The GH article is an opinion piece. It starts with gross mischaracterizations like "low-calorie, high-fat" or "seemingly new diet plan". The writer seems to confuse the ketogenic diet with the medical ketogenic diet, when she writes that "ketogenic diets(note the plural) were used as a medical...". There's only one medical ketogenic diet, as far as I'm aware, but there are several popular diets which claim to be ketogenic like Atkins, Protein Power, Eenfeldt's LCHF, etc.
In the first paragraph, the writer links to another article she wrote where we get a definition of ketogenic diet, but more to the point a bit more of her opinion about it, and I quote:
If an extreme diet can affect brain chemistry, it may be too extreme for you.
Allow me to illustrate a brilliant fallacy. If a ketogenic diet affects brain chemistry as a function of its macro-nutrient ratio, then all diets affect brain chemistry by doing the same, including the official guidelines which can be deemed as extreme as a ketogenic diet by virtue of being the polar opposite in terms of macro-nutrient ratio. Ergo, if a diet is too extreme for you by virtue of its effect on brain chemistry, and if the official guidelines diet causes polar opposite effects on brain chemistry, then official guidelines is equally too extreme for you. Therefore, a middle ground, i.e. a diet that does not affect brain chemistry, is the only possible choice left. But then, that is an impossible choice because the effect on brain chemistry is due strictly to macro ratio, and all diets manipulate macro ratios to at least some extent - including a middle ground - therefore all diets have an effect on brain chemistry, therefore all diets are too extreme for you. Told you it was a brilliant fallacy, but I doubt the writer could even imagine the logic I just demonstrated here, or she wouldn't have written such a brilliant fallacy in the first place.
Indeed, there's plenty of research to support ketogenic diets in the treatment of some devastating neurological conditions. But can it really help the average Joe or Joanne lose weight? Well, yes, in theory — especially ultra low-calorie versions. But is it suitable for long-term, sustainable weight loss and improved health? The jury's still out on that.
The paragraph above appears to be the crux of the article and the basis for why ketogenic diets are BS. First, her statement "in theory" is clear indication that she is unaware of probably the most reliable comparative dietary experiment bar none - the A-TO-Z study by Chris Gardner. Or she wouldn't say "in theory" or any BS of her own when summarizing "plenty of research" she alludes to. Second, that same reliable experiment shows us that no diet is sustainable long-term. The adherence curve in this experiment mirrors all
other dietary experiments. Except one - the official dietary guidelines - which appears to be the sole diet any particular population adheres to for any length of time.
The writer continues with gross mischaracterizations in the paragraph titled "How KD's work", where she explains that the diet is boring as we eat only coconut oil and butter for months on end. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and state unequivocally that nobody on this planet does this now or has ever done this or will ever do this at any time in the history of homo-sapiens sapiens, or indeed any species on any planet in any universe in the history of time. If there's a single human that has ever come close, it's probably me when I ate a stick of butter for lunch between nines on the golf course, but then only occasionally, and I often didn't even finish the stick cuz butter is just so filling. But then it's highly unlikely that the writer would know anything about me, I'm nobody special.
So, kept on reading the article, then I decided there's no point. WTF is Good Housekeeping doing with a diet column? Also, I believe the writer isn't actually writing her personal opinion, but instead writes for a living and thus any opinion expressed therein are expressed for the purpose of fulfilling the writer's professional obligations which may include gross mischaracterizations for example that would elicit a greater response and in turn a greater readership and in turn a greater ad revenue. It's possible that my perception here is a coincidence, but I recently stumbled on Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit, so that I'm sufficiently more aware of BS in the context of commerce to perceive the article in this way. I guess I also answered my own rhetorical question "WTF is Good Housekeeping doing with a diet column?".
To summarize this context, the writer has no respect nor concern for the truth, and instead is concerned purely with the intended outcome. This explains the gross mischaracterizations, the conspicuous omissions of highly reliable scientific dietary experiments, the brilliant fallacy, and all other things bullshit contained therein. Of significant note, comments are not part of Good Housekeeping's diet column, therefore discussion is certainly not the intended outcome.
As for braintw's blog post, I could have written it as is and stamped my own name on it. We even agree on the BS aspect, i.e. "...for the purpose of generating clicks". Though I wouldn't have gone on so much about anthropological hypotheses, because none of it can be demonstrated cuz nobody alive today or indeed during the time since the beginning of modern civilization some few thousand years ago was alive back then to confirm or refute those hypotheses. Instead, I prefer to stick to current experiments like that A-TO-Z study.