary "Transcendent Man" by Barry Ptolemy. It's a very interesting and thought provoking film.

Just what I need now -- more technical reading :help:

We rely on folks like you to keep us up to date :lol: