The metabolic benefits of low-carb dieting can be pronounced in some cases, no doubt about that. Our problem is how to go about it without wrecking the planet. Another billion (say) heavy meat-eaters would be a catastrophe. Low-carb dieting must emphasize nuts, seeds, coconut fat, avocado, and enough exercise to burn the tiny bits of carb in those foods.
In fairness, you ought to mention that Taubes and his NuSci initiative just suffered a major setback. A few months ago, their metabolic ward study (supposedly the "gold standard", solid as a rock) of the keto diet failed to show superiority of keto for fat loss. Fat loss was actually slightly slower on the keto diet than in controls. That does not mean that the low-carb diet is no good. But it was a huge blow, invalidating one of Taubes' main theses.
Hi Alan, can you supply a link to the NuSi study? Thanks.
Google is your friend. Taubes NuSci study low carb fat loss metabolic ward. It was back in april or may of this year.
The fact that the low carb diet may not be as efficient at burning body fat as was supposed does not mean that the diet is no good. There may indeed be a longevity advantage, and advantages for some diabetics (esp type 1s), etc. The big problem as I said is environmental, when the diet involves lots of beef and etc. as it usually does. It may be a great diet for individuals, but environmentally, across large populations, it would be a disaster, as usually practiced. If this diet is going to be promoted, there is an urgent need to veggie-ize it, so to say, roughly as I outlined. Coconut fat and MCT from it is especially good since MCT oil is highly ketogenic.
I didn't find any published report, only a video of a person doing a poster presentation , which isn't enough to go on. I'm unsure of what, scientifically speaking, is your point. Is it your post here at Reddit that you're referring to?
The environmental impact of a ketogenic diet is not the even peripherally the focus of the OP (opening post) and, in any event, I don't see it as a significant issue.
Try this:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/prevention/59018
I know that you did not mention the environment in the OP. My point was that it needs to be mentioned. The global environmental impact of high-meat diets, across large populations, needs to be mentioned, because it is important. If billions were to adopt such diets, the effect would be ruinous. Pretty important, I would say.
I would say that most people who following a keto diet are also concerned with the quality of their food and therefore opt for grass fed beef choices where the cows graze naturally on the grass instead of factory farm-style feed lots. If the majority of consumers wanted the same then sustainable farming methods would be the norm.