Documentary on Keto and the Global Health Crisis

24

i found this to be interesting and it speaks to some of the points Paul made in his posts about health, carbs, and weight loss: https://www.netflix.com/Title/80238655

Comments (24)

24 responses to “Documentary on Keto and the Global Health Crisis”

  1. Paul Thurrott

    That keto is "controversial" shows you how off-base we are when it comes to science and facts these days.

    • jchampeau

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      True. The food industry has done a fantastic job of muddying the waters and creating FUD around anything that isn't a product of their processing and manufacturing apparatus.

      • Tom Wilson

        In reply to jchampeau:

        How do you feed a planet of 7 billion people using the keto "diet"? Everything I've read actually recommends eating a lot less meat, since raising "meat" is so destructive to the planet.


        Show your work.

        • Paul Thurrott

          In reply to Tom Wilson:

          The keto diet is much more calorie dense, and is thus more efficient, than a vegetarian/vegan diet. We don't have enough land mass to feed a planet full of vegetarians.

          Also, if it weren't for meat, we wouldn't even be humans being now.

          • PincasX

            In reply to paul-thurrott:

            Good lord there are so many things wrong with that post. Talk about avoiding science and fact. Sweet Jesus.

            • Daekar

              In reply to PincasX:

              Would you like to be more specific?

              • PincasX

                In reply to Daekar
                1. Calorie dense doesn’t equate to nutrient dense. Keto foods tend to be caloricaly dense but lacking in nutrients and therefore aren’t a great solution for feeding the population unless you want them to be in poor health. This is like focusing on body weight health rather than body composition. It’s misguided.
                2. We actually do have the land mass to gorw the foods we need. All food comes from plants. Growing crops to feed anamals that are then used as food is far more inefficient than growing crops for people to eat. Additionally it is far more inefficient with water and generally terrible for the environment.
                3. While it’s true that human evolution was helped by consumption of meat it has no bearing on what we need to eat now. We aren’t going to de-evolve. So that is a complete red hearing.


                The the scientific community that focuses on sustainability has long advocated for moving toward more plant based foods to support the earth's growing population. They aren't saying everyone should go vegan or vegetarian but greatly reduce our dependence on animal agriculture. This isn’t even close to contentious unless you have bought in some cult like keto, paleo, Atkins or whatever.


                Paul will talk about science and facts but never points to them. He instead reference a podcast done by two people that have no scientific background or training. He has yet to actually consult a dietitian (dietitians don’t recomend these things because of the science). Shockingly after years of promting the various versions of this garbage he has no real results to show, by his own admission, but it sticks with it.

                Shit is bonkers.

                • aelaan

                  In reply to robincapper:

                  Is it all about science? I have been through three weightloss programs (OptiFast being one of them) and have been on a diet since I remember. I am not full on keto, more carb free. I still eat my plate and divide it in three but I choose to replace my starch and carbs with more vegetables. I have also started eating more wholesome foods and honestly eat less than 1500 calories a day. It is not only science but a mindset. Fasting is part of this mindset. I have never felt better, my A1C1 is down, my diabetics is gone, and yes I do see a dietitian and yes I do frequent bloodwork (I have to for the sake of my A1C1 measurements). The food guides are old style and the science behind that lags terribly. Sustainability of the food supply is something we are actually only very recently getting concerned with and as such science is proving that eating crickets and kale can sustain a person. While this is true for a short time a human will not, long term, buy into this when McDonald's sells salads for 7 dollars that has "meat" in it. If you had been overweight, like I have been ALL my life, and all of a sudden I lose 45 pounds in like 4 months and still going slowly down, would you rather cheer me on or science me to death?

                • PincasX

                  In reply to aelaan:

                  Hey, congratulations on the weight loss and other health improvements. Probably not the easiest thing to do but well worth it especially in the long run.


                  I don't mean this as jab at you and you certainly aren't isolated in this kind of thinking. Your post illustrates one of the big challenges when it comes to nutrition which is a general lack of education about food. You say have replaced starches and carbs with more vegetables. The problem with that is that majority of calories in almost every vegetable is from carbs. So you have ultimately just swapped carbs for carbs. What you have like done is swap out calorically dense foods for less calorically dense foods that are also more nutritionally dense. It is this kind of ignorance in the general population that people exploit to peddle their pseudo-science crap.

                • Daekar

                  In reply to PincasX:

                  I'm guessing you've never read any of the scientific literature or respected guides on keto or LCHF eating? Because the vegetables keto folks eat don't have carbs in them - or at least, few enough that the dietary fiber compensates. The general rule, especially if you're not super-strict, is if it's above ground, green, and leafy, it's fair game.


                  The idea that meat has little nutritional (rather than caloric) density is false. In fact, you could eat nothing BUT meat and, as long as you incorporated organ tissues (something everyone used to do before we were told not to) you would have absolutely zero nutritional deficiencies. There are cultures that did exactly this and suffered no ill consequences of disease or malnutrition, unlike those cultures that went largely vegetarian and suffered increase risk of stroke and other "diseases of civilization."


                  Advocating a vegetable-heavy diet makes little sense in the context of what we know about human evolution and seasonally-available plant calories. None of the plants that you think of as good, natural, healthy vegetables existed before humans created them, and even their significantly-lower-calorie precursors were only available for a tiny portion of the year. Before agriculture and the accompanying decline in general health + population explosion (more calories for more population but less nutrition in a grain/starch-heavy diet), starches simply could not be consumed consistently. The human body evolved in this food environment, and it is therefore poorly equipped (as the epidemic of diabetes, cancer, and everything else would indicate) to handle heavy carb loads the whole year 'round. So, if pre-agriculture caveman Thurrott wasn't eating potatoes, apples, oranges, bananas, and carrots all year, what was he eating? Well, a considerable portion of the time, he wasn't eating at all. He had gorged himself as much as possible the previous autumn when the limited number of naturally-occurring fruits/vegetables were available, and was largely living off of his own body fat in between meals. What were those meals? Why, he was eating organisms whose bodies and digestive systems had already been specially adapted to make use of the vastly abundant plant matter that caveman Thurrott's body couldn't.


                  I really advise you read up on the subject, particularly the validity of the science that has been used to prop up the modern dietary orthodoxy. To say it will make you angry is putting it mildly. If you've lost loved-ones to cancer, heart disease, or metabolic syndrome, you're going to be a bit MORE than angry. If you're interested, I will look through my library and pick a few suggestions.

                • PincasX

                  In reply to Daekar:

                  Good job with reciting the cults talking points. I have looked into it and have two good friends that are dieticians. You know, people that actually steady the science of nutrition. There is plenty of room for corrections in what you posted as there things that are just wrong and plenty of misrepresentation/cherry picking but it is pointless as you aren’t going to hear it. Your indoctrination is strong.

                • Daekar

                  In reply to PincasX:

                  Actually... I learned a lot of those "talking points" before I learned about keto. It's blindingly obvious that SOMETHING is wrong with the current dietary paradigm even if you're completely ignorant of the more recent science. When the medical advice consistently fails, hard, across the board, to address the issues it's supposed to fix, well... that's when you chuck your hypothesis and start over even if you don't know why. And that's just on a society-wide level. After watching my parents and many other people religiously follow the dietary and exercise guidelines for decades, I have decades of first-hand evidence that they're a pile of crap with a few distinguished medical degrees for garnish - no offense to your dietician friends. After less than 6 months of LCHF I know that it works, and for more than just weight control - although I do love being the size I was in highschool again. Getting a full lipid profile this June with the max-detail cholesterol breakdown... should be interesting. Wish I could justify an artery scan to directly measure sclerotic buildup, but I believe they're expensive. Either way I have my hopes, but of course the numbers will tell the real story. I would hate to have to eat my words, especially because it will mean that nobody has a damn clue how the body works, not even the "rebels." The real proof in the pudding will be long-term. Only way to find out is to try.

        • Daekar

          In reply to Tom Wilson:

          There is actually considerably more land capable of supporting various types of livestock than there is arable land for crops.


          Also, the sustainability of such a way of life is completely irrelevant. Keto is about reversing decades of bad science about health. Whether or not the entire world population can afford it is completely irrelevant to gathering true undistorted data about what is best for the human body. Having clear vision about what the correct diet is for humans is important in working toward being ABLE to feed the whole world in a healthy way - and doing away with all the environmental burden of diabetes, cancer, and all the other disorders that are demolishing the healthcare systems of the entire world.


          Basically, we can't afford to NOT investigate keto and LCHF diets because the consequences of low fat diets are so catastrophic.

  2. Tim

    Just read this:

    https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462

  3. ecumenical

    In 1950 we had virtually nothing in the way of obesity in the US. And yet, in 1950, nobody was on a keto diet. I can rattle off grandparents and great-grandparents in my family who have lived to be 90+ or even 100+, with great health almost to the end (and not all genetically related). All of them eat or ate bread and fruit on a daily basis. None of them were even remotely overweight.


    Is there something wrong with many people's diets today? Yes. Is the problem that they're not on a keto diet? Sorry, no.

    • Daekar

      In reply to ecumenical:

      In 1950 most of the dietary changes implemented in the second half of the 20th century had not yet taken hold, saturated fats were still widely consumed (although less, since the processed vegetable compounds were developed in the early 20th Century), and fats in general still formed a larger percentage of the diet. As fat consumption dropped and carbohydrates (especially those that are refined) were brought in to replace the calories they provided, health of society declined. The increase in obesity of Americans relative to those in other parts of the world LONG predates 1950, however. I've seen journal entries written by travelers from Europe where they marveled at how grossly obese many American children were before WWI. The most effective treatment for obesity then and in the centuries before? Low carb. This isn't a new idea.


      The general principles advocated by most low-carb proponents are whole foods rather than processed foods, 2 to 3 meals a day unless fasting (with no snacks), and healthy portion of natural fats (and no, canola oil and other products developed in science labs and first used for food during the 20th century are not natural fats).


      Keto is probably not necessary for most of the population. However, re instituting naturally saturated fats as a larger part of the diet IS necessary, and for almost everyone if we want to deal with the catastrophic rate of disease we're facing.

      • ecumenical

        In reply to Daekar:


        "The general principles advocated by most low-carb proponents are whole foods rather than processed foods, 2 to 3 meals a day unless fasting (with no snacks), and healthy portion of natural fats"


        Right, and I agree with all of those, but you left out the most basic principle: very few or no carbs. At least in my experience, keto advocates' core claim is that carbs need to be avoided to the maximum extent possible. This claim is entirely at odds with observed reality.


        The time keto advocates want to return to - when obesity, heart disease, etc. were much less frequent - is also a time when nobody bothered avoiding carbs in the form of bread, starchy vegetables like potatoes, pasta, rice, and so on. This was true globally. It's not like it was only Americans who were eating bread or rice or noodles on a daily basis. I've never heard Keto advocates square this circle.


        I agree that processed food, overabundance of added sugar, extreme portions, constant snacking etc. (and all of this pushed by commercial interests) are clearly problems in modern diets. But there's nothing to suggest a keto diet is in any way more beneficial than a combination of avoiding what was traditionally called "junk food" (desserts, packaged snacks, processed ready-made meals, fast food, candy, etc.), not eating too much, and being active.


        To put it crudely, don't eat like shit, and don't sit on your ass all day. No need to adopt affectations like pulling the bread off your turkey sandwich.

        • Daekar

          In reply to ecumenical:

          In general, you're correct. For the general population, I personally have not seen evidence that says going full keto is necessary - as you said, just don't eat sugar and refined starches and you'll be better off. However, for those with issues caused by prolonged high carb intake like diabetics, keto is almost required. If done early enough, diabetes can be cured over time - that is, insulin sensitivity can be recovered and damaged cells can regenerate to restore normal function.


          The problem with the current situation is that even bread flour has changed in the last 150 years, so the sandwich you eat today has a greater effect on your blood sugar than it did in yesteryear. Also, we eat far less fat than before, meaning more calories must necessarily come from carbs. There is far more nuance to it than this, but it's enough to give the idea.

  4. fuzzsdad

    My wife and I watched it. It's very interesting and sounds promising for those who suffer from certain chronic illnesses.

  5. Daekar

    Just found out about another person at work who is keto, and she has lost almost 100lbs while being able to stop taking all of her considerable list of medications, including those for anxiety, water retention, & diabetes.


    For those in doubt about the power of this lifestyle, those kind of results are not unusual, they're expected.

    • Tom Wilson

      In reply to Daekar:

      You want to be thin? Watch thin people eat, and eat like them.


      My mother has a salad with every meal. Her own dressing, olive oil & balsamic vinegar & spices. ONE piece of bread, no butter. She’s Italian, so her cooking isn’t a fad, it’s her way of life. If you need a label, Mediterranean diet would be close enough.


      When my father reaches for a snack, he takes ONE cookie, not a handful. My parents are in their 90’s and thin and healthy.


      On the other hand, I have a friend who was as thin as a rail in his teens. 30+ years later, he’s at least 150 pounds overweight. How did that happen? Well, he considers two 12 inch meatball subs from subway a nice mid-afternoon snack. NOT a meal, but a snack.


      We never hear from people like you how your friend got to be 100 pounds overweight. And something tells me that her issues with anxiety, water retention & diabetes have more to do with her shoveling cookies & cakes down her throat by the handful than with eating too many vegetables.


      All of this is the typical “victim” mentality that’s in vogue today. “IT’S NOT MY FAULT I’M FAT!! THEY MADE ME EAT THAT BOX OF DONUTS!!"


      • Daekar

        In reply to Tom Wilson:

        Tom,

        This is a typical response from a person who has not had weight problems thanks to blessings of physiology - I used to think this way. I have always been thin, ate carefully, and only recently started gaining weight despite my "good" diet composition and portion control. However, as much as I agree with you about about the modern victim mentality and as strongly as I believe personal strength plays a role in health, I was wrong to believe as I did about personal weakness in this regard.


        What we now understand about the relationship between insulin, carbohydrate consumption, hunger signals, and how the body accesses its energy stores means that some of these people are literally starving at the cellular level. Basically, we have it backwards - because the excessive glucose load of the diet has begun to cause a hormone imbalance (that is, too much insulin), the body literally cannot access its stored energy therefore signals hunger (sometimes animalistic hunger) to stimulate eating. When the food that's eaten is stored away because of elevated insulin levels, the body again is stuck with resources that it can't get at, and stimulates more eating. As the disorder advances, it can literally reach the point where it is impossible to eat enough to stave off hunger and yet be unable to access the huge store of energy hanging off the person in folds of fat.


        Making obesity the moral failing of those desperate (and sometimes suicidally-driven) to escape it is a convenient way to prop up a dietary model that fails to account for its failures, but it doesn't make sense anymore based on more recent advancements of science.


        BTW - nutrient-dense vegetables are usually not calorie dense. We're not looking at trade between vegetables and fat, we're looking to keep the vegetables and get rid of starches and grains. LCHF folks enjoy meals heavy on veggies all the time. I had a wonderful meal the other day composed of artichokes, mushrooms, and peppers sauteed and covered with a homemade vodka sauce (heavy on the cream, by my preference).

Leave a Reply