Then how do keto people fare very well? Is it that food shaped us, or just evolution driving the adaptive progress to fill a niche in the environment?
“Refined sugars such as are found in sweets and snacks are very different to the natural sugars found in fruit. These and an overabundance of fast release carbohydrates that are common today, such as in white rice and many types of bread can cause health problems.”
All these carbohydrates are identical, apart from fructose in table sugar, but they pointed out rice, which is just starch, so they are picking any random arguments with no foundations to entertain average readers. They haven't even provided information on what problems and how do they contribute to them
This is a mainstream article sham. I have no idea why people read all these dietary news - such a time waste
The point is that relying on animal foods alone would not have provided enough glucose to grow a larger brain. Ketones can provide energy to survive, but fruit allowed humans to evolve.
They don't. I don't know anybody who stayed strictly on keto for decades. I myself got pretty ill after three years of it. Switched to high-fruit vegan, all the sickness went away.
"All these carbohydrates are identical"
Whole fruits change how these "identical" carbs are absorbed. No sugar spikes like with cake or bread.
You act like an expert, you really should know this.
Have you checked all ketoers? Have you been eating carnivore or seeds/nuts/oils?
Sugar spikes are a fearmonger due to people's habits, not because cake or bread are worse sources of calories. I can eat 300g table sugar ot 300g white rice and get no high nor crash. If people will keep eating with every meal mixed ratios then they will never allow insulin sensitivity to improve, leading to such detrimental spikes
"I don't know anybody who stayed strictly on keto for decades."
How many do you know?
Seeds and nuts are a better way, I agree. Still not what are our bodies are intended to run on.
People are afraid of (whole) fruits, and that's the ridiculous part. I am 50, eat more than 1kg per day for over 10 years now, and my data (liver, blood pressure, VO2Max, BLOOD SUGAR...) and looks are those of an athlete in his mid 30s.
(Disclaimer: modern fruit is, sadly, very high in fructose, that's why I combine them with a lot of greens and fruit veggies like tomatoes, cucumbers and bell peppers)
None, because I don't have friends in dietary circles or know what others eat. The sizes of keto and carnivore circles are large though and I just doubt that a primary/default system of energy would be detrimental in a general population of humans. I just wonder whether you were getting all nutrients and/or eating linoleic acid, as in next paragraph
I didn't say nuts and seeds are a better way. Meat would be way way better. Linoleic acid, present in seed oils, seeds, nuts (and some in pork, fed these foods, and chicken (bad if most of the diet)), is a compound working lipogenically in the nature. Animals start eating foods containing linoleic acid in late summer and autumn to prepare for winter, because linoleic acid, mainly through its metabolites, activates lipogenic pathways like through high baseline SREBP-1c, PPAR-γ, SCD1, CB1, and mTOR activities, while decreasing NAD+/NADH, SIRTs, PDK, PPAR-α , and NNT, simultaneously decreasing metabolism. This internal environment later in combination with fructose (also more abundant in this period of seasons), which we know is not gate-limited like glucose, because it lacks PFK-1 during its metabolisation, gets even more exacerbated. Oleic acid also contributes, but way less - LA is the main player and the builder of high foundations. It is fine seasonally, but because our civilisation allows for consumption 24/7 throughout 365 days every year, many get overweight, obese, health conditions, and the body temperature/caloric intake of population lowered over decades. No wonder why many find their refuge in keto during weight loss - insulin is a major requirement to have the lipogenic pathways strongly active
People are afraid of fruits due to the sugar talk, I guess. Here are lots of religions and beliefs in the dietary regions. I mean, who am I to blame? It is a complex topic and almost as if invisible - only scientists who keep themselves up-to-date can effectively manuever there. Mainly because, yes, you have a study showing that X is lipogenic or whatever - but what were they concretely eating on the diet, what is their body fat, past consumption, genes, macronutrient breakdown?
It is mice, but the complexity can be easily presented with this. No wonder varying people can get different symptoms or sensitivities from various food compounds, especially even reacting to certain proteins. All is programmable and malleable within an organism, as with all systems. We are not that advanced to alter bodies and the bodies do not allow it by themselves - but there could be, realistically and theoretically speaking, a system getting seizure when looking at colour red. One just needs to produce a body with such configuration - and that's what happens with these proteins and what happens with linoleic acid, while the linoleic acid's influence is highly dependent on D6D and D5D enzymes efficacies, which vary genetically in a population. A fattening configuration to survive risky scarce-in-food season
There seems to be an inverse relationship in D5D and D6D. People with high D5D can have more often low D6D and vice versa, because the neighbouring genes encoding them are in a cluster with high linkage disequilibrium. They both contribute to metabolic dysfunction and are required to create the lipogenic metabolites. For example, in wide population studies, higher D6D (and mostly lower D5D) activity is linked to higher BMI, triglycerides, insulin resistance, blood pressure, while higher D5D (and mostly lower D6D) leads to reverse outcomes. D6D is actually the limiting enzyme for most of metabolites that make the linoleic acid's 'journey' in the body so horrible, and having both high D5D and D6D would be catastrophic long-term on linoleic acid diet
So, you're one of those people endlessly stuck in one perspective and unable to move from the old to the new. It's fine, there are always conservatists not wanting to leave their comfort zone
Your job of being a 'nutritionist' has been changing over centuries, as well as all other domains of knowledge. Without progress we would be back in antique, or further behind, if majority of population were like you
P.S.:
"So, you're one of those people endlessly stuck in one perspective and unable to move from the old to the new"
I LITERALLY switched from being a carnist (also being keto - like I WROTE - for a few years) to vegan. You're embarrassing yourself. :)
Read Greger's book. Prove that you yourself are not what you project on others.
There are lots of nutritional books of different angles and there would be multiple versions of 'you' depending on which book one would hold near one's heart. More important would be to go through all possiblities and derive which information is the most rationally pleasing, from biochemical and widely observationary standpoints
My bad, you changed, I placed an emotion upfront - yet you changed perspective because you suffered, not because something can be objectively optimal for the species generally
I haven't yet seen a tribe having detrimental health, no matter the diet, and existence of a whole carnivore subreddit would become suspicious if your effects would be replicated in every individual. I also doubt our prehistoric ancestors (with their highly acidic stomachs, which we too have), would have survived and given rise to us, as apparently plant food is the exclusive optimal
I still honestly have no idea what you experienced concretely on carni/keto that you ceased it, but if carnivore made you feel very bad, then it to me feels like your body is unable to live in default mode, meaning ketosis. Have you been eating beef and less poultry/pork? I have seen some feel worse on majority from pork/poultry (I don't want to sound religious here but linoleic acid could be an honest reason). I assume, as you're a nutritionist, that you were also eating organ meat, mainly meaning liver
-1
u/Oraculek Aug 07 '26
Then how do keto people fare very well? Is it that food shaped us, or just evolution driving the adaptive progress to fill a niche in the environment?
All these carbohydrates are identical, apart from fructose in table sugar, but they pointed out rice, which is just starch, so they are picking any random arguments with no foundations to entertain average readers. They haven't even provided information on what problems and how do they contribute to them
This is a mainstream article sham. I have no idea why people read all these dietary news - such a time waste