The Guardian declares no evidence for keto

(Doug) #61

Tom Watson, 51, Labour party member of Parliament, lost 86 pounds by eating keto.

(bulkbiker) #62

Think he’s up to 100 pounds off now…

(Ellen) #63

Not sure Mark. Have a great birthday & enjoy your steak.

(Jane) #64

Happy Birthday to a fellow goat! (Capricorn, LOL)

(Electro Hacker) #65

I’m skeptical of just abaout everything they print - it starts with the name. They see themselves as the guardian of some kind of wokeness.

(Life is bacon, bacon is life) #66

The best reason yet for eating keto!!! :+1: :fireworks:

(Cari McAskill) #67

I want to send them a copy of “The Big Fat Surprise.” I’m reading it now. It isn’t a book about fat-adapted eating in particular, but it does go into the events and personalities that have jackhammered “eating saturated fats leads to heart attacks” into the American national diet.

If you haven’t read it, OMG read this book. The author is a journalist, sure, but one who clearly understands science. She did a ton of legwork and research on just how the lipid hypothesis and the diet->heart hypothesis got entrenched, and she takes you through both the history and the flawed science.

Clearly Ms. PhD (what is that degree IN, BTW?) needs to go out and read her some SCIENCE!

And …yeah. My husband’s healthcare advice from his doctor: “If you can stick to this thing and it helps you lose weight, GO FOR IT. Let’s look at your blood work in a couple months.”

Preaching to the choir, but… After a month this feels anything but restrictive. Compared to every other thing I’ve tried? It’s awesome. It’s a great fit for me personally, because I have a serious weakness for creamy things and butter. “Fake” sweeteners and keto muffins seem to be satisfying that need for something bready or sweet. I have rarely felt this optimistic about any life change, especially a month after starting.

Restrictive?! My in-laws constant “oh I just have an apple for lunch! That’s plenty!” is restrictive. “You should just exercise some self-control and eat 1200 calories a day!” …is restrictive.

Taking on a new nutritional outlook IS hard. Going against the “received wisdom” of 50+ years --based on bad science and flawed studies!-- is hard.

But what’s really hard is walking the dogs up the hill and getting that sharp shoulder pain and thinking “oh shit, is this gonna be it?” What’s really hard is, I’m betting, being someone who’s overweight, diabetic and wheelchair-bound thanks to a lifetime of poor nutrition and yo-yo diets.

What really sucks is that the Western and American image of “health” is dominated by one body type rather than many, and those who aren’t mesomorphs are constantly deluged with images of health and beauty that do not include them.

What really sucks is that for 50 years the dominant nutritional paradigm-- originally intended to make Americans healthy–has instead taken us through years of processed food “advancements,” metabolism-killing fad diets (I’m looking at YOU, Beverly Hills Diet), and rollercoaster blood sugar rides from eating that good old high carb food pyramid diet.

Er. Ahem.

Sorry! I got carried away.


I read that. I felt like Nina Teicholz cranked open my third-eye and it made me really angry at the Powers That Be that we’ve been lied to for decades based on bad science. Ancel Keys is my forever whipping boy now.

(Life is bacon, bacon is life) #69

Don’t hold back, @Ketohilde—tell us how you really feel! :grin:

There’s a new thread about the New York Times article by Anahad O’Connor that takes a favorable look at Dr. Ludwig’s new study, the Framingham State Food Study. Perhaps someone at the Guardian should take a look at the Times, even though it’s only a colonial rag, lol!

(Now known as "DR JUICE" - it's just that easy! JUICE DC (Doctor of Comedy)) #70

Gary Taubes was the one who REALLY got this ball rolling, and he’s a journalist as well. They have the advantage of not being captured by the machine and being able to look from the outside in.

And a lot of the current research is being done by non-medical people as well, such as engineers. Same advantages.

based on bad science and flawed studies

Well, not really on any kind of actual science at all. It was a senatorial edict (George McGovern) that effectively nailed it down.

What really sucks is that for 50 years the dominant nutritional paradigm-- originally intended to make Ancel Keys - “nutrition’s Stalin” - famous


Article (with study linked) about High Fibre
(Ellen) #71

Another great one from the guardian…

(Whole Lotta Rosie The Riveter ) #72

Another eyeroller :roll_eyes:


The fox telling the chickens what’s good for them.

Most scientists just follow the money (I worked at a university for about 4 years, if you’ve ever seen seagulls at the beach fighting over a bag of chips, you’ll know what I mean ?..).

Mysteriously the findings of these scientists somehow favours their sponsor, it’s just how it is.

It takes independent people with enough wherewithal to stand up to the system or be independant of it in the first place (like engineers and quality journalists).

Papers are going down. They must be getting desperate.

(Jane) #74


The study has nothing to do with low carb diets but they had to slam it in their headline. Good news for us is they must be feeling the heat and are threatened.

(Omar) #75

same like countries trying to be out of polarization.

they will be zapped.

(Marcia T) #76

I got online to look at the Guardian article and there are over 700 comments. Being a bunch of Brits - some of them are very funny. That said, this is not the first article the Guardian has published that slams the keto diet - and one has to wonder who’s telling them to push the carbs? What corporation stands to lose . . . well, let’s face it - money if the world goes to keto?? Verrrrry suspicious.

(Whole Lotta Rosie The Riveter ) #77

Same study, less clickbaity headline :slightly_smiling_face:

(Jane) #78

Yep. No mention of keto or low carb in the headline or the article. Imagine that?

(Now known as "DR JUICE" - it's just that easy! JUICE DC (Doctor of Comedy)) #79

As the kids would have said some years ago about the Guardian: #obviousagendaisobvious

(Shanda) #80

Going back to the original article, what stuck out to me is this [quote=“nibs1066, post:1, topic:71245”]
One possible solution to diet dogma is an approach called intuitive eating: learning to eat mainly in response to physiological hunger and satiety cues.”

Isn’t one of the key things in keto to learn satiety cues and learning to give your body what it needs when it needs it based on physiological cues rather than giving in to what our brain thinks it wants? In effect isn’t this a form of intuitive eating? I’m still in the beginning phase so I haven’t considered IF yet but based on comments I’ve read from the vets on here, it doesn’t seem like the fasting is forced in any way. Most people talk about the ease of it and the lack of hunger. So basically if you’re hungry, eat. If you aren’t, dont. Seems pretty intuitive to me.