After the confusion and hurt I've apparently caused in the other thread
and seeing that a response to both that mess and the comments and questions on the substantive issues underlying the post itself, a response is taking me a while. However, there are even more basic misunderstandings that are only becoming clear to me in this
thread. So before things go to far, let me first apologize: in a generalized way to those I've upset or annoyed, but also personally and directly here to Juliegee. Julie, I wasn't clear on how much you still find David Perlmutter's views informative, and certainly had no clue that he was actually part of your clinical team. I meant no offense to anyone here (though I admit I'd not have been upset if I had learned that DP was lurking and annoyed ...), and certainly didn't mean any slight toward you
: you are too positive, too supportive of this community, and make too many valuable contributions from which I and (clearly) many on these Boards value.
I have a generally blunt and aggressive style of debating (and have actually worked to be more careful about this over the years ... Julie can consult a mutual friend for my alibi
), and am also genuinely offended by what I must say I see as intellectual dishonestly in much of DP's argumentation, and have felt compelled to refute it when it is invoked. That said, I did not and do not participate in this Forum with any specific intent to attack him: it's rather that I know that his book has been a major reason for many here and in other communities to take up very-low-carb and/or gluten-free diets, so reference and counterargumentation to his thesis and to particular studies he's cited is salient when discussing those issues, particularly in an AD context.
Now, specific to this
marthaNH wrote:I have been a little flabbergasted by the other current thread here that recently seemed to argue that even mild ketosis brought on by exercise and refraining from eating was something that ought to be feared until proven safe, or something.
Stavia wrote:Excellent discussion team. I was thinking that the method that many of us use for our dietary optimisation (short feeding window, low starchy carb yet abundant leafy carb/ moderate protein hence higher fat, excercise) would result in mild ketosis in many of us who prolly don't even know they are in mild ketosis because they haven't tested. I can't see how this could be harmful and it's blinkered to lump this with a very high saturated fat very low carb diet and damn them both.
This is a very serious, root misunderstanding, and this links to my own background and set of acquired terminological connotations and the fact that I am both a recent and a relatively light reader and participant of this excellent Forum, to which I hope I will still be welcome. It underlines and makes explicit the context (and perhaps, gentle criticism) of Julie's comment
that that "Anyone who KNOWS our community can easily recognize that those of us who use this strategy practice [ketosis] very differently".
Because I come in to the notion of a "ketogenic diet" out of the use of it in weight loss and purported metabolic benefits, and have interacted pretty extensively with some of the leading advocates of Atkins-type ketogenic diets in the academic community, when someone says "ketogenic diet" I do take them exactly
to mean "a very high saturated fat very low carb diet" -- in particular,
We suggest the following definitions
The ADA designates low carbohydrate diets as less than 130 g/d or 26% of a nominal 2000 kcal diet and we consider this a reasonable cutoff for the definition of a low-carbohydrate diet. Carbohydrate consumption before the epidemic of obesity averaged 43%, and we suggest 26% to 45% as the range for moderate-carbohydrate diets. The intake of less than 30 g/d
[my emphasis], as noted above should be referred to as a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD). The term Ketogenic Diet should be reserved for the therapeutic approach to epilepsy.
... which, of course, is also an extremely low-carb approach -- as is, importantly, the diet used in studies of "ketosis" in rodent AD models. So y'all can see why I would ASS-u-me that when people here talk about "ketogenic diets" and "sing ketosis," this is exactly what they mean.
And, to be extra-clear, I certainly can't object to mild ketosis resulting from "short feeding window, low starchy carb yet abundant leafy carb/ moderate protein hence higher fat, excercise, nor "concurrently employing CR, fasting, and exercise to safely create ketones ... eat[ing] enormous quantities of non-starchy vegetables and use MUFAs to stay heart healthy ... [and]interacting with top cardiologists and lipidologists in an effort to keep our members heart healthy": I do all of that myself, albeit with no particular intention of generating ketone bodies (and no, I've never tested for them -- I have and see no reason to care whether I'm producing them or not) and would encourage anyone to follow suit, whether or not they intend to "go keto" in some sense.
I hope that's clear -- and promise to be more disciplined, and monitor my assumptions, in future.