Biolayne - why so anti keto?

(Ian) #1

I have been following a number of people who appear to have different viewpoints regarding the keto way of life. I do this to try and counter my own confirmation bias.

In a recent video Biolayne was pretty adament that the the carbohydrate / insulin model of obesity and weight gain has been proven, many timws over, to be incorrect. He has mentioned this many times on his IG account. See about 10 minutes into the following video:

I have never seen this proof from him or any other source and was wondering if anyone else has or can provide a link to the research he is referring to?

#2

:clap:

(bulkbiker) #3

Maybe the monster energy drinks sponsorship has something to do with it…
Plus his “bro science” If It Fits Your Macros CICO bollocks?

Edit to add… maybe he desn’t like that fact that for many it seems to “work” whereas CICO seems to fail …

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #4

Stop chasing idiots.You’ll see a lot of ridiculous claims, unless they cite their research it’s not worth following it up. (If they do provide sources then I’ll look into it. So far it never took me more than 5 minutes to find an obvious weakness.)

To see the typical arguments have a go with Guyenet, who is one of the anti-CIM “gurus”. He claims that the CIM is wrong, based on one civilization, the Kitavans (who did eat a lot of unrefined carbs, via starchy breadfruit – maybe he doesn’t know the difference between sugar/refined carbs and starchy vegetables with lots of fiber) and several studies that claim that “low carb” is worse than low fat, “low carb” in this case being diets with 30% to 40% carbs that are matched against a low-fat diet (get it? “low carb” because it’s below the typical carb intake in the SAD).

Or have a go with Katz, who bases his vegan views mostly on weak studies that favor vegan/vegetarian diets because they lower cholesterol, and other studies that compare vegan diets to junk food (where to no ones surprise salad and bread win against burgers and fries). Woo-hoo?

Waste of time to follow these claims, really.

(Bunny) #5

I have exactly the same sentiment, because the other side of the argument may have the answers to your side. Knowing and fully understanding both sides or all sides is a more wise approach.

One can blame insulin but forget that you can also oxidize glucose and create this picture in every bodies mind that every little carb is being stored as fat. You can oxidize fatty acids also and shrink adipose tissue with the help of the components of adrenaline.

When it comes to trying to finding the golden rood of shrinking or draining your own adipose tissue, you may have 300 billion of them to shrink. Every time you shrink and expand them later in life they divide and multiply so you have more to deal with next time.

5 healthy fat cells will fit on the head of a pin at 66% full capacity but when you have 300 billion or more of them at 100% full capacity then you got problems especially if they are damaged.

For every scientific argument there is an equal or counter argument, so that creates a paradox when other variables are not factored into the equations?

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #6

Sure. But at one point you get tired of seeing the same arguments being made over and over. Especially if you’ll inevitably find out that the person claiming that keto is [bad|dangerous|ineffective|stupid] has commercial interests, for example gets money from the food industry of from companies promoting a low-fat diet. If you doubt this, just revisit “keto crotch” which was invented by a Weight Watchers employee…

(Jack Bennett) #7

Patterns that I’ve noticed in some of these guys:

  • “carbs and sugar don’t cause Type 2 diabetes - animal fat causes Type 2 diabetes”
  • cherry picking from otherwise weak studies
    • Michael Greger is known for blasting through long lists of studies, mentioning the parts that support his vegan thesis, while ignoring the parts that don’t support it or oppose it.
    • The Game Changers “documentary” was criticized for similar behavior.
  • Ignoring biomarkers that tell a different story.
    • For example, I was looking at a “cure diabetes with plant-based low-fat high carb diet” web site, and they quoted significant changes in HDL (decrease!) and LDL (decrease, no surprise), but didn’t even mention triglycerides. How can I trust you if you ignore a major elephant in the room?
(Bunny) #8

That’s how figure things out, the longer a scientific finding or argument is sustained, the more the variables come into fruition then you can say if X happens then Y occurs but if it does not happen in that order then Z does not occur?

(Bunny) #9

From your bullet list I could deduce that to one common denominator:

Too Much Sugar (or a constant high intake of sugar and processed sugars combined with rancid seed oils, hydrogenated fats with missing electrons) ?

Then somebody can come in say “well your wrong?”

When that was the common denominator to begin with but then becomes let’s try to save the animals with it, so no one will eat meat; insert more theories here […] to confuse you even more so we can take our attention off the high sugar intake?

The meat only eater will come in and say “well I don’t eat carbs” and that is why I’m so healthy? Is that because they are only eating meat (protein)? Or is it because they cut down the sugar intake?

(Jack Bennett) #10

I agree that many (most) vegetarians don’t have much of an answer to the sugar question aside from “it’s fruit! It’s natural!” I don’t think we’ve entirely pinned down what a safe fructose intake is, although I’ve seen some estimates in the literature. (Lustig suggests 25g, I think.)

Some vegetarians go ultra-low-fat and thereby avoid PUFA and seed oil. However, that’s not really one of the big selling points, because it makes the diet bland, unpalatable, and incredibly boring. (This is the McDougall / Esselstyn / Ornish / etc diet for countering heart disease: whole-foods, plant-based, and also ultra-low-fat.)

Big-budget ads (propaganda) for the vegetarian lifestyle like Game Changers seem to pitch plant-based convenience / processed / junk food and eating a lot of that will certainly add a lot of seed oils to the diet.

The biggest potential overlap between vegetarians and keto-ers seems to lie in the “healthy plant fats” realm: olive, coconut, avocado.

#11

It’s grass, sugar cane. It’s roots, beet sugar. It’s fruit, fructose.

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #12

No. They ignore that a carb calorie is not a carb calorie :slight_smile:

This is Lustigs argument (which I happen to agree with): We have a capacity, a processing speed for carbs. If we eat fruit (or potatos or legumes), the sugar is released in a time-delayed fashion because if the fiber. If we eat a pound of apples, we’ll have a carb peak but nevertheless it takes 2 hours (give or take a bit) until all the sugar is in our bloodstream. If we drink the equivalent amount of juice it will take just 10 minutes, because the juicing process destroys the fiber and the sugar hits the blood almost immediately. (Plus, eating a pound of apples takes MUCH longer than drinking apple juice). Liver and mitochondria are overwhelmed by the amount of glucose/fructose, which is how the damage starts. With time, the damage reduces the processing speed even further and we start a vicious cycle. (We need longer to clear the glucose/fructose from our blood if we’re insulin resistant).

That’s the reason why the Kitavans can eat a high-carb diet while staying relatively healthy: They never eat refined carbs. They might get insulin resistant nevertheless, but it will take a LOT longer. That’s also the reason why calorie reduction increases longevity, the carbs are spaced out.

Lustig says up to 50g fructose (+ethanol, which has a similar metabolism in the liver) a day is OK for a healthy adult, but it has to be spaced out.

(Bob M) #13

His theory is that we get fat because food tastes too good. You shouldn’t add butter to your vegetables, because that will make them overeat them.

So, when Fire in a Bottle did his study with high saturated fat and starch, he made sure that what he did was eat things that tasted good. And he showed that we can still eat things that taste good while losing weight.

(Bob M) #14

You might want to watch this video:

image
image.jpg1021Ă—443 125 KB

(Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) #15

Yes, this is the same principle. I think David Ludwig also has some talks on this. The bottom line is that carbs are carbs, but it does matter how fast they cross into the bloodstream.

I love the study where they fed mice with chow (low fat), mediterranean diet or western diet. Predictably the mice on the western diet got fat but not the mice on chow. But then they repeated the experiment with pureed fodder, and all 3 groups got equally fat despite the fact that their diet had completely different macros. It’s not always about carbs vs. fat.

(Jack Bennett) #16

I think this is part of it, but it’s not the whole story. It’s clear that “half carb, half fat, a little protein” is a special combination of macros that people can eat with minimal limits. (See “Don’t Eat For Winter”, etc).

Some people do fine with Whole30-ish approaches - carrots or sweet potatoes with butter and salt, for example. Probably best for people with only a little weight to lose and/or reasonable metabolic health. But if you add sugar and maple syrup to the dish, you’re more likely to be playing with fire.

That’s certainly been my experience. My N=1 observation is that I am eating delicious (but not artificial or hyperpalatable) foods, with plenty of fat and protein, and maintaining a 40 lb weight loss without hunger or discomfort.