Is there a memo out to just start attacking keto again? I wonder who sponsored this study….
This is a catalogue of the classic CW mistakes and errors. And I love how they describe a diet that has 25% of calories from carbs as “keto-like”.
My summary of the person who wrote this article: has absolutely no idea about proper human nutrition.
It’s CNN. Next study findings:
“Keto Safer If Mask Worn to Bed”
If I read the term “bad cholesterol” used as if it refers to true science one more time, I may have a cerebral event myself. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh, it’s an ideal way of identifying rubbish articles in 10 seconds or less.
Eating a big mac is keto like. It’s like keto because you are eating meat.
I actually started a keto smear thread shortly ago. The thing they have in common is ketosis is never monitored, conveniently left out. That’s how elites run the world. They dish out data and suppress what they don’t want you to know, to drive their narrative, that they consider holy and just.
On a related note, I try to remind myself that there’s no such thing as bad science - just bad scientists.
Science is about nature, human opinions of what is science is just human opinion.
Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings: There are no stupid questions, only stupid—whoops! Better not finish that one!
I wouldn’t call this person “elite”.
They just looked at some data and saw that some people who met their “keto-like” diet had higher LDL than those in their “standard diet”. That’s it.
“A limitation of the study is that participants provided dietary information at only one point in time, which should be considered when interpreting the study findings, Iatan said. Moreover, self-reports of food consumption can be inaccurate, though Iatan said this questionnaire has been extensively validated.”
I see this for all these FFQ studies. And I never believe it. You can’t “validate” garbage.
Articles like this start to make me angry, until I realize that “they” (medical and big pharma) don’t want the general population to know what will really make them completely healthy. God forbid nobody doesn’t need them anymore.
- The data was from United Kingdom database UK Biobank, and only 1505 (305 “ketoer” + 1,200 standard people) in decades? It doesn’t make any sense that the DB has only 1505 people’s data for decades.
- It mentioned that “The study also looked at the longitudinal effect of following the diet, whereas most people who follow a keto-like diet tend to follow it intermittently for shorter periods of time.”, most probably that these so called “ketoers” quit the diet very soon before they really do it correctly, like we have seen some people in this forum who doubt the diet only after days of trying.
While it’s true that recent research has suggested a potential link between certain variations of low-carb, high-fat diets and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, it’s important to note that the evidence is still evolving, and more research is needed to fully understand the long-term effects. However, I am sure this study “overreacts” and add some unrealistic facts. I am on a low-carb diet for many years and I feel so great and young! I cannot tell that I am on a strict keto diet, but I definitely consume less carbs. For the first several weeks it was kind of difficult even to go shopping for groceries, now since I discovered Costco Keto Foods it became simpler and more time-consuming.
There are 2 common and grave errors made by these people who claim to be “scientists”:
they measure a variable (in this case the prevalence of a “keto-like diet”) against a proxy marker (in this case LDL), which they assume to be bad. They see a positive correlation and therefore conclude that the variable is bad. The first problem is their assumption that LDL is bad. It simply ain’t… there is no evidence for this. In fact, higher LDL is protective against CVD and All Cause Mortality. So I would like to reframe the title of this article: “Failing to eat a keto-like diet may be associated with a higher risk of heart disease”
It’s the same old correlation vs causation… as soon as you see any title that claims something is associated with something else you can safely just disregard it: it means this is epidemiology and is utterly useless in establishing causation.