Keto, high blood pressure, and the food you eat on Keto
Replies
-
JerSchmare wrote: »
I have been having a lot of trouble lining up actual peer reviewed published studies and "facts" that seem to come through podcasts, blogs, vlogs, and books. The podcasts, blogs, vlogs, and books are opinion pieces, not facts.
I think that statement is both sweeping and unfair.
That is irrelevant. Look to the author's credentials. If you can verify the person's name, their status, their reputation and how much that information resonates with you and works as well - then why would you need anything more than that?The facts that I have found seem to suggest the diet is helpful for epilepsy. It is helpful for obese people, where even if blood pressure increases on this diet, they prefer to manage that while they get the weight down. And, I found some other interesting studies. However, I have not been successful in finding studies that propose the ideas that I hear in blogs, vlogs, books, podcasts, and of course, social media.
As @Sunny_Bunny_ points out, setting up 'studies' has to be funded by enormous sums of money. For example, all those so-called Official funded studies into how bad butter was for you, and how much better margarine was instead - was funded by companies and associations who produced and marketed - Margarine.
"The official advice at the time was that we should substitute saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet with polyunsaturated fatty acids, and manufacturers such as Unilever were quick to find ways to help us.
Kolvekar's call for a butter ban this week turns out to have been timed to coincide with the FSA's campaign, by a PR agency called KTB, that also runs the account for two of Unilever's fat spreads: Flora pro.activ and Bertolli Light. The agency also runs what it calls a saturated fat information service, satfatnav.com, which is "brought to you by Unilever". In the KTB press release, the eminent heart surgeon is quoted giving calculations on the value of switching from saturated butter to fat spreads based on Flora."
(From here.)
The same went for all those studies that tried to convince the public how good sugar was for you. Tate & Lyle spent millions preaching us THAT message.
Simply because you get official studies and expert information, doesn't make it any truer or more reliable.
Does it?
So you mean, unless it's something that ticks all your boxes (including the critique of supporting, verified 'evidence') you won't believe a word of it? That's a very self-limiting attitude.....It's just interesting. That's all. Lots of woo, very little substance.I'm also going to stop criticizing. I don't care what people do. Its just not really for me.
What isn't for you...?
This Woe?
If you mean LCHF/P, then you only have to look at the number of people who have seen great benefits from doing this. Including me, and my husband. Particularly him, as he has lost 4 stone and is no longer a Dtype2.
Goodness me just what, and how much 'proof' do you actually need??
6 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I have been having a lot of trouble lining up actual peer reviewed published studies and "facts" that seem to come through podcasts, blogs, vlogs, and books. The podcasts, blogs, vlogs, and books are opinion pieces, not facts.
The facts that I have found seem to suggest the diet is helpful for epilepsy. It is helpful for obese people, where even if blood pressure increases on this diet, they prefer to manage that while they get the weight down. And, I found some other interesting studies. However, I have not been successful in finding studies that propose the ideas that I hear in blogs, vlogs, books, podcasts, and of course, social media. It's just interesting. That's all. Lots of woo, very little substance.
It is difficult (for this amateur, at least) to sort wheat from chaff in everything from blogs to the NEJM, and n=1 experiments are fraught with variables that are hard to control. (I have to confess that things I thought I knew about my own responses were, uh... wrong, or at best not as clear as I'd thought.)
So I'm curious how to distinguish between woo and fact. A lot of what's explained in Phinney and Volek's Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living and ASLC Performance, as well as Feinman's World Turned Upside Down, appears well grounded. (??)
If the use of ketogenic diets appears factually supported for epilepsy and obesity, for what applications is the science wanting? T2 Diabetes? Insulin resistance?
Thanks.5 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Funny how there are no facts, just blogs, podcasts, and fake doctors with strong opinions and books to sell.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/ (keto specific)
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/fulltext (low carb but not necessarily keto)
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/205916 (Atkins, but based on the data appears compliance was more low carb and only lower carb by the later half of the study)
peer reviewed science
Current on-going study which has released 10 week results and the 1 year results are currently going through the write up and review process:
https://www.virtahealth.com/research
I am 100% in the camp that if an article does not cite studies I can check and those studies don't back up the claim, I disregard it. I prefer to be able to find full studies and not just abstracts as I have found some abstracts tell half truths to back up the original hypothesis even though the full results don't back them up.
I also fully believe everything is an n=1 experiment because regardless of what studies show, I have yet to find a meaningful one regarding diet that shows a given result for 100% of people.6 -
<refresh>0
This discussion has been closed.