Refute an Article
 

Hi,

I'm looking for someone to counter an article that I've written/compiled from different sources. Due to the popularity of low-carb diets, I was originally under the impression that low-carb dieting was a positive, working idea, but the more I look up on the Internet about ketogenic / low-carb dieting, the more sources I find that suggest that it is unhealthy. Obviously, I'm striving for the truth in the article, so I need some people to refute it.

The article is at http://www.ketogenic.net called "What is Ketogenic?"

If you can't respond to/counter the article, if you could point me in the right direction, I would really appreciate it. Thank you!

(BTW, I'm posting this to a lot of different low-carb sites, so you might see this on another site forum.)

- Jonathan

Hi Jonathan -

I looked at the site you posted and can't find the specifics like who wrote it and what their credentials are and where are the case studies are that this information represents.

Just linking to other reputable sites doesn't make this information reputable.

I have done much research on the net as well and have found nothing documented by case study that proves this data to be true and what you will find on this forum is much living proof of the effectiveness of living low carb. Effectively true life case studies.

And my own experience is that living low fat - high carb kept me constantly hungry and never losing weight even with much exercise and now I feel healthy, full and am losing weight at a reasonable and I think healthy speed.

Also - please look on the links on the right of the Studies linked to this site when you get a chance.

All the best.

Hi,

Thanks for the quick response. I'm looking up case studies but those tend to be harder to find - but perseverance (and maybe some book purchases) will pay off.

However, I still believe in the effects stated because on many of the forums I've visited, I see people complaining about this or that, and their complaints and symptoms (reported from their mouths - I'm not a doctor) seem to correlate with the article's predictions. I could save discussion threads and link the different pieces of the articles to those threads for the time being.

Basically, I do see a lot of people complaining that the weight loss is not constant, that things slow down after the first onset of loss. I do see people complaining about even the smallest signs, like bad breath (from the acetone ketone bodies), nausea, etc... . All this just tends to make me believe a bit more in what the different sources say (I will set out to create a references section at the bottom).

In any case, I wouldn't doubt that high-carb and low-fat diets would be bad for you, too, although I haven't done the research in that area just yet. But here's another question - what about a nutritional diet that would be about equal parts carb, protein, and fat combined with regular amounts of exercise? So rather than stressing one point, just even them all out...?

It just all sounds... well... in my opinion, it sounds unhealthy to fake your body into thinking that it's starving when it really isn't.

- Jonathan

There are facts and there are "this is fact so something else must be true."

For example: a person in ketosis may notice a particular sweetish or metallic odour to their breath. That is a fact. But it is not a fact that this odour is dangerous or bad in any way. Nor does it indicate illness.

Fact: the weight loss on ALL diets is not constant. All diets result in an initial loss in the first week or two which is greater than anything the person will see again - even if they stay on a particular diet for years. But it doesn't mean anything except that that is how the body works - it loses water first. Even on a starvation diet, the body adapts and tries to conserve itself as much as possible.

Go and visit a Weight Watchers support site if you want to see the same complaints about slow loss or stalls.

Case studies that prove "a ketogenic diet is harmful" to someone in normal good health without kidney or other problems are going to be IMPOSSIBLE (not just harder) to find, because there aren't any. Dr. Atkins alone has publicly on television challenged the medical community to come up with even one case of harm from a ketogenic diet. NOT ONE HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. And if you have read his book, he advises people with EXISTING kidney problems that his plan is not for them.

The eating plan you describe sounds quite a bit like The Zone. You could click on the heading to the right of this thread "which LC plan is right for me?" to read about it. Protein Power Plan does not talk about ketosis at all, nor test for it. Neither does Sugar Busters nor CAD/CALP.

Ketosis is a normal and natural state which many people get into without knowing it. Could be a pregnant woman who has morning sickness and can't keep food down, or someone with stomach flu who can't eat for several days.

Where did you get the idea that ketosis is "faking your body into thinking it's starving"? HOW could it possibly think it's starving when there is a steady and generous supply of protein, fat and low-glycemic carbohydrates coming in?

I think your reading and research should start in our "Low Carb Studies and Research/Media Watch" forum (find it near the top of the pull-down menu). There are many articles from journals WITH REFERENCES, authors and case studies that may answer some of your questions.

One very important point to note: there is often confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosi IS a dangerous condition for a DIABETIC to get into. Ketosis is not dangerous to a healthy person. In fact, many of us feel better, and our blood numbers (cholesterol, triglycerides, BP & pulse rate) have improved with ketosis.

I hope this helps to get you started on finding out why that article may be full of "fact" but the conclusions are not valid.

Hi Tofi,

> There are facts and there are "this is fact so something else must be true."

I realize this, and I realize that it is a flaw in good logic. However, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, then chances are it's a duck. To make an immediate connection without first checking-for-sure is a worse error, which is why I'm here trying to find these types of gaps in my article, and not just leaving my article as-is.

> But it is not a fact that this odour is dangerous or bad in any way.

Depends who's on the receiving end. :D But seriously, I'm not stating that the odor itself is dangerous. I'm just saying that there are a lot of people on low-carb forums complaining of certain problems, and that these problems fit in with the existing article.

> Fact: the weight loss on ALL diets is not constant.

Obviously true. Otherwise long-term diets would be fatal. :) Also, not all diets offer rapid weight loss in the first couple of weeks. Simple regular nutrition (eating balanced meals - not ones stressed in anything in particular) plus a good amount of exercise does not usually pay off with rapid weight loss during the first week or two and then stop. Rather, this type of conditioning seems to offer slow, but healthy and sure weight loss until the body is at a point where weight can just be maintained.

Rapid weight loss (b/c of water loss?) only seems to be on specialized diets like these, whether it's Atkins or Weight Watchers.

> Case studies that prove "a ketogenic diet is harmful" to someone in normal good health without kidney or other problems are going to be IMPOSSIBLE (not just harder) to find, because there aren't any.

That's an assumption. I might never find one, but that doesn't mean it's not out there and that I should just stop looking before I've started.

Besides, I'm not even saying for sure that a ketogenic diet will directly cause problems. Obviously there's always the possibility that any diet could cause problems with any person - there's just too many factors to say things for sure. The only inference I could draw from this whole thing is that if the ketogenic diet turned out to be harmful after all, that simple unhealthiness might cause problems.

> Dr. Atkins alone has publicly on television ...

Eh, it's probably best not to start your paragraphs with "This man has stood alone..." - it has a connotation of a scam artist. Before you get upset, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist - I'm just talking about your wording. I'm not even attacking Atkins - all I'm doing is questioning low-carb diets in general. If the Atkins diet fits into that category, then... <shrug>

> The eating plan you describe sounds quite a bit like The Zone.

The medium levels of everything? <shrug> That was just something that popped into my head. Still, these types of diets seem to focus way too much on strict adherence and any wavering will cause failure. Our bodies are so complex that I wouldn't be surprised if trying to manipulate/control them chemically via food and dieting would be generally unhealthy. Maybe high carbs are good for someone on one day and low carbs are good the next day, and then the next, too. Maybe a variety (as long as it's not just variety in the "Value Menu") is what the body needs in addition to exercise.

> Protein Power Plan does not talk about ketosis at all, nor test for it.

But it does advocate reduced carb intake, which would theoretically trigger ketosis. Just because it doesn't talk about it or test for it...

> Ketosis is a normal and natural state...

I disagree at this point. From what I've read, ketosis is the state you're in when you are running on backup power. Going back to the analogy I made in the article to electric power, when the regular power goes out and suddenly you're on backup power, do you consider it a normal and natural state? You kind of wait for the power to go back to normal, don't you? If the mind was meant to be fueled primarily by ketones all the time, why isn't that the case?

Similarly, I would ask you why you would consider starvation via morning sickness and the stomach flu normal and natural. Both are certainly temporary, and a person would most likely incur serious health deficiencies if they had these problems every day.

Obviously, it's a good thing that you have a backup fuel source in your body, but I reiterate that I would think it would be dangerous to trick/force your body into using it instead of its preferred source.

> Where did you get the idea that ketosis is "faking your body into thinking it's starving"?

Because, as you said, ketosis is naturally-occurring. However, it naturally occurs when you're starving. By depriving your body of carbohydrates, you're simulating the lack of glucose you would experience during starvation. Perhaps you're not fooling the ENTIRE body into thinking that you really are starving, but you're triggering the criteria that is used by parts of your body to determine whether or not to produce ketone bodies.

> One very important point to note: there is often confusion between ketosis and ketoacidosis.

I understand, but my article is dealing with ketosis, not ketoacidosis. Thanks for clearing that up anyway.

> Ketosis is not dangerous to a healthy person.

If everything in my article is factually correct, then I can't see why sustained ketosis would NOT be potentially dangerous to any person, healthy or not.

- Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for sharing you site with us.

I looked up all the opinions on your site and found not facts to refute, since they provide no scientific studies, just opinions and beleifs.

I respect you beleifs, whatever they are. But to claims that there are no clinical studies proving the a ketogenic diet is healthy, flies against a mountain of scientific and clinical studies, published here, and in medical journals (Clcik on Low-Carb Studies). In addition, it goes against the only diet we ever knew until recent times with the introduction of processed sugars and refined foods that coincided with the developments of all sorts of medical problems, diabetes, cholesterol etc..

It seems to me you started with the premise "Ketogenic" is unhealthy, so how can I find an analogy to explains it, hence questions about "What is a farmer had no rain for 10 years........"

If you are willing to accept the possibility that Ketogenic diets might actually be very healthy, you will easily find those facts. And we will gladly point to you and repeat those links from our list under Low-Carb Studies, if you can't find them.

Wa'il

Hi Wa'il,
Believe me, I set out to write positive things on ketogenic diets. It was in my best interest to have a site that promoted them because I'm thinking of becoming a reseller of some ketogenic products and I wanted to promote myself through the site.

However, to try and remain as unbiased as possible, I searched with ambiguous terms so I wouldn't purposefully run into any site that hated ketogenic diets and I wouldn't run into any site that was pro-ketogenic diets, either. I wanted to start with something more unbiased and medical, and all the information that I found seemed relatively unbiased but said that while ketogenic diets were a good concept, they didn't work for weight loss.

Yes, the article was supposed to be easy-to-read, so I did take the concepts I read and tried to use analogies like the farmer gathering water. However, analogies aren't out to prove facts or anything - they are only there to make the article more interesting and help people understand the concept better.

> If you are willing to accept the possibility that Ketogenic diets might actually be very healthy, you will easily find those facts.

I did accept that possibility as a fact in the very beginning of all this. However, I did NOT want to go searching for biased information. I could easily go to Atkins' site and get all the supporting information I wanted (I was actually intending to request that Atkins link to my site once it was finished), but there is a big problem with this.

Atkins is trying to sell their products, so all of their information is obviously going to be nothing but good information about ketogenic diets. Thus, I'll have less chances of running into phrases like, "My diet is good, but there are some legitimate downsides to it." Even if there were phrases like that, they most likely wouldn't be in-depth.

Someone said there would be a lack of case studies against ketogenic diets - this is probably true. After all, case studies cost lots of money to organize and publish, so it would make sense for Atkins to have lots of case studies to sell their products. Likewise, it would make sense to have a lack of case studies against Atkins or any diet because there's no money to be made unless you're selling a competing brand.

I also tried to avoid any other competing brands that would have reason to bash ketogenic diets. If someone is not out to sell something to you, there's a higher likelihood that you'll get more honesty out of them on the subject. After all, it's not their product, so they have nothing to gain or lose.

You also implied that by starting with a premise of "ketogenic diets are unhealthy," that I was doing it incorrectly. However, starting with any premise of opinion is incorrect. Once again, unbiased information.

Finally, I -have- read some of the studies and am still reading them. I appreciate people pointing me to them, but I have to weigh out the total credibility of each study and try to read it from an objective point of view. After all, it's easier to see what you believe, right? :)

- Jonathan

Low-carb Ignorance & Myths
 

I found this website when looking for some evidence to give someone who was bashing my LC'ing... It has some very valid points...


in reference to low-carb ignorance & myths (click here)

I'm still reading this, but I thought I'd mention that this guy has no references, either. I just thought that was a bit ironic in this situation at this point (I am about 3/4ths done compiling a list of references for my article that I will put up soon).

- Jonathan

I have to say....

Ketosis is not just a state you are in when you are starving. It's a state you are in whenever you are burning fat. Fat metabolism produces ketones as a byproduct of that metabolism. So unless you are willing to say that all diets where fat is burned (and that would pretty much include all diets for the purpose of weight loss) are unhealthy, you might want to rethink your position on the danger of ketosis.
Furthermore, our ancestors that lived in hunter/gatherer societies lived in a state of ketosis for several months out of every year and did quite well on it. Inuits that follow a traditional Inuit diet still live in that state for many months of the year and have a much lower rate of disease then than their higher carb counterparts.
Being in ketosis does not mean that you are starving, although one could argue that all diets that produce weight loss through a negative caloric balance are simply a controlled state of starvation. Is this dangerous or desired for weight loss? If it's dangerous, then all diets that produce weight loss through "starvation" should be condemned equally. Personally, I get more than enough calories daily to support my basal metabolic functions (between 1,500 and 1,800 daily) and have still managed to lose 75 pounds over an 18 month period (no...my weight loss did not stop after a few weeks).
Finally, I have to disagree with your statement that a ketogenic diet can only benefit certain rare disorders. I wouldn't consider diabetes, especially in it's near-epidemic proportions, a rare disorder and low carb diets are certainly helpful in controlling that disease as well as insulin resistance.

Hi Jonathan,

One section I have a particular problem with: What sources? What problems, exactly? I know you wanted to make this reader-friendly, but I think it sounds rather vague and could be improved with a more facts and sources. I happen to dislike analogies. Don't assume that the reader isn't intelligent enough to understand basic biology - provide the necessary facts.

Another point: "The time {ketosis} happens naturally is when you are starving." But it also happens naturally when you consume the same type of diet that humans ate for the majority of our *2,000,000* history - a protein and fat based diet. Grains were only consumed for the last 10,000 years. Our ancient ancestors were probably in ketosis much of the time, save for when they came across a fruit tree or managed to nab some honey without being stung by bees...

I do appreciate the fact that you didn't equate "low-carb" with "ketogenic." I have been low-carbing for quite a while, and I probably wouldn't have had measureable ketones once. But - it should be pointed out that no low carb program I've ever seen recommends being in ketosis for ever and ever, amen. It's a temporary state until you are ready to move to maintenance.

Ketosis doesn't mean that you're lacking glucose. Your body produces it - if it didn't, everyone on Atkins would be severly hypoglycemic and drop dead. Ketosis means you're burning your body fat - it doesn't mean you consume zero carbohydrates, or that there's any lack of glucose in your blood.

You said you wanted references or a name of a book. Read "Life Without Bread" by Christian B. Allan & Wolfgang Lutz" They explain ketosis very well and very simply. They also give references to some very big studies. I'd look them up but I won't. Your pickin on Atkins. Theres more than Atkins out there to explain low carbing as a valid life style. Pick on Schwarzbien and Perricone. These two doctors experimented on themselfs to get they're health back in order.

This is too vague Jonathan. I don't see how you did any research on this topic.

Which scientific journals have you read, and which scientific journal study did you find biased? If you are willing to list them, then we will at least have something to discuss.

We've had many come here, and list vague references to studies, but they all share a common problem, then can't recall which study. That's just too convenient to support one's argument!

I was going to point you to some scientific studies, but if every study that doesn't match your assumptions is biased, then your are not really open to any facts, you made up your mind. That's fine too.

Wa'il

Let's not forget Drs. Dan and Mary Eades who co-authored Protein Power and also use the low carb diet themselves and recommend it to their patients with no reported ill-effects to health long-term.
Then there's Dr. Richard Bernstein, a type 1 diabetic who has been using a ketogenic diet to control his diabetes for more than 40 years (with reversal of previous diabetic complications) and has been using it to control diabetes in his patients for more than 20 years. Again, no reported ill-effects to health unless you consider weight loss and a reduced (or no) need for medications to control diabetes an ill effect.

Jonathan,

Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills? It's a pleasant-looking site with nice, low bandwidth requirements. I like it. iCab will give you an 'HTML 4.0 Strict' smilie if you add the '!DOCTYPE' tag and not use the 'CENTER' and 'U' tags.

If it's meant as a cybersquat, you need far more outrageous content. Dr Ornish might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" would also be a good start.

If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans, then perhaps we should wait until the paste dries. Some minor points, though :

In "What is Ketogenic?" you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs. Yes, Zero Carbs would technically be Ketogenic but the reverse is not necessarily true. Starting with this definition as the foundation of your site is risky, as everything else depends on people not noticing that what you are condemning does not actually exist.

Under "Side Effects of Ketones", you've done a good job asserting that the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms. If, however, ketones are the by-product of any lipolysis then this section gets pretty shaky.

Under "The Main Reason for Weight Loss" you should probably use another word for glycogen. Any reader who does a search will find that the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen. That would place the limit of ketogenic weight loss, acc. to your calculations, at 800 grams. Not much of a diet, eh?

The last two sections, "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.

Might I suggest turning "What is Ketogenic?" into a personal study of the low-carb regimen? You have come to the right place...

(seyont) You're right about your body can only store 200 grams of glycogen. As a bicyclists I found out the hard way what a 'bonk' was. After riding my bike for an hour and a half to two hours I would suddenly slow down and expierence a type of brain fog. Doing some research I found out it was my glycogen stores in my body being used up and my body was switching to burning fat. Any bicycling web site will fully explain this phenomenon. It doesn't mean I couldn't finish the ride home - I did but as the cycling web sites point out in greater detail at only 50% VO2 Max. Let's say for instance one day Jonathan for some oddball reason was very busy and had very little to eat and went to bed. Would he wake up in ketosis???

I will pick up this discussion tomorrow as soon as I finish some of the studies listed here. However, here are some quick comments (not meant to address the entire responses just yet):

First, remember that I've only started to study all of this. I came here with the intention of getting my article refuted. I say this because the wording of some of you sounds upset. I'm keeping an open mind here - I benefit from being re-convinced that the low-carb diet works, and am open to changing my opinion. I would appreciate it if you all would do the same and don't take offense. A critical look is sometimes frustrating but necessary to establish good grounds.

Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.

I never stated that weight loss via negative calories was bad. However, it all depends on how the negative balance is reached.

At this point, I haven't done any research into diabetes and low-carb, but I'll take your word for it that it would be another disorder benefiting from the diet. (Edited: I'm still planning on studying diabetic <-> low-carb connection, but for now, I'll take your word for it...)

Kristine:
You asked about the sources - I've since provided a list of references. I didn't want to shout the fatality thing to the mountaintops, so that was the only place I said it - in parentheses, prefixed with "potential." I figured it sounded a bit too drastic. I would think that the source (I can find out which one of the references said it) may have established a vague link between anorexic deaths and low-carb dieting, but that's a total guess.

Sorry you don't like analogies - they're not just there to explain things, though. I find them entertaining - reader's preference, I suppose.

I'm also guessing "*2,000,000* history" means 2 million years of history (based on your comment about 10,000 years of age, which would imply that you didn't believe in the common young earth). As stated above, there's really no way anyone could know what people ate 2 million years ago (assuming validity of the age). And if they're hunters/gatherers, wouldn't they eat fruit, too?

While I didn't explicitly equate low-carb and ketogenic, I would venture that they are similar, if not the same thing? If you drank a lot of water on the diet, you may dilute the amount of measurable ketones (or so says the "Theoretical Basis for Ketogenic Diets" - one of my sources listed at the bottom of the article).

I'll investigate your last comment more tomorrow before I make a comment on that.

rjakubin:
Fascinating - I'll check it out. Thank you! (But I'm not picking on Atkins specifically, even if I made some comments about Atkins in this discussion)

tamarian:
Just because I said I'd weigh the credibility doesn't mean I automatically discredit them. Don't be so quick to assume - it's a bad habit that I have. Go ahead and point me to the journals.

"I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty."
Lisa N - It sure was. Back then they didn't have pesticides so you can imagine the amount of juicy bugs an apple would have had. I read somewhere that the bugs provided a good protein source.

Another thing to consider besides fruits are tubers (starchy, edible roots like potatoes and carrots). Here's an article that discusses that issue:

Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?

The debate in this article is whether it was the consumption of meat or tubers that allowed larger brain development. However, no one really seems to object to the idea that some prehistoric people may have consumed small to moderate amounts of starchy roots. The one thing that virtually everyone agrees to is that grain consumption wasn't much until about 40,000 - 10,000 years ago.

the ketogenic diet
 

The ketogenic diet can hardly be called unhealthy for certain individuals who have benefitted from it with severe epilepsy, where regular antiseizure medications have done nothing, yet this diet has been like a miracle for them... are you going to include them in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?

Absolutely, Suze_C...

It's also the diet of choice for women with PCOS because of the insulin resistance and high risk for diabetes associated with this syndrome (which I'd also like to note is another condition that could not be considered "rare").

About this diet
 

As far as finding evidence to the contrary about this way of eating being healthy, I am sure that you can... if a person looks hard enough, and reads things the "right" way, most anything can be refuted... The thing is though... why not look at all the maladies,the varying degrees of obesity from a few pounds overweight to morbid obesity and physical conditions,for lack of a better word at the moment, that ketogenic diets have HELPED! Browse this forum, and see the tremendous witness to the thousands, yes LITERALLY thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating... There will ALWAYS be the naysayers... because it is something that goes against the "norm". Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!? Our body physiology has certainly been thrown out of whack, by numerous conditions, and in most cases, do not respond to "traditional" means of losing weight, or "traditional" means of treating the certain conditions... and if time allowed me, I would go into more detail, but I have to get my son ready for school~ think about what I have proposed here.."think outside the box".

How do we know for sure? Something called winter. Fruit bearing plants do not grow fruit in the ice/snow or cold temps.

Now our ancestors may or may not have figured out how to dry fruits or preserve fruits. I am willing to bet they were not proficient in this skill and gathered fruit when it was available in the spring/summer/fall months.

Plus the climate back then was a bit colder than what we experience now.

Horde of Replies.
 

So many posts to answer... still haven't gotten time to search for the studies... Let me begin answering posts, though.

seyont:
> Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills?
I appreciate the comments on my design skills. I like to learn about a wide variety of topics, so I'll pick a topic, and stick with it until I'm decent at it, and then go on with something else. I learned web design a few years back. However, this isn't the topic at hand, but thanks. (It's not a cybersquat - just another topic I've chosen because of the potential reselling of some ketogenic products)

> Dr Ornish might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" would also be a good start.
I haven't heard of Dr. Ornish nor of Anti-Atkins, but those sound a bit biased against the topic, so they weren't in my search criteria. At this point, they may come in useful in this debate. Most of you have probably already debated the points, so it would be easy coverage. I'll look at them later.

> If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans...
Again, it's not an attempt to discredit the diet plan. That's just how it came out.

> you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs.
I quickly re-read my article and didn't see that equation anywhere. I didn't equate that because from what I read, it was about low-carbs, not about no-carbs.

> the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms
This is something that I'm getting close to changing. From what I've gathered here, would it be factually correct to say that ketosis (aka lipolysis aka ketosis/lipolysis) happens at any time the body burns fat? If so, would the only thing that would trigger the burning of fat be the absence of glucose to use as fuel? And if so, wouldn't the state of ketosis only be extremely short/temporary, in which case the symptoms would not have a chance to appear unless ketosis was sustained?

Also, which of the symptoms would you consider to be factually incorrect when linked to ketosis? For sure, bad breath... which gives me another point to heckle with Atkins. I just finished reading one of their FAQs which stated that its not bad breath - just different breath. However, according to the numerous related posts that I've read on this forum, it's a bad different (which can be helped with those Listerine strips, which Atkins could sell on their site :D). Either way, it's these little wording things that just detract credibility points from articles written by people trying to sell their products. Personally, I would've stated, "Yes, it gives you bad breath, but here are ways around it..." rather than trying to "spin" it. But that's just me and that's just Atkins.

> the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen
On the Atkins FAQ I just mentioned, it stated that it can hold two days' supply of glycogen ("glucose in the form of glycogen"). A two days' supply is 200 grams? That seems a little small. Is there another term that would be more appropriate in that context?

> "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.
Just because of the analogies?

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa N:
>as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced.
But again, things like exercise might burn fat, but those ketones are not constant. In a low-carb diet, the ketogenic state is sustained / continuous. A prolonged diet doesn't necessarily have to be a continuous action of dieting - a diet plan could simply include a schedule of activities that burn fat - slowly but surely. At least this is what I'm reading into here.

However, you did bring up an excellent point that I had not heard about - that is, that people are not in a ketogenic state at any point they are on the diet, and that after the weight loss has been achieved, they increase the carb counts slowly until loss stops. At that point, they maintain their current weight and level of carbohydrates. Did I read this correctly? So what is happening chemically at that point? Are transitions into ketogenic states just more frequent than your usual non-dieting person, so some balance is achieved?

> It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate...
Heh - we're getting into evolution-istic area here, assuming cold climates and an old earth. Personally, I'm a Creationist (although you could technically have an old-earth-Creationist, but I think a young-earth-Creationist is more logical reasoning). So there's an obvious conflict there, but either way, there would still be no way of determining what the climates were like back then, nor would there be a way to positively say that certain crops were out of season at different points. If you want to get technical about it, you can look at it from an evolutionist's POV and ask yourself if man evolved so much over the millions or billions of years (depending on which evolutionist theory you subscribe to), why would climates and plants not have evolved, as well? This could get into a lot of areas that aren't really related to this topic, but for now, it would be safer to assume that we have no real knowledge of how things were thousands, millions, and/or billions of years ago. Someone sarcastically stated that there would be bugs in the fruit, but I would venture that the person has not grown up in a variety of settings including orchards and houses with a couple fruit trees, with and without pesticides. Trust me - I've lived the fruity life :D and that isn't a very valid argument against eating fruit back then.

I don't know about the Inuit diets, though, but I would also venture that a lifestyle change would also be in order with a diet change, so I'm not sure if that was studied, as well. If you happen to find the study online anywhere, please let me know - I'll keep my eye out, too.

> You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving
However, burning calories wouldn't necessarily be controlled starvation. Since starvation is not considered something we are normally in, and since we burn calories just by typing on a keyboard or walking somewhere, it would stand to reason that starvation wouldn't result just from normal burning of calories. Thus, a diet including a plan of scheduled exercise to burn more calories wouldn't be considered controlled starvation, as long as you're eating correctly.

> Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation.
You're right. It isn't - you aren't really starving. That's why I didn't say that you were starving yourself - rather tricking your body into thinking that it's starving, when it really isn't. That was my point to make. Also, you just said that all negative caloric diets would be considered controlled starvation, and low-carb diets do seem to offer lower-calorie balances (even though you say you're -allowed- to eat more), so wouldn't they be considered controlled starvation?

> If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution
I will take that into consideration. Thank you!

------- On to the next person -------

Omega:
Back to evolution again? Just out of curiousity, how many of you believe in evolution? Not to pick a fight - just curious... I'm not going to discredit it here - this isn't the proper forum for that debate.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (1st post on 2nd page)
> are you going to include [epileptics] in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?
Ouch - this doesn't seem like a very good argument from you, suze_c. There's plenty of "medicine" out there that is unhealthy for you, but it can offer treatment at the same time.

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa_N:
> I'd also like to note [diabetes] is another condition that could not be considered "rare").
I never said epilepsy was rare - someone generated that somewhere along the line. If I recall correctly, it affects 1 out of every 200 people. Ebola's rare to me. Not epilepsy. Neither is diabetes - I concur. And again, note that I already had an article up there on epilepsy and the benefits epileptics can receive from ketogenic dieting. I would've put one up on diabetics, but I wanted to do a little research before posting anything on that.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (2nd post)
> ...thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating...
I wouldn't doubt that it might work for many people. However, this isn't my point. Look at history and you'll find plenty of "solutions" that worked for thousands, even millions of people until someone found out that there were unpleasant sides to the solutions, at which point solutions get revoked. At this time, I've heard a lot of negative comments against ketogenic dieting that seem to make sense, and so I am trying to do a personal study into whether or not the comments hold water. There are lots of small signs that bother me, as well.

For instance, when new medicine is introduced, even revolutionary and provocatory medicine, the medical community tends to shun it for a few years, while they study it in secret, and then about 20 years later, you'll see it in use, or it'll just disappear. However, it's very unusual to have a treatment that gets introduced, gets shunned, and after a long period of time, it still has not been accepted by the medical community. To make it look even worse, a lone figurehead stands at one of the most widely-known varieties of the treatment. Lone figureheads, especially lone doctors, tend to turn out to be scam artists. Again, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist (at least I'm not saying that yet - you never know what the future holds). However, I am trying to describe the painting set before me, and what it's likened to, and the unusual circumstances I see. Now I'm just trying to clear up the negative commentaries to understand why it's all painted this way.

> Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!?
Actually... a couple of people implied it in this thread, I believe. But I think they were meaning physically intact (no physical disorders, diseases, etc).

> think outside the box
Not to sound egotistical, but I would classify people who would write an article like mine and then try to critically disprove it with a horde of opposing viewpoints as people who are thinking well outside the box.

Whew. I've already lost pounds typing all this.

- Jonathan

One more quick thing. As I was reading through the "War" forum (a truly entertaining collection of threads - some people just can't argue and be civil...), I did notice that someone brought up something about a person named Phil Kaplan who was attacking Atkins and was promoting his own product. (Note, since he is attacking Atkins here, I'm just hopping along for the ride - my original intent is not focusing on Atkins alone - rather on general ketogenic dieting)

I glanced through PK's article and noted some interesting points, then came back to the intial thread that talked about the article. The basic responses were that PK was a "quack" and that he was out to sell his own product, but I didn't see anyone attacking his article. I'm guessing he probably makes points that everyone here disagrees with, but at the same time, is his information factually incorrect? One of the items that caught my eye was:

"1. Extended periods of ketosis affect the chemical composition of the blood in such a way that you increase risk of cardiac incident (blood ketoacidosis)."

I understand ketoacidosis is not ketosis, and that it's much worse than ketosis, but is it true to say that sustained ketosis increased the chances of progressing to ketoacidosis?

There were also some items about kidney stones being formed by many people on the Atkins diet. I'd have to some research on kidney stones, but wouldn't the presence of kidney stones indicate some deeper issues, or just an initial resistance to the diet? PK didn't pursue the issue of the stones much further, so not all of my questions were answered by his article.

It would seem questionable to just declare him a quack and discard his article because he's selling a competing product, IF he brings up any valid points. Even quacks might have good points. Any particular reason he's a quack besides that he's anti-low-carb?

- Jonathan

Concerning your inquiry to Ketoacidosis.


http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...ht=ketoacidosis

agonycat:
Thank you, but that post you pointed to seemed misleading. All it did was describe what ketoacidosis was, and the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis. A summary of it looks like:

---
1. Ketosis doesn't lead to ketoacidosis.
2. This is what ketoacidosis is.
3. This is what ketosis is and epileptic kids use it to control seizures.
4. For more somewhat-related information, go here. (Nothing that talked about ketosis leading to ketoacidosis)

- Doreen
---

However, there's no support for #1. It's straw man logic. The closest Doreen gets is "Ketones don't cause ketoacidosis, but they are a result of it." But there's still no grounding for that argument/claim.

- Jonathan

Let's Just......
 

Let's just rename this whole part of the forum... "Let's Agree to Disagree" :lol: That sure seems like what is happening here... we all seem to have valid arguments for the most part, to support the way that we are thinking, and isn't that what a healthy debate is all about? As far as using a ketogenic diet to control epileptic seizures in cases where they cannot be controlled by the usual antiseizure medications... that to me is very important information, as my son suffers from a seizure disorder... I thank God above, that a change in medications was able to bring it more under control... But being in the "parent of a disabled child" *community*, so to speak, I do know of those with seizure disorders who were helped with a ketogenic diet... I don't plan on my *restricted* way of eating of being something that is going to last forever.... but it does show me how much of a "hold" that carbs have on me, and how much they affect me overall... when I do introduce more carbs back into my way of eating, they will be more natural ones and less processed and "man-made" ones,so to speak.To those who are carb sensitive, it is like a drug or a drink,... it so affects the body's physiology... in my opinion, asking someone to go back to carbage, i.e., the carbs unhealthy for them is no better than giving "bad drugs" back to a drug addict who has recovered,or alcohol to someone with a drinking problem who no longer boozes.

suze_c:
This always happens - people don't want to argue anymore, so things stop at "Let's Agree to Disagree." To me, that's quitting and that's just room for more "naysayers" to come in. We are not at a standstill just yet, and I truly believe that all standstills can be resolved with valid persistence (rather than stubborness).

I can appreciate your situation and stance on the epilepsy issue, and I have concurred that the ketogenic diet does seem to offer a mystery phenomenon of seizure control. I am not debating its positive correlation to epilepsy - all research in this area seems to agree with each other, and seems straightforward. (There's still work to be done in the area since the correlation between ketones and seizure control is still unknown, though.)

What I -am- trying to do is clear the air of unsupported beliefs, and thus validate the foundation of a very popular form of dieting. If the foundation is rock solid, it will stand up to critical questions, and if it's weak, that will show, too.

- Jonathan