Episode 141 - Dr. Stephen Phinney

(Beth laing) #21

I also found this really interesting. Would love to know if there is a study that looks at HIT and weight lifting kinds of exercise instead of the long duration cardio workout. Also wondering if there is anything info about the long term impact on their metabolic rate – did it stay at the decreased level or move back when they returned to “regular” diet.

(Bob M) #22

What that study was supposed to test was whether exercise somehow prevented the BMR decrease that occurs with lower calorie diets. It did not, and in fact caused a lower BMR. That’s basically all you can take from it. Note also the tiny number of participants, 6 in the lower cal and 6 in the lower cal plus exercise. I’m sure that was because it was an intensely restrictive and tough study for participants (what crazy person wants to eat 800 calories a day while exercising at the same rate?).

However, for all those women (and men) who ate lower calorie diets and exercised a ton and did tnot lose weight or lose little weight (remember – CICO ignores BMR), it’s a least a data point on their side.

(Bob M) #23

One thing I wish the 2 keto dudes would do is get away from calling people who question vaccines “anti-vaxers”. One of the dudes was saying that when science proves vaccines bad, then they would accept that. The problem with this is there are basically NO vaccine studies against true placebos. For instance, the studies of Gardasil used aluminum adjuvant as the “placebo”.

I read one epidemiological study where they looked at the rate of death of the elderly in flu season and not in flu season and compared with the elderly who had/did not have flu shots. You get supposedly tremendous benefits according to drug manufacturers for flu shots given to the elderly, with terms like “50% fewer” deaths being promised. Yet this study found zero difference between the death rate in summer and winter for flu vaccine/no flu vaccine. Why? Healthy user effect. That is, the people who got flu shots were simply healthier than those who did not. Unfortunately, I can’t find the right search terms to find this exact study, but this is a good overview of this area:

They make statements like this: “Not many RCTs on the influenza vaccine efficacy in older adults have been conducted, because of ethical issues concerning interventions that are recommended.” So, we’re trusting our health to drugs not having RCTs? Does that make sense to anyone?

You’ll find this throughout the vaccine landscape. Where are the RCTs? There are none, at least none with true placebo.

Furthermore, that discussion of the mathematical model of herd immunity depends on the model. In the US, we had a hurricane that went from tropical storm to category 4/5 in a single day and caught everyone off-guard. Why? Their models were wrong. There is no reason to assume that your model of herd immunity is correct. It’s a freaking mathematical model. It could be completely wrong.

So, while I think vaccines might have benefits, might have “cured” disease, as a scientist at heart, I can never be sure – ever. I can be sure that E=MC^2 only if it is proven over and over and over again. And, as I scientist, I should believe what I’m doing has the potential for damage. I mean, we got into this whole obesity mess because people thought fat was bad, carbs were good, and nothing would happen if we changed the ration between the two.

The 2 keto dudes are biased in this vaccine area, and I would prefer they simply skip it rather than lambaste others for questioning it.

(ianrobo) #24

Why ? Our WOE is based on science and not people like Andrew Wakefield producing fake reports and scares. Science should be the number one backing of anything we do and anti vaxxers, who tend to be climate deniers have none on their side

(ianrobo) #25

Ps I agree on the fly side that there is marginal benefit but check out Italy and measles deaths since sone anti science anti vacxers took hold there.

(Todd Allen) #26

It looks near certain that several devastating diseases such as smallpox and polio have been successfully countered with vaccines. But it still seems fair to question the value of specific vaccines.

Influenza vaccines have issues such as effectiveness limited to a few strains with a need for regular vaccinations to cover the expected flavors each year. Some of the people who take care to get a flu shot every year will still get the flu. Also except in the rare cases of outbreaks of very virulent strains flu isn’t particularly dangerous for people otherwise in good health. As far as I know flu vaccines are still not universally recommended in any country but rather only for people at high risk. So questioning the value of flu vaccines on an individual basis is not crazy but rather the official recommendation.


Yes, this ^! I consider myself pro-vaccine AND skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, and I think it’s wise to look carefully at claims that come from the pharma + medical establishment. This does not make me anti-vax; it just makes me cautious. I’m actually more inclined toward vaccines than I am toward any other output of the industry because it’s such a brilliant solution to serious diseases (using small doses of a pathogen to trigger an immune response - it’s so elegant, and can be so effective!) but I find the rhetoric maddening. Somehow with vaccines in particular, if you show the shadow of a doubt about a particular recommendation then you’re “anti-vax” and you hate science.


A person I respect for their health views was an early adopter of the ketogenic WoE. Along with their experience of health improvement by going against the medical establishment nutrition advice, they also developed a distrust of medical advice in general. They didn’t vaccinate their daughter. Their daughter is a healthy active child on a low carb healthy whole food diet and is thriving. But I notice the steps of medical mistrust are incremental. Other friends questioned their choice to not vaccinate and the subsequent, public, social media debate saw this healthy friend morph into a strident anti-vaccination campaigner. I think another version of this psychological and sociological recipe creates vegan animal liberationists. Thus keto is potentially dangerous.

A story of keto WoE and medical establishment mistrust
(Alec) #29

Not as dangerous as T2D.


Yes, true to a point Alec. Danger lies all about. One might dodge the health danger of type 2 diabetes, but blunder straight into social ostracism.

The wellness gurus teach that health, and health span, is not just about diet. Social engagement and strong support networks are equally important.

There is a risk for the ketonian high on the success and feeling of well being, of their exuberance being potentially damaging to other aspects of health. The hardening of a position from an n=1 positive individual experience, when it is tested in the social crucible of family and friends, can future manifest as a righteous rebel being pushed to the extremes, social dislocation, and isolation. Especially when that righteous rebel overlays their experience into a message that they think should be heeded by everyone.

A story of keto WoE and medical establishment mistrust
(Alec) #31

Social isolation because someone believes they eat the right stuff, and wants to tell people what they have found?

Nah, sorry, don’t buy it. If anything there is enhanced social engagement from the enthusiasm and conversation.


Ketone high vegans lead the way. True, they don’t become isolated for long. Maybe initially from their long term social network. Eventually they find like-minds and echo chambers that seem to be a nice roost. Indoctrination intensifies and rebellion stoked with positive feedback, further frays the longer standing social safety net.

This could be happening here in this forum based on the stories of frustration from keto eaters in explaining, or even having to explain, the way we/they eat to their peers.

The common theme is an initial healthy skepticism of the norm mutating into an emotion fuelled rebellion and a hardening of an ideological dichotomy for individuals susceptible or unaware of the creeping increments of the negative social health change.

It’s how a ketogenic eater can morph into an anti-vaccination campaigner.

(Running from stupidity) #33

LOL, massive-generalisations’r’us.

(Bunny) #34

I wonder if those are dead pathogens (broken DNA/RNA strands) with residual chromosomes still intact?

Reminds of those stories about the milk maids in the 1700’s who were immune to the smallpox virus (the cow pox)?

Maybe being in contact with residual dead pathogens is the actual boost in immunity?

(⚕ lowcarb.skrinak.com ⚕) #35

Sigh. That’s not a “keto” problem, it’s called “confirmation bias.” It’s a disease every pair of eyes looking at this very text suffers from, including this author. Think of it is “scientific original sin.”

(Candy Lind) #36

I hope this is meant to be sarcastic.


Maybe a big leap in the observed logic progression. Hence the adjective. probably could have added the qualifier; “ for susceptible people.”


The last sentence was a conversation thought spur. But it broke away from the crux of the anecdote.

I don’t think nor find nutritional ketosis dangerous in my experience. But it doesn’t get a free pass as not potentially harmful in some cases.

The idea that the keto WoE experience in part creating an anti-vaccination campaigner via the shared origin of medical establishment mistrust is a true observation.

However, it may be more complex, a correlation rather than directly causative.

(Running from stupidity) #39

Oxygen - very corrosive and dangerous stuff. Beware breathing.