The Ketogenic Diet REVIEW ( information you needed )

I know better than to weigh in with actual peer-reviewed research on a thread like this but what the h**l, it's saturday and I'm done with my chores

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14672862

Low-carbohydrate diets: what are the potential short- and long-term health implications?

Low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss are receiving a lot of attention of late. Reasons for this interest include a plethora of low-carbohydrate diet books, the over-sensationalism of these diets in the media and by celebrities, and the promotion of these diets in fitness centres and health clubs. The re-emergence of low-carbohydrate diets into the spotlight has lead many people in the general public to question whether carbohydrates are inherently 'bad' and should be limited in the diet. Although low-carbohydrate diets were popular in the 1970s they have resurged again yet little scientific fact into the true nature of how these diets work or, more importantly, any potential for serious long-term health risks in adopting this dieting practice appear to have reached the mainstream literature. Evidence abounds that low-carbohydrate diets present no significant advantage over more traditional energy-restricted, nutritionally balanced diets both in terms of weight loss and weight maintenance.

Studies examining the efficacy of using low-carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss are few in number, however few positive benefits exist to promote the adoption of carbohydrate restriction as a realistic, and more importantly, safe means of dieting. While short-term carbohydrate restriction over a period of a week can result in a significant loss of weight (albeit mostly from water and glycogen stores), of serious concern is what potential exists for the following of this type of eating plan for longer periods of months to years.

Complications such as heart arrhythmias, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities can all be linked to long-term restriction of carbohydrates in the diet. The need to further explore and communicate the untoward side-effects of low-carbohydrate diets should be an important public health message from nutrition professionals.

or this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364

Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review.

Low-carbohydrate diets have been popularized without detailed evidence of their efficacy or safety. The literature has no clear consensus as to what amount of carbohydrates per day constitutes a low-carbohydrate diet.

There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content.

EDIT: fixed paragraph breaks.

First, I noticed your web site reference and the ".gov" at the end....so I did not even bother to go and look at it. ".gov" has done a wonderful job of suggesting that I should continue to follow the low-fat diet I had been on for years. On that low-fat diet, I blossomed up to 328 pounds, had gestational diabetes, and now have full blown type II diabetes.

I started on the LCHF diet on May 1 of this year. I am now off of my injectable diabetes medication, while still taking my Metformin (which has been reduced by 50% by the doctor already). Even with no injectable medication and half my oral meds, I am still having sugar lows. Looks like tomorrow, I will be removed from all diabetes meds.

In one month, I have dropped 21 pounds. I am happy, feel great, never hungry and love the idea of the eggs and bacon I get every morning. I eat when my stomach growls and don't eat when I am not hungry. I eat about 1600 calories a day, have enough energy to work 12 hour days and still take a 20 mile bike ride at 16- 18 mph at the end of the day.

I eat a lot of veggies. Every day has about 5 cups spinach in it, along with celery, cucumber, avocado, some onion and green pepper, and romaine lettuce (literally plate-fulls). For desert, I have a cup of strawberries with 12 TBSP whipped cream on top (sugar free, of course). I limit my sugar substitutes to 3 packages, or the equivalent, each day.

So, to recap. In one month I have lost 21 pounds, have nearly gone off all diabetes meds and have sugars that hardly ever get above 100 (as opposed to the 180 - 320 I used to get in April). I feel great, exercise more (now that I have the energy). More importantly, my endo doctor approves of this diet, WHEN DONE CORRECTLY, and is absolutely amazed by the results.

I am wondering how this can be bad??

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/cure

Herpes is a bad example because your can never get rid of one symptom which is the virus itself.

The medical profession never likes to cure anything. There goal is to keep people alive and sick, because those people are a continuous stream of income. Curing people is bad for business, so you rarely hear them use the word cure. However, by the definition of the word cure, type II diabetes can certainly be cured. Do you have another definition of the word "cure"?

Um, I'm bipolar and not exhibiting any symptoms so am I cured? By your definition I am. But my disease is certainly NOT curable, if I quite taking my meds I can guarantee you I will be hospitalized within a month because my brain chemistry will go haywire. I'm sorry but my doctors are not keeping me on my meds for a streamline of income, they are a necessary evil.

You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.

Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.

Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188

Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.

"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."

If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.

You are confusing type I diabetes with type II diabetes. They are two completely different diseases.

Type I diabetes is from a destruction of the islets of langerhans and stops all, or very nearly all insulin production.

Type II diabetes is from a build-up of fat in the pancreas which leads to the bodies inability to properly use its insulin.(known as insulin resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20225188

Your response mentioned the islets of langerhans which means that the anonymous person you are quoting is referring to type I diabetes, NOT type II diabetes which is the discussion at hand.

"cure
kyo͝or/Submit
verb
1.relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition."

If a person has no more symptoms, then they are cured.

Did you read the source you quoted? It does not prove any cause for type II diabetes. The cause of type II is still unknown.

Summary of the paper's conclusion. Quoted from Pubmed because I can't be bothered to reformulate in my own words:

"Pancreatic fat is negatively associated with insulin secretion in subjects with IGT/IFG and, therefore, might represent an additional pathogenetic factor leading to beta-cell dysfunction."

Correlation does not equal causation. You notice the researchers recognize this and say that pancreatic fat might have something to do with causing beta-cell dysfunction. That is a hypothesis that needs further testing, unless there's another paper out there that's done it.

ETA: Yeah, agree completely w/ everything richardheath already posted. Including the definition of "cure"

Type 2 diabetes develops because pancreatic β-cells eventually fail to produce enough insulin to compensate for the ongoing insulin resistance.

Actually, it is true that man developed from eating plants. The theory that meat increased intelligence is faulty. How did we develop tools to hunt so we could eat meat before we had the intelligence to make the tools? Intelligence came from a plant-based diet. Then, as humans start eating more and more meat, they become more and more destructive. Animal agriculture is the single largest threat to the environment. It produces the most greenhouse gases, most water and air pollution, most soil erosion, the cause of most of the deforestation, and it starves millions of people everyday.

Despite popular belief, humans are not omnivores. If we were omnivores, we wouldn't get sick from eating rotting flesh. We would have some biological adaptations for catching and killing prey. We wouldn't develop cancer, heart disease, and diabetes from eating animal flesh. But we do.

Animal agriculture is destroying the planet, starving millions, killing billions of sentient beings every year, and destroying people's health. This is where we are today from eating meat.

Great post! I just started a ketogenic diet 6 days ago and have experienced some good results so far. I'm finding that I have to be careful with my fat intake because I had my gallbladder out a few years ago. I'm still trying to find the balance of percent fat to percent protein that will work for me. So far, I don't get to 60-70% fat; I'm at about 50%. However, I'm in the moderate zone according to my keto sticks, and I've lost 6 pounds. So far, so good!

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to better handle fat intake with no gallbladder? Thanks!