More Nonsense About 'Keto Diets'
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-02-26 06:50 by Karl Denninger
in Personal Health , 224 references Ignore this thread
More Nonsense About 'Keto Diets'
[Comments enabled]

Speweth the idiocy.....

Another way to get into ketosis is by eating less than 20 to 50 grams of carbs — or a slice or two of bread — per day. So people on a ketogenic diet get 5 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, about 15 percent from protein, and 80 percent from fat. Note that that’s a much lower ratio of protein and a lot more fat than you’d get on other low-carb diets, but it’s this ratio that will force the body to derive much of its energy from ketones. If you eat too much protein, or too many carbs, your body will be thrown out of ketosis.

Actually, the exact amount of carbohydrate you need to eat to drop out of a ketogenic state varies from person to person and is largely determined by your body composition and workload.  If you sit on your ass all day and watch TV then you might indeed drop out somewhere around 20-30 grams of net (of fiber) carbs a day.

Most people with a modest amount of exercise (some walking) will remain in it at 50g.

If you're exercising moderately heavily (30 minutes of running -- that is, roughly 3 miles -- every second day for example) you can probably take in 100, especially if they're not starches and sugars.

It is the exhaustion of glycogen stores that results in fat burning through exercise.  That inevitably produces ketone bodies as that's a byproduct of fat metabolism.

In practice, that means subsisting mainly on meats, eggs, cheese, fish, nuts, butter, oils, and vegetables — and carefully avoiding sugar, bread and other grains, beans, and even fruit. 

True.  And no, you don't need fruit.  The one thing you do need that fruit contains in volume is Vitamin C, but most green vegetables have far more of it than do oranges, for example.

Bread is, from a metabolic response point of view, not much better than table sugar.  In point of fact a Snickers bar has a comparable glycemic index to many breads!

I doubt anyone would call a Snickers Bar "health food."

There is a lot of other nonsense in this article.  One of the things claimed is that there are people claiming a 400-600 calorie metabolic advantage daily to eating low-carb.  I've never actually heard that from someone who knows what they're talking about and no, quack "Women's Health" tabloid magazines do not count.

The fact is, however, that under exertion -- that is, exercise -- this has been scientifically measured. Indeed ketogenic diets consume more fat on the body when exercising.  The reason for this is trivial science -- if there is no glycogen stored in the body when you begin working out it cannot be consumed first because it doesn't exist.  You thus start losing fat immediately.  In addition there is evidence that a keto-adapted athlete is more-able to process said fat than someone who is not; this is not surprising either as there's no alternative -- your body either does that or you cannot maintain the exertion level.

But you can maintain the exertion level.  I'm absolutely certain of it, because I do it.

Another reason very low-carb diets seem to help with weight loss initially is that there’s some evidence they’re effective for appetite control. “Most people actually eat fewer calories than they would on most other diets,” said Guyenet, adding, “The evidence supporting this isn’t great right now, but that seems to be where it’s going.”

Actually, they're very effective for appetite control.  I often wake up in the morning and have no desire for food until noon or even somewhat later.  That's not a function of conscious choice (i.e. I'm hungry but choose not to eat) but rather I have no desire to eat anything.

Long-term this is probably the reason it works maintenance-wise.

See, your body, like all animals, knows how to regulate its caloric intake without counting anything.  The precision that it can maintain on its own is astounding, just as is the case for all sorts of other autonomous and semi-autonomous processes.  You breathe and keep your O2 saturation and CO2 levels in balance without thinking about it.  When you exercise your heart rate increases along with breathing rate, when you stop it goes back down.  You don't think about either.  There are literally hundreds of such processes in your body, most mediated by one or more hormones.

May I remind you that in order to avoid gaining or losing a single pound in a year's time you must regulate your body's intake of food to within 10 calories a day.  That's roughly one or two potato chips or one good bite of an omelet or steak.  You cannot possibly do that consciously, yet if you're off "high" by even that tiny amount you'll gain 10 lbs every single decade, going from "normal" at 20 to ridiculously overweight (50lbs worth) by the time you're 60.  But your body not only can, it will regulate food intake automatically to a near-zero tolerance, at a level of low single-digit calories/day on average over the space of decades if you quit poisoning its regulatory mechanisms, just as it does for water balance (thirst .vs. urination), CO2 levels (breathing), insulin (glucose metabolism) and dozens of other body processes that are utterly necessary for you to remain alive.

So keto ends up performing a lot like other diets for weight loss: It can help the few who can stick to it, though not necessarily for the reasons proponents suggest. And it fails or is abandoned by everyone else.

Uh, nearly all "diets" are abandoned by everyone.

If you're going to eat keto then you have to make it a lifestyle, not a diet.

Here's the thing: You'll never do it eating fast carbohydrates -- unless you starve yourself, either out of necessity or choice.  Damn few people will do it by choice.  Many hundreds of millions have done it by necessity because they're peasants over the millennia, and that does work.  Do you wish to live like a peasant?  Have at it.

On the other hand if you wake up and aren't hungry it's not hard to not eat.  If you then choose to eat green vegetables and fats (e.g. steamed broccoli with cheese) at noon, and then eat a steak at dinner you almost-certainly will have consumed fewer calories because you didn't snack as you were not hungry.

Guess what happens when you do that?  Uh huh.

Your body knows how to regulate your food intake on its own and no, you're not "naturally large."  Nobody is.  You become fat because you poison those mechanisms and break them.  The way you break them is by eating fast carbohydrates.  If you stop doing that they will begin to work again.

The new study was sponsored and run by employees of Virta Health, a company selling lifestyle counseling on ketogenic diets for Type 2 diabetics. Virta, as well as other proponents of keto for diabetes, claims the diet can “reverse” diabetes — and that’s going a step too far.

“What’s been demonstrated is that [the ketogenic diet] controls blood glucose levels,” explained Guyenet. “That’s a good thing. But to show true remission or reversal, you have to show a person can go back to being able to eat carbs without having diabetes again.” And that has never been proven with the ketogenic diet.

The jury is out on this.

But this much is reasonably-certain -- you won't see the body reverse 20, 30, 40 or more years of insult and damage in months -- and probably not in a year.  In five?  Maybe.  And in fact while I was never diabetic I did have compromised insulin response.  I'm sure of it, because I've run my own tests with a personally-owned glucometer.  What I can tell you today is that the formerly-present compromise is completely gone.  I can attempt to drive my glucose wildly out of range, but it doesn't happen -- in fact it's virtually impossible for me to drive it over 120, and I've not managed to drive it over 140 irrespective of the depth of insult.  I stopped a couple of extreme attempts because I suspected I was going to puke if I kept eating that much in sweets.....

Ever see Matilda?  Remember Bruce?  Yeah, that sort of attempted gluttony.

But here's the thing -- I'm also reasonably sure that if I went back to eating carbs the way I used to not only would the weight come back on but so would the compromise, and it would likely resume deteriorating too... No thank you.

Incidentally, the reason I undertook this personal experiment was the repeated statements of both medical professionals and others, including the "general societal belief" that as we age our body's ability to control mass, control insulin and similar inevitably degrade.  The common chestnut is that it's utterly normal that we get fatter as we get older and that changes such as impaired insulin response is irreversible, chronic, progressive and age-linked (and largely genetic.)

I decided that if indeed that's true then I could not harm myself in the attempt to falsify the claim but if it was false then the outcome would be both dramatic and very positive for me personally.

Indeed, researchers have shown the opposite effect — that the body’s ability to tolerate carbohydrates can decrease after following a low-carb, high-fat diet.

Anecdotes ain't data but one contrary example voids a hypothesis.

Have a look up above 'cause there's your contrary example to the hypothesis.

However, I've been at this for close to seven years now.  Would the same show up in one year?  Probably not.

Then Vox goes completely off the rails.  They try to argue for a mutation actually being required for a high-fat diet to "work".  No such evidence is in the paper they cited and in fact the next study I cite fails to find same, but what is present is an explanation for why, when the Inuit started eating lots of carbs, they blew up like balloons and exhibited a huge spike in heart disease and diabetes.

In other words that which might dispose you to never make it to reproductive age, or disadvantage you in reproduction if you're eating lots of carbs doesn't have to advantage you in the absence of that -- it only has to not screw you to be selectively concentrated through natural selection.  The paper cited for that does indeed appear to lend evidence to exactly this.

Of course people are citing this study now too -- which is a comparison between low-fat and low-carb.  Except it really wasn't low-carb.  The mean was never under 100g/day.  Sorry, that's not ketogenic unless you're putting down a couple dozen or more miles a week running, and perhaps not even then, and the worst of it is that they were still taking in 20% or more of that in added sugars!

The other interesting finding, which of course nobody is making a lot of noise about (and they should be), is that eating higher fat content reduced triglycerides by a materially greater amount -- almost three times as much.  Since high triglyceride levels are considered to be dangerous and it's also said that eating lots of fats raises them, that claim (that "high fat diets will give you a heart attack") appears to have been falsified.  Where are the retractions?  Hmmmm...

The other problem with this "study" is that they basically ran the same protein and fat amounts in the allegedly low-carb group as the "low-fat" group.  That's nuts -- the allegedly "low carb" folks were eating double the RDA of protein for an average 160lb person.  Guess what all that extra protein gets turned into?  Glucose.  Yes, the exact same thing carbohydrate gets turned into.

The DIETFITS study replicates the results of numerous other RCTs, showing that, when caloric intake and protein intake are both matched between diet interventions, the proportion of carbs or fat matters little for weight loss. 

Well that doesn't surprise when you consume double the protein requirement -- the body turns that extra into the same thing it turns carbohydrates into.  Here's my shocked face that you didn't see material differences.....

In short: Garbage design, garbage results.

View with responses (opens new window)