Ap, I'd say perhaps.
The title of this thread is a bit loaded for bear - think about "unwise bet". That choice of words was provocative, it clearly did provoke. No one likes being called unwise.
So from the sidelines (I have no ketosis pony in this race - don't follow it, don't check ketones, etc), I see this scenario:
- people who have chosen a low-ketosis route
- someone comes and says it's not effective, perhaps dangerous, and oh, BTW unwise
- so the low-ketosis folks are asking for proof - and BTW, I don't feel unwise, I feel better.
But as you point out, and most of this thread points out, there is no evidence either way really.
So aren't we really at a stalemate here? Bottom line is neither sides' arguments can be complete because we lack the appropriate research. Let's admit that much and move on.
What we do have are people who are desperately trying to find a path that helps more than hurts, and some members have found through their N=1 something that seems to work. And also keep in mind that over time, I've seen most folks here change their approaches when biomarkers or results weren't good, or when other research appears, so I'm not sure how strongly dogmatic most are in their choices.
So, I'd guess that if someone could
show proof of a specific approach, say that standing on our E4 heads in the rain once a week would prevent AD, I'd guess everyone of us here would go do it.
Bottom line, let's all also remember that our choice of words on this forum can either be supportive or dismissive of members, so let's keep supportive as our goal.