There is nothing there I disagree with at all. Applied to a defined population, managed appropriately, it would be patronising of me to praise your results and puerile to criticise. I do not wish to point score or fault your, or anyone's, training philosophy.
In the depths of applied sports science and applied clinical practice, supported by evidenced based science, the application of it is nuanced, both in performance and pathology/health, as there are many, many variables in real life data gathering and controlling variables in studies concluding with 'more evidence is needed'.
SO TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. The ketogenic diet as a medical intervention should be supervised, as is recommended by diabetic associations and accountable professionals. And if in consultation with medical practitioners a ketogenic diet is selected to treat and manage an individual under the care of a qualified practitioner using evidence based practice then that is the way to go. Equally if a practitioner was to recommend a non ketogenic diet, then that is a clinical decision based on evidence again. But a medical decision based on information and need, nonetheless, patient by patient, or athlete by athlete. Even with expert opinion, the ketogenic diet may be appropriate, or entirely inappropriate and other experts warn against it.
The problem of course is when all this is applied to a general population, chewed up and spat out by the multi-layered business bonanza of wellness portals, trends and lifestyle tittle-tattle.
The science becomes science-y, science-y becomes paranormal and it all gets in a right mess with people getting so attached to a belief that food becomes an identity. And from that an anti carb mentality appears, that all carbs are bad etc lah-de-dah.
Many people are diabetic however. Low carb can help. Recommended for some people. It works. Good.
The ketogenic diet, however, is not the same thing as the catch all term 'keto' and low carb.
Diabetes is really *ucking complicated. Generally it is assumed type 2, generally a result of lifestyle. But not always. Definitely not always. Because of the prevalence of it, and an increase in percentage of population, diabetic profiles can be mixed and misdiagnosed - hence why the ketogenic diet should only be ever used in consultation with a medical team. So various levels of insulin resistance, insulin dependence with a mix of genetic and epigenetic factors.
Signs and symptoms of type 1:
*weight loss
*increased urination
*fatigue
*elevated ketones
Those symptoms are the same as a keto dieter seeks. If, as is the model in the keto world, a person should prolong a stay in ketosis whilst foregoing some nasty, nasty carbohydrate, then diabetic complications result overtime at the very least. Equally, were they to have some carbs with elevated ketones and forget or not realise they need insulin then that is a problem.
Am I being obtuse? Especially extreme for point scoring? No. Outside the bubble of keto lifestyle craziness where all carbs are bad, it probably is.
The very reason why a ketogenic diet should be supervised.
And, it follows, such as is the idea promoted within the keto club that having the presence of ketones is a good thing for those wanting to burn fat, people seek them. And disappointed that they are not appearing in their piss, reduce carbs even more and up their fat when all they really want to do is to lose some chubber. It's a dangerous game for many people who will be unsupervised and possibly - given the levels of diabetes in today's society - affecting many that no one will ever know about or care.
So, put those symptoms to a keto mindset; good for you, bro. Keep those ketones up, weight loss is good, you're peeing a lot, getting rid of all those toxins caused by sugar and feeling tired is good, you're getting in zone, we call it keto flu.....
Or get a call from a diabetic type 1.....a friend of mine, in his 50s. Had it since he was a kid. He gets anxious, and when he does, receives a dump of glucose from his liver and then forgets his insulin. Picked him up from hospital 2 weeks ago. DKA. Bad s*** happens. He exercises, you know. Still cannot get on top of his illness despite the years he's dealt with it. It's a difficult thing to manage and understand. He's thought about keto.....his specialist advised him not to.
Oh, rare, you say.....diabetes does not happen....the predominant model is type 2 with an overlap to the complex multi-factorial disease of obesity. Yes, excess energy issue but it isn't that simple.
The Peter Attia Drive: #85 - Iñigo San Millán, Ph.D.: Mitochondria, exercise, and metabolic health on Apple Podcasts
A thoroughly good dive....
quoting...."exercise intensity....the biggest improvement in fat burning and biggest improvement in lactate clearance capacity. Therefore that means the mitochondria is where you see the biggest improvement. We see also the biggest improvement in performance."
Now, it goes into layers of nuance with the ketogenic diet and why and how that may be applied with the overall view that it is all possible of course with appropriate training time but it is the glycolytic pathways that give an edge for performance. In endurance cyclists, anyway. Also, insulin. He suggest to that exercise itself is very powerful for its control....especially type 2 diabetes and in type 1 reduces the need for insulin due to non insulin dependent transporters.
And then....double diabetes, a mix of the 2 types, as above. As mentioned. I'm not raising this to point score, told you so. My point is just genuine. It is an issue. The figures were mentioned, it's more common than many realise.
So it looks like, on balance, big picture, that exercise is very much a good thing. As we know, anyway. And we also know that it is dose dependent and we also know that spending too long at too much intensity produces a global fatigue response and stresses the system within broad and varied athletic history and training goals. And a steady build up toward appropriate levels is a fine way to go.
So no, I don't think my argument, or point is misplaced. Yes, fairly specific but if it raised or broadens out the thinking behind the narrow view of keto which, I believe, dominates much of the food nonsense then good.
Now.....if people fall to fat down the rabbit hole of keto, the place it sits on the scale of science to science-y is to the latter. Many keto wellness nonsense portals pursue a business agenda and exaggerate views and beliefs for profit above all else. A certain Dr (not a doctor) for instance is anti vaccine and a big proponent of keto lifestyle and toxin cleaning remedies based on utter bollocks. Anti science creeps in. Don't trust the experts creeps in. And you know....
ahem.
And, is mainstream scientific consensus wrong?
Is a diet of 40% calorie from carbs wrong? Leaving aside Big Sugar conspiracies, everyone absolutely shares the need to cut back on refined sugars and er, fats. For the general population, that is.
I think people should start there rather than pissing on an overpriced piece of paper in search of the promised land or something or other. Due keto extremism, a radicalised subversion of food. A healthy relationship with food is the aim, if you have that and you eat a diet more towards the fatty end of the spectrum then great. I just don't think peeing on sticks is a healthy relationship when there is no need to do so. And if there is a need to do so, get a doctor.
We all have different views on food, different tolerances, different beliefs and cultural influences, there's room to manoeuvre, give and take but no need to go to extremes for the general population.
If no one had a health problem, if diabetes did not happen, if genetics were not to inflict its fate on people at any time regardless of their health status then my argument would be obtuse.
And to re-iterate, if anyone goes on a ketogenic diet do so with assistance, I have no beef with applied science, just applied bollocks. There's a difference, at least I hope you think there is.