This study found cellular damage in male mice from ketosis not present in females due to the protective effects of estrogen.
Any thoughts on this study? Should men on keto be concerned? Do mice studies necessarily translate to humans?
Possible negative effects of Keto for men?
vwerner
(Werner)
#1
scaperdude
(B Creighton)
#2
I wouldn’t worry about this study. There are just too many variables at play to be concerned. First, if a study in humans shows something similar, I may pay more attention. This study was in mice, and I don’t see exactly what fat is being used. Palmitic acid is generally the worst fat for metabolic health. When I do keto, I don’t really do “high fat.” I do high protein and moderate fat. I also don’t consume proportionately a lot of palmitic acid, but more MCTs, stearic acid, and monounsaturated fats. I also do 3 OMAD days/week which is going to promote autophagy - which doesn’t really allow senescence to take place. I also supplement with antioxidants such as astaxanthin, and sometimes melatonin, which is going to reduce oxidative stress in the cell. If they do a study on humans in this scenario, I would be much more willing to give it credence.
SomeGuy
(Joey)
#3
The link was a bit oddly long, so I did not follow it. Having said that, the danger to men from keto would likely be their becoming far more attractive to women.
This could wreak the kind of havoc against which obesity is protective.
vwerner
(Werner)
#4
Yep. I shortened it in TinyURl.
Alternatively it’s from “Cell Reports” volume 44, issue 8.
Title: " Divergent sex-specific effects on a ketogenic diet: Male, but not female, mice exhibit oxidative stress and cellular senescence."
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#6
In mice,which shouldn’t be eating a high fat diet. Done on very specific strains of mice. And the “keto” diet was 90% Crisco!!!
You can go here to download the info for the food:
It is incredibly high in HYDROGENATED vegetable shortening and pretty high in corn oil.
I assume this is the “crisco” they used:
https://crisco.com/products/all-vegetable-shortening/
Yeah, on a diet that is incredibly high in soybean oil and corn oil and hydrogenated oils, you’re not going to be doing well.
vwerner
(Werner)
#7
Wow! Thanks for the feedback. That’s just ridiculous. Yet articles based on this study are all over the media, and likely to scare some people off
The devil is always in the details with these guys…!
clackley
(Cathy)
#8
This is just the exact type of nutritional science that should stay out of the public eye because it may offer some building blocks to a hypothesis, it is no where near a study that a conclusion that is being offered. It is click bait and nothing more to anyone as a casual observer.
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#9
I’ve only learned to do this after seeing others do it for mice studies. Often, the diet materials are “hidden” in another document, and have some code (as this one did, though it was easier to find). You have to go find that code from the manufacturer to figure out what the mice actually ate.
Often, a “keto” diet for a mouse has bad fats and also is relatively high carb (usually sugar). In this case, for this study, very little sugar, but very high in bad oils.
Even for humans, eating a 90% fat keto diet, even with good fats, is tough. You’re basically eating fat. Unless you really need high ketones for some reason, there’s no good reason to eat that high in fat.
lfod14
#10
You can’t take studies serious when it comes to dietary changes when the things the studies are done on aren’t human, and don’t even remotely eat the same.
That said, many that have done strict keto long term have seen drops in testosterone and thyroid function, I’ve had both.
SomeGuy
(Joey)
#11
The science is in. Crisco kills. 
EDIT: In fairness, if you only allowed humans to eat this, we’d not likely last long either…
vwerner
(Werner)
#12
One does have to ask, are the scientists behind this study really unaware of the fact that hydrogenated vegetable fats are super harmful, and that human keto diets consist of very different kinds of fats, in the range of 70%, not 90%.
Is this ignorance or misrepresentation?
kib1
(KM)
#13
It’s probably B&G Foods heavily marketing a product no one wants to eat any more that has been inexplicably handed off by Procter & Gamble to Smuckers to B&G rather than simply being retired, due to its one time popularity/profitability. It’s fat, it’s shelf stable, surely someone can use it. What a great place for it to wind up, nutrition research. They should have repackaged it as machine lubricant. Furniture polish, maybe. 
lfod14
#14
I love to have my foil hat on, because it’s accurate more than it’s not, but it’s probably more ignorance.
Plus the weird part, veggie oils aside, hydrogenated stuff is actually fine, it’s only the partially-hydrogenated stuff that’s bad, which is weird and counter-intuitive.
ctviggen
(Bob M)
#15
The theory is that fully hydrogenated just becomes saturated fat. I don’t know enough chemistry and what happens when you hydrogenate something to tell if that’s true or false. (I believe full hydrogenation does create a saturated fat; I just don’t know if that’s exactly the same as un-hydrogenated saturated fat; maybe there are kinks that weren’t there before?) And I don’t find any resources about this.
Shinita
#16
Ah so it’s the usual “mice fed on some crazy keto diet we wouldn’t even go near” thing. That already makes any conclusion invalid but 90% fat? Few of us would live long, healthy lives on that I presume. I have very nice 90% fat days but those my very occasional fat fast days with almost no protein. I need my higher protein but even who needs less, 90% fat is rarely on the table.