I tried Paleo, before discovering the research on Keto. Keto was “out there” as a concept for a long time, but I assumed (incorrectly) I had already given it a try, having tried Atkin’s in the 1970’s. Keto is nothing like Atkins–but I didn’t bother to look into it for a long time because I (wrongly) thought they were the same. Two years of Paleo was an utter fail for me. I was not healthier. I did not feel well. I had worsening health symptoms. I neither gained nor lost weight on Paleo–it was okay as a maintenance diet, but not ideal as physically I felt crappy all the time. A few weeks of Keto and POW, WOW, and shizzam! I’m feeling amazing. I’m shredding fat from my physique, out of pain, not seeing age-related decline, gaining muscle in a way which is day-to-day obvious.
Dr. Sarah Ballantyne doubles down against ketogenic diets
E.O., I have a suspicion that there are ways of eating that fit into the Paleo box that are pretty high carb. And I also have a suspicion that there are ways of eating that fit into the Paleo box that are low carb, perhaps even unintentionally keto.
FWIW, I find this a very interesting topic!
I feel like … Ok, when my science brain goes to sleep, what I’m left thinking is: so I have to severely limit my carbs, I can see why that’s true, given the damage to my metabolism from western carb-laden diet. According to Rosedale, I also have to severely limit my protein. And according to my inner (mother?) conditioned “knowledge”, fat is nothing but empty calories. So where is my “nutrition” coming from? Is the concept of “nutrition” itself a lie, do I just need those “empty” calories that can be converted into what my body needs??
My science brain is willing to suspend judgment, and consider the idea that everything I’ve been told I need might actually be untrue (rainbow veggies, fruit, whole grain, loads of protein, extra vitamin this and lots of supplemental that, loads of fiber, buckets of water etc.) . But my other side is sometimes very frustrated and confused, I’m pretty sure I can’t subsist on nothing.
ETA: What I really get confused about with the Rosedale formula is the unavailability of his “perfect” diet to my genetic ancestors. How could I have evolved to require a diet of 5% carbs, 5% protein and 90% fat? How, “in the wild”, could my genetic ancestors have gotten loads of fat without also eating loads of either carbs or, more easily, meat protein. I’m pretty sure a self respecting neanderthal wouldn’t have eaten the organs and rather minimal fat off his antelope or salmon and walked away from the protein-rich muscle meat, and unless my Homo Erectus vegetarian uncle was living in an avocado grove or a Polynesian island, I don’t see how he could have gorged on fat in the absence of carbs.
I didn’t take Rosedale’s thoughts as severe restriction so much as you have to, at least periodically, give your body a chance to recycle or take out the trash. I didn’t take what he said to be severe continuously. Maybe I didn’t take it the same way. ?
What I heard was the ideal protein intake would be about .6 grams per kg of lean body mass. (maybe that wasn’t All the time? I thought he was talking about an everyday goal. It’s at 49:06) For me, that would be about 25 grams of protein, or 100 calories. So a bit more than 5%, but not much.
I always have the same question. Even today it is difficult to the achieve the required macros without literally drinking HWC or something.
I just say to my self did I benefited from keto or not ?
Or maybe we are ahead of evolution when following keto.
Hmm. Mulling that over, I did come up with an alterative: that the macros make more sense if you’re looking at a diet with a lot fewer overall calories. If I were averaging 600 calories a day, then 100 grams of protein would closer to 20%. I.e. maybe my neanderthal ancestor had a slowed-down metabolism due to the limited availability of food, a natural calorie restriction - he did eat the whole antelope, but only once a week (so really, his macro would have been more like 5-50-45, if you looked a his overall nutrient profile). Making the advice of the 5-5-90 or whatever it is, simply a way of allowing us to eat more / allow for a higher metabolic rate without doing damage?
We also bred with them. So I don’t know if it’s “ancestors” or “cousins” but they’re still with us. 
He did say that under 30 yo, protein is not a problem…then they, the ancestors, died. We old folks likely didn’t exist, and we need less protein for !longevity.
K
I added fat eating less protein ( measured by a DXA). I lost fat and gained LBM eating 1.5 to 2g protein per.
That’s why I am carnivore lite these days. Vegetables are to flavor, not to eat 
in the absents of good fat they make a decent source for water soluble vitamins, but don’t do to many you just pee them out making the extra soil depletion a environmental hazard
As Rosedale says it’s about your age AND your goals! If you are old and want to be a bodybuilder, and that’s more important than living longer, then go ahead and increase your Protein and MTOR. If you are young, you are still in growth mode, then you can eat more protein without much cancer risk. If you are post productive, and want to live long, reduce your protein and MTOR. Lower MTOR means more Ketones too.
Great point. When I was doing paleo my average carb was 50 grams or under a day. At that time, I did not count net (subtract fiber). In the recent Keto Summit online, heard Mark Sisson saying he now promotes doing keto to become fat adapted and then doing Paleo; resetting the fat adapted every so many months, depending on your results. I’ve not tried it but seen other bloggers anecdotally saying this works for them.
Even in the studies where she says Death is an adverse reaction, they say “The KD is a safe and effective alternative therapy for intractable childhood epilepsy”…I believe that Death was an adverse reaction to epilepsy, not keto. After reading that I had to stop because that’s quite frankly a sickening rhetorical trick.
What bloggers? Im interested in anecdotal evidence of this as I’m trying it myself. Thanks for letting me know 
Is low insulin a thing? Clearly it is for T1D, get that, but that is a specific failure of the pancreas to produce insulin. In the rest of the non-T1D population, is low insulin likely/possible/even a problem? Seems like classic scaremongering wiht no science behind it (always happy to be corrected)