[#-3]

Originally Posted by blankall

I do definitely think there's a solid scientific basis to the satiation aspect of ketosis. Humans have only had access to higher levels of complex carbs since modern farming came into being. Modern farming has only been around for about 10,000 years, with some human populations not using it until modern times. There are no natural sources of complex carbs. All complex carbs come from plants that have become sources, only after centuries of breeding by humans. Plants like potatoes, wheat, and rice are very different in their natural states, and even then humans require a large amount of processing to consume them.

I never go full Keto, but lots of periods of low carb. Once your body gets used to the decreased volume of food, you definitely notice that the protein and fat will keep you satiated and your body responds very poorly to larger calorie sources composed primarily of carbs.

I also think that ketosis is a bit of a gimmick though. However, any diet that gets people to eat consistent protein and low carbs is going to work. So I'm all for people doing it, if it works for them.

Thinking it make sense, is not a scientific basis.

Originally Posted by Canadianman

congrats! Literally everything you posted here is incorrect.

How so?

Is that Ketosis is a regularly occurring homeostatic process that essential to everyones metabolic process and is happening every day in everybody, diet or not?

Is it that excessive prevalence of BetaHyroxibutylate, and other aminos related to metabolizing fats can acidify the blood, causing strain on the Liver, Kidneys, and Pancreas trying to maintain very tight controls on PH levels, so you don't die. Is that acidic blood is heavily correlated with future instances of heart and lung disease?

Is it that any good nutritionist will tell you that there is no simple all-truism for what makes a good diet, but generally most of us just need to eat an overall lower volume of food, and allot more vegetables?

Is it the the primary focus of whatever one of these diets cycles through ever 3 years, is selling a simple catchy explanation that you can put into a book?

Is it that severally restricting specific groups of food from your diet can cause, selective vitamin deficiencies, that are best treated by eating a broad diverse diet?

Is it that even if there is the tiniest chance, the the supporting studies with weak controls showing a single digit relative benefit are correct, it isn't really worth all the other related risks?

Which of these claims in unture?

It isn't Keto specifically but these diets in general. They bug me, because they are typically a type of psudoscience that smart people are blind to, because of they way they are heaped in personal virtue signalling, and they fade over time typically leaving society and peoples understanding of the facts in a worse place than they were before.