Oh my freaking gosh. Just saw this on facebook.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...FlTFUG0jBYAR6Ow





Sorry wimmenz. Can't haz ketos.



Oh for crap sake. Let's do the math. They say it's a 75 percent fat diet, 8 percent protein, 4 carb. Okay. That doesn't add up to 100 so we know that's by mass, not calories. So in terms of ketogenic ratios, it's 75:11. Percent calories from protein? 75 times 9 for fat is 675 calories. 12 times 4 for protein and carbs combined is 44 calories. Gives us a total of 719 calories. 8 times 4 for protein, 32 calories. So the percentage of calories from protein is 32/719--this is about a 4.5 percent protein as calories diet. The astonishing thing isn't that female mice did poorly, it's that male mice did okay. This was like eating a diet of nothing but heavy cream. Seriously.

Mice are not humans.

Doesn't even matter, the keto used was ridiculous for man or mouse.

Agreed.
Who knows what a keto equivalent for mice actually would be. They are not normally classified as carnivores.

Even if they're measuring the food macro-nutrients by weight (mass) instead of calories, the percentages SHOULD still add up to 100%.... unless there is something else besides the three macronutrients in the food that the story isn't bothering to mention. Simply put, ALL of ANYTHING (mass, calories, volume, dollars) is 100% of that thing. So, ALL of the mass of the mouse's diets should add up to 100%, in the same way that ALL of the calories in the mouse's diet should add to 100%.

The reported macronutrients in the "ketogenic diet" parts add up to only 86%. The reported macronutrients in the "regular diet" add up to only 73%. That means 14% of the "ketogenic diet" is composed of SOMETHING that the author of the story didn't think was worth mentioning while a full 27% of the "regular diet" is not reported?

Regardless of whether they were measuring calories or mass (or maybe volume or maybe even price) WHAT substance makes up the missing percentages? Water? Sawdust? Sand? Ground-up diamonds? Drugs of some sort?

Rationally, it would have to be something that does not break down in the mouse's body into protein, fat, or carbohydrate... otherwise the reported macro-nutrients would be incorrect! (And NO REPORTER would ever report "false facts." :lol So, 16% of the so-called "keto diet" and 27% of the so-called "regular diet" fed to those poor mice HAD to be composed of something that is NOT FOOD!

Ya gotta wonder effect of that "NOT FOOD" component had on the male and female mice. Maybe differing mouse hormones affected how the male and female mice were able to deal with the NOT FOOD component in their food.

Once they explain THAT to me, then we MIGHT be ready to talk about how the varying percentages of fat/carbs/proteins (food components) might be affecting the mice. And THEN we can take up the issue of whether a mouse dietary study has any relevance at all to humans.

It's amazing how "keto" and "low carb" diets continue to be so poorly defined in some circles. As teaser points out, the protein is just too low in this instance.

I read about another study recently that bagged LCHF because of its supposed negative effects on the microbiome. Turned out that all the fat being consumed in that study was... soybean oil. SMH.

In any case, I personally know of 3 women who have lost ~120 pounds between them while doing various degrees of low carb, since I got started. Is it difficult? To a degree. Is it impossible? Absolutely not.

It appears that as more adopt a LC or keto approach, they become lightning rods for criticism, are misinterpreted widely, or both. Scraping up results from some of the recent and poorly constructed "studies" hints at attempts to discredit these WsOE. Keto in particular is hot and a regular target of criticism. It must have validity if it's making people nervous and prompting attacks.

My total weight loss doing lowcarb/keto is 120 pounds. Seems to have worked for me. These kind of headlines and vague descriptions of the so-called science is why the only way to evaluate the studies is to read the whole scientific report, not just what gets reported or the way things are named. This media report where not even the percentages add up right is a sure sign that this is bogus and should be ignored As Dr Richard Feinman says nutritional science is an oxymoron.

I must be a male mouse.

The percentages add up fine. They're just giving the macros as a percentage of the total mass, so micronutrients, fiber, water etc. make up the rest to total 100. It's a standard way to report content of various animal chows. And it makes sense, because working from there, you can work from the ratios for the macros, and get percent calories for the macros.

Thanks for the clarification Teaser. I didn't understand your original response... the way you explained the math was a bit confusing! Once I worked it out for myself, it makes sense.

You're right tho, one has to wonder how any of the mice survived long-term on a diet with less than 5% of calories coming from protein. Plenty of "energy" in that "keto diet" but almost no amino-acids to build/repair cell tissue with.

Thank you, Teaser. I saw the headline a few days ago but, considering how hard it is for me to lose weight, it depressed me enough that I didn't read it.

Thank God it's mice! And a not very good diet, even for mice. The mice that live under our chicken house have a better diet.

Yup. But this attack is especially dumb, or perhaps it's just a year or two too late because EVERYBODY knows at least one woman who's lost a ton of weight on keto.

The people at work know I have lost just over 200 lbs doing keto. Four people at work have adopted keto. The first man lost 40 lbs after being diagnosed as diabetic. His AIC is now in the 5s, so he never had to go on meds, and his eye-sight improved. His eye doctor told him it was because he had adopted a low-carb WOE. Another guy lost about 40 lbs, but he struggles with staying on plan (been there, done that, have the t-shirt, but trying to not go back.) A woman friend lost 35 lbs, her husband lost 60, and they are maintaining well. Fourth person has lost 55 lbs since mid-December. His ortho told him he needed to lose 85 lbs to have hip replacement surgery. He is doing great, said the best thing is how he feels, especially the mental clarity. Of course, most people I know will not even try keto, because they cannot see giving up bread, etc.

How many times has a screaming headline turned out to be in-vitro, or rodents, or so totally NOT low carb?

I have plenty of personal/forum experience to know how the headline isn’t true, but such is still an exception.