Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meta analysis of Keto diets. Frontiers in Nutrition, July, 2021
MargaretYakoda
Posts: 2,289 Member
in Debate Club
Well, looks like the studies are stacking up, and it’s not great news for Keto fans.
Personally I was wary of Keto because the only friend I had who swore by it lost about 120 pounds, then promptly keeled over with a swiftly moving cancer. I wasn’t sure what to make of it.
Now, I’m thinking that year of keto may have been the trigger.
Of course we can never know in my friend’s specific case. And so I won’t discuss that part other than this comment that it made me personally a bit wary of keto.
Anyhow….
Full article in link. But I copied the conclusion section below.
Highlighting the important bits.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
Conclusion
Ketogenic diets reduce seizure frequency in some individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy. These diets can also reduce body weight, although not more effectively than other dietary approaches over the long term or when matched for energy intake. Ketogenic diets can also lower blood glucose, although their efficacy typically wanes within the first few months.
Very-low-carbohydrate diets are associated with marked risks. LDL-C can rise, sometimes dramatically. Pregnant women on such diets are more likely to have a child with a neural tube defect, even when supplementing folic acid. And these diets may increase chronic disease risk: Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (eg, red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of CKD, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, whereas intake of protective foods (eg, vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits.
Personally I was wary of Keto because the only friend I had who swore by it lost about 120 pounds, then promptly keeled over with a swiftly moving cancer. I wasn’t sure what to make of it.
Now, I’m thinking that year of keto may have been the trigger.
Of course we can never know in my friend’s specific case. And so I won’t discuss that part other than this comment that it made me personally a bit wary of keto.
Anyhow….
Full article in link. But I copied the conclusion section below.
Highlighting the important bits.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
Conclusion
Ketogenic diets reduce seizure frequency in some individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy. These diets can also reduce body weight, although not more effectively than other dietary approaches over the long term or when matched for energy intake. Ketogenic diets can also lower blood glucose, although their efficacy typically wanes within the first few months.
Very-low-carbohydrate diets are associated with marked risks. LDL-C can rise, sometimes dramatically. Pregnant women on such diets are more likely to have a child with a neural tube defect, even when supplementing folic acid. And these diets may increase chronic disease risk: Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (eg, red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of CKD, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, whereas intake of protective foods (eg, vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits.
16
Replies
-
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I have seen earlier studies show that, over time, keto is no more effective for weight loss than other methods of creating a calorie deficit.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I have seen earlier studies show that, over time, keto is no more effective for weight loss than other methods of creating a calorie deficit.
Yup. This meta analysis mentioned that. Keto turns out not to be any better for weight loss than a standard diet that a registered dietitian would recommend. And has serious risks that the registered dietitian’s recommended diet doesn’t have.2 -
I generally think that how one does a keto diet is going to make a difference (as with any other diet) -- do you limit sat fat, focus on healthy fats, and eat lots of non starchy veg or not. Do you use it as an excuse to eat lots of processed meats or make sure instead to limit them and eat plenty of fatty fish? And, especially, how does it compare to how you specifically were eating before?
On the whole, this seems consistent, except I do wonder if the folic acid bit could relate to the fact that the average American who eats less than the recommended from veg and whole grains is also likely to (unlike someone doing keto) eat lots of fortified foods.
I don't see any reason why keto would be inherently better for weight loss, but there may be people for whom it makes compliance a lot easier or actually helps them improve their diets.
Keto for seizure control is usually somewhat different than keto for weight loss--lower carb and protein, higher fat.8 -
Many of the veteran posters on here have stated that against keto, only to be shunned. Thanks for the study.MargaretYakoda wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I have seen earlier studies show that, over time, keto is no more effective for weight loss than other methods of creating a calorie deficit.
Yup. This meta analysis mentioned that. Keto turns out not to be any better for weight loss than a standard diet that a registered dietitian would recommend. And has serious risks that the registered dietitian’s recommended diet doesn’t have.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes a statement.
They’re pretty much in solid agreement. But with stronger words than the measured tone of this journal article.
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/most-comprehensive-review-yet-keto-diets-finds-heart-risks-cancer-risk-dangers
1 -
Many of the veteran posters on here have stated that against keto, only to be shunned. Thanks for the study.MargaretYakoda wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I have seen earlier studies show that, over time, keto is no more effective for weight loss than other methods of creating a calorie deficit.
Yup. This meta analysis mentioned that. Keto turns out not to be any better for weight loss than a standard diet that a registered dietitian would recommend. And has serious risks that the registered dietitian’s recommended diet doesn’t have.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This meta analysis is so damning of Keto that it makes me wonder if the MFP staff should be contacted with suggestions to not allow such advice on the platform, similarly to how they already don’t allow extreme low calorie/disordered eating topics.2 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes a statement.
They’re pretty much in solid agreement. But with stronger words than the measured tone of this journal article.
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/most-comprehensive-review-yet-keto-diets-finds-heart-risks-cancer-risk-dangers
In that they are dedicated to promoting PBDs, that's hardly surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine3 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine makes a statement.
They’re pretty much in solid agreement. But with stronger words than the measured tone of this journal article.
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/most-comprehensive-review-yet-keto-diets-finds-heart-risks-cancer-risk-dangers
In that they are dedicated to promoting PBDs, that's hardly surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine
Oh! Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are the people that got me to reduce fat and saturated fat for my uterine fibroids because of the estrogen/fibroids connection. Fibroids are not mentioned here, only estrogen - I already knew about the relationship.
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/using-foods-against-menstrual-pain
I did notice their plant-based bias and confirmed my plan elsewhere before proceeding. Being an omnivore, I didn't follow all of their suggestions, but did drastically reduce red meat (especially fatty) and full fat dairy products, and increased legumes and fruits, especially higher fiber ones like berries.
Doing this also made it much easier for me to maintain a calorie deficit, and I've lost almost 30 pounds since Jan 2.
My periods have been less ghastly, except for last month, which I attributed to having missed fat and eating a lot of cheese earlier in my cycle, and otherwise not adhering as well.4 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »
Many of the veteran posters on here have stated that against keto, only to be shunned. Thanks for the study.MargaretYakoda wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Interesting. Thanks for posting.
I have seen earlier studies show that, over time, keto is no more effective for weight loss than other methods of creating a calorie deficit.
Yup. This meta analysis mentioned that. Keto turns out not to be any better for weight loss than a standard diet that a registered dietitian would recommend. And has serious risks that the registered dietitian’s recommended diet doesn’t have.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This meta analysis is so damning of Keto that it makes me wonder if the MFP staff should be contacted with suggestions to not allow such advice on the platform, similarly to how they already don’t allow extreme low calorie/disordered eating topics.
And I though dietary cholesterol was just cholesterol, apparently not according to PCRM.0 -
Where are the actual ketogenic studies and the number of studies in this meta analysis referenced or even mentioned in this article?1
-
neanderthin wrote: »Where are the actual ketogenic studies and the number of studies in this meta analysis referenced or even mentioned in this article?
they are listed in the references of OPs first post.
Keto seems to be working well for me, but I have metabolic issues and am medically supervised.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »Where are the actual ketogenic studies and the number of studies in this meta analysis referenced or even mentioned in this article?
they are listed in the references of OPs first post.
Keto seems to be working well for me, but I have metabolic issues and am medically supervised.
I don't see anything in references as to the specific studies or how many they even looked at. The comments were interesting.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Where are the actual ketogenic studies and the number of studies in this meta analysis referenced or even mentioned in this article?
they are listed in the references of OPs first post.
Keto seems to be working well for me, but I have metabolic issues and am medically supervised.
I don't see anything in references as to the specific studies or how many they even looked at. The comments were interesting.
I can see 123 references at the bottom of the article. Right above the comment section.4 -
I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.3
-
neanderthin wrote: »Where are the actual ketogenic studies and the number of studies in this meta analysis referenced or even mentioned in this article?
they are listed in the references of OPs first post.
Keto seems to be working well for me, but I have metabolic issues and am medically supervised.
Wise. And I mean that for anyone who is needing to lose more than forty pounds, using any diet method.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?4 -
neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Those are the studies they used in their analysis, that's why they referenced them.
"considering who they are" - do you mean the journal printing it? Or the authors?
So for example author listed at #6 - from the School of Public Health in Loma Linda California - are you suggesting that they have a pre-existing stance on "low carb or animal" that would invalidate their analysis?
I think that neanderthin is conflating the journal article in my original post with the public statement from a different organization that I shared in a comment.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Are you looking at the link in the OP? As stated upthread, there are 123 studies at the end of the article, above the comments.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
No other links in this thread were to a meta analysis - the other articles had no need to cite studies.
This was a press release that links to the study:
https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-releases/most-comprehensive-review-yet-keto-diets-finds-heart-risks-cancer-risk-dangers3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I see those, that's not what I'm talking about. "A meta analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance". This article should supply those studies that they are analyzing, which they haven't. No biggy really considering who they are and their stance on anything low carb or animal.
Are you looking at the link in the OP? As stated upthread, there are 123 studies at the end of the article, above the comments.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.702802/full
For what it’s worth I wondered how reliable the journal Frontiers In Nutrition was as a scientific journal. So I dug a bit and it appears that, although it’s a relatively new scientific publishing house, they’re peer reviewed and well respected in the scientific community. Which is kind of key here.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions