umayster Member

No one claimed a ketogenic diet superior for all parties.

Cool, those of us on a ketogenic diet designed for epileptics are under care of a doc and you needn't worry. Those of us on a non-epilepsy diet are able to fulfill our nutrients with food. It really isn't any more difficult than a 'moderation' diet. Did you have nutrient problems when you were doing ketogenic diet?

Cream, cheese, sour cream, nuts, veggies, eggs, seafood and hotdogs primarily.

So, this is a fascinating study!

I'm a pretty relaxed ketogenic eater. I love my minimal fruits and vegetables! A properly done ketogenic diet doesn't require supplements, although like SAD, if you aren't very mindful of micronutrient range, supplements are a good backup. I'm not zero carb but have followed and read about the practice. They call it zero…

It isn't.

Ketogenic diets are quite extreme in macro and content when designed for drug resistant epileptics who may have multiple severe health issues and pharmaceutical interventions. I gave up reading the studies on epileptic ketogenic diets because it is a different animal than a diet filled with relatively normal proteins and…

I understand, and nutrition studies are problematic - pretty much all of them. I also don't think it is a coincidence that those eating fruits and vegetables have lower cancer rates, but confounders are truly almost impossible to completely draw out and it still may not be by direct cause/effect.

Eating more fruit & vegetables causes less cancer? No. Some people who eat more fruits and vegetables also have fewer cancers. Yes. Eating more fruits & vegetables will lower your personal risk of cancer. No. This study does not mean I can actually affect my own health by chosing to eat more fruits and vegetables. It means…

EVERY nutrient in vegetables is available elsewhere, vegetables are not the only easy source of life sustaining nutrients. Eating no veggies is not bad for you, you just need to increase familiarity of nutrient content of other food sources to make it easy and healthy.

Proteins and fats. Why 'take' carbs, then take carb blockers? That costs more money than simply eating the food that doesn't make you feel bad. You can get all the nutrients you need eating very low carb.

Sorry, I thought by saying 'different spin' you meant it was contradicting those who were suggesting lowcarb/ketogenic as useful for AD. My bad.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25832906 This study suggests better results possible if ketone body supplementation began in pre clinical state.

Moi aussi. If I had listened to the very subtle carb issues I was having decades ago and had changed diet then to more appropriate food choices it would have made a significant difference for me. I would like those for whom a low carb would possibly benefit to be encouraged and not dissuaded from giving it a good test…

I went back and re-read this. My understanding is that it supports a ketogenic state as better functioning for AD sufferers since glucose metabolism is impaired and ketone metabolism is sustained? What are you getting from the study?

Most who have chosen the no-so-easy path of restricting carbs and are doing it right enough to see solid benefits pretty much are unable to do that without some serious nutrititional learning. Most who argue against carb restriction eat much higher carb levels without the issues that would promote the understanding of how…

Maybe it makes them feel bad? Maybe they like to experiment? Sugar is fun to eat, but no one will suffer ill health without it.

You are reasonable, diplomatic and explain ketosis concepts well. I bet there are lurkers here who have identified some of the typical issues people have when they have a 'carb problem' and will use your rational explaining as a springboard to do their own research. Thank you.

..unless, maybe she'd like to log accurately?

Under 20gr of carbs a day will mostly eliminate the farts.

You did it by suggesting the additional requirement for low carb food choices of "cogent reasons". Why isn't a high carber also required to have "cogent reasons" in your rule book?

Humans will eat everything which provides energy and doesn't have a direct short time link with sickness or death. There are some cultures whose diet is low carb to ketogenic.

Fallacy fallacy? Quit.

oh ya, almost missed this - everything has a level at which it becomes toxic to humans. I think the body only produces glucose to the level needed and not to excess. It is only when we eat that an excess happens. Or so I seem to have understood from what I've read.

Hey I don't know, but I do know better than claiming something is all-around the best and super-terrific too. Every fuel has strengths and weaknesses. If you don't know the weaknesses, it just means we don't understand, it does not mean the weakness does not exist. First & fast are positives. The negatives matter too.

You chose to read the business magazine article rather than follow the link to the Jama page?? I can't help you.

You are saying the body uses glucose first because its the more optimal fuel, what if the body uses glucose first because high blood glucose is a hazardous state for the body? Don't confuse 'uses first' with 'optimal'.

Funny, you just did. Most in this post are pushing carbs. It's like some weird crusade to control others food choices.

That is not at all what I mean, don't twist my words, it is obvious that is not my meaning. The reason I was able to sustain such a large change in my diet is because I do not feel like crap after eating any more. They don't call it a a "carb coma" or "food coma" for nothing. If you don't have a problem like this, just…

I think you are being too diplomatic. It is old woo of the worst sort - rehashed regurgitated poorly researched woo.