Oh and how ketosis cures diabetes - I can't remember which, but one form of diabetes is only treatable not curable with ketosis, the other type (less severe) and pre-diabetes are completely and easily curable with ketosis, in the short term.
It works by not spiking insulin, eventually your body repairs its tolerance to insulin when it's not shocked like a kid being tortured with an electric chair every meal.
Nobody has really done ketosis long-term on the same timespan they've done a diabetic diet (high carb, junk food), so who knows if even the most severe forms of diabetes are curable or not. I'm sure with lifestyle factors (buteytko) and a nutritional ketogenic diet, it's possible. The popular ketogenic diet (not wai) and still living the office modern lifestyle, probably wont cure any diabetes, just get it somewhat or completely under control. The ketogenic diet/lifestyle I'm talking about is a combination of raw, wai, keto state, and buteyko lifestyle factors (common sense like, do a little walking or jogging or running with nose breathing every now and then)
ketogenic diet
-
panacea
- Posts: 989
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08
Re: ketogenic diet
The ability of the human body to eventually repair itself kept staring me in the face, but it never really sank in for a long time. How I portray it to other people would be to remind them that a woman who has a baby, with some illness or med problem herself, may (not in all cases) create a new body, a new person, without that disease, or medical problem. That itself is proof I think that in 99% of cases, the body is doing fine, doing its job as best it can, the problem is the human who keeps abusing the body with hazardous lifestyle or diet, diseases aren't things that just "well, it's bad luck", diseases are symptoms to the root cause of lifestyle and diet. And 99% of the 1% left over are due to hazardous environment playing into it, whether it be nuclear radiation or some other oddity or not. Some are gradual over many years (using shitty chemicals in the shower, clothing, etc, for years). Remember that hairspray that was banned? Those kind of chemicals shit are probably all around us, but nobody has discovered what it's doing to us yet.
I dont subscribe to the paranoia that one of those things will doom someone, or that you need to live in a bunker, proper lifestyle and diet is a strong shield
I dont subscribe to the paranoia that one of those things will doom someone, or that you need to live in a bunker, proper lifestyle and diet is a strong shield
Re: ketogenic diet
No spiking at all?panacea wrote:Oh and how ketosis cures diabetes ... It works by not spiking insulin
For that, you need to consume no carbs and no protein at all.
Just fat.
But a "ketogenic diet" generally includes both protein and fat.
Re: ketogenic diet
If you consume fat to fulfill all your energy needs, without fasting, you are on a ketogenic diet, but without the starvation mode.panacea wrote:If someone fasts to go into starvation mode, they go into ketosis, getting most of their energy from ketones and fat stores, not external carbs, because they're not eating. Nutritional ketosis is simply prolonging that state by eating mostly fats, rather than exhausting your bodies entire supply. So in the context of your body, you're still feeding it basically the same exact thing as when you're starving.
If you first fast, and then replete your energy by consuming fat, in this repletion phase you are no longer benefitting from the 'starvation mode'.
Repletion does NOT prolong the starvation mode/state, regardless of whether in ketosis, or not.
It does, actually. Literally.panacea wrote:Just because your starving doesn't mean the body doesn't get energy from somewhere.
It literally means that you are consuming too little energy to maintain life.
When you are starving, it means that you are in a state of severe energy deficiency.
As a result, you are rapidly eating in on your energy reserves (adipose fat, glycogen, muscle protein).
Prolonged starvation eventually leads to death.
A limited window of 'starvation' is fasting, but this (in IF) is followed by repletion.
If you get enough "energy from somewhere", you are not starving.
If you get all the needed energy from dietary fat, you are not starving.
If you are on a ketogenic diet that supplies you with enough energy to maintain your weight, you are not starving.
Only during the fasting window you are in a 'starvation mode'.
Re: ketogenic diet
No extra large protein meals, but small protein meals are okay on a ketogenic diet (large protein meals get converted into glucose)
Protein should be eaten with fat of course, like with raw fish or 70% lean beef, but there will still be some protein intake and some insulin increase, but this isn't a spike, any more than jumping up and down on the ground isn't causing a significant earthquake, it's within the bodies lowest tolerance of insulin increase in order to survive without dying from not eating protein, that's the best you can possibly due to not get an insulin 'spike', if that is still too high for you (the lowest possible increase to sustain life) and you still call it a spike, then you're delusional.
I think you misunderstand the pathway of fat when consuming it nutritionally, it doesn't just stay in your gut until it's needed as dietary fat, a large amount of it gets put into body fat, and then turned into ketones or whatnot for bodily energy - just like in starvation mode. Yes, some energy comes directly from the ingested fat, but not enough to leave ketosis, which is the bodies mode of starvation to burn its own internal energy stores and spare protein/glucose. That all still happens on a ketogenic diet. Eventually, unless you want to die, EVERYONE has to consume energy, including caloric restriction diets, intermittent fasting, wai warrior, etc, the difference is these diets all take you OUT of ketosis at some point, out of starvation mode. Ketogenic diets allow you to stay in starvation mode 24/7, thereby giving the best life extension from starvation mode benefit.
When you're starving, your body is getting energy from consumed foods that were consumed previously, but not in the immediate past, which has been built up as tissue, body fat, etc. So it does get energy from somewhere, you're flat out wrong. The only state the body doesn't consume energy is death. Like it or not, starvation mode or no starvation mode, energy which originally came from diet is being used up. Nutritional ketosis mimics the way we use that energy while not intaking food, more than any other diet, and no leaps of time inbetween that diet and another diet are required for sustaining life. So while pure fasting may be more life-extending than a nutritional ketogenic diet day by day, eventually you have to stop fasting and get out of fasting ketosis, and that's where nutritional ketosis jumps ahead in terms of life-extension benefits, because it never has to stop. To truly fast in the long term you'd have to consume close to twice what you really need in order to bulk up on energy that you can keto out later while fasting. That's a rollercoaster diet and not as stable as just staying in keto-adaptation in the first place.
Protein should be eaten with fat of course, like with raw fish or 70% lean beef, but there will still be some protein intake and some insulin increase, but this isn't a spike, any more than jumping up and down on the ground isn't causing a significant earthquake, it's within the bodies lowest tolerance of insulin increase in order to survive without dying from not eating protein, that's the best you can possibly due to not get an insulin 'spike', if that is still too high for you (the lowest possible increase to sustain life) and you still call it a spike, then you're delusional.
I think you misunderstand the pathway of fat when consuming it nutritionally, it doesn't just stay in your gut until it's needed as dietary fat, a large amount of it gets put into body fat, and then turned into ketones or whatnot for bodily energy - just like in starvation mode. Yes, some energy comes directly from the ingested fat, but not enough to leave ketosis, which is the bodies mode of starvation to burn its own internal energy stores and spare protein/glucose. That all still happens on a ketogenic diet. Eventually, unless you want to die, EVERYONE has to consume energy, including caloric restriction diets, intermittent fasting, wai warrior, etc, the difference is these diets all take you OUT of ketosis at some point, out of starvation mode. Ketogenic diets allow you to stay in starvation mode 24/7, thereby giving the best life extension from starvation mode benefit.
When you're starving, your body is getting energy from consumed foods that were consumed previously, but not in the immediate past, which has been built up as tissue, body fat, etc. So it does get energy from somewhere, you're flat out wrong. The only state the body doesn't consume energy is death. Like it or not, starvation mode or no starvation mode, energy which originally came from diet is being used up. Nutritional ketosis mimics the way we use that energy while not intaking food, more than any other diet, and no leaps of time inbetween that diet and another diet are required for sustaining life. So while pure fasting may be more life-extending than a nutritional ketogenic diet day by day, eventually you have to stop fasting and get out of fasting ketosis, and that's where nutritional ketosis jumps ahead in terms of life-extension benefits, because it never has to stop. To truly fast in the long term you'd have to consume close to twice what you really need in order to bulk up on energy that you can keto out later while fasting. That's a rollercoaster diet and not as stable as just staying in keto-adaptation in the first place.
Re: ketogenic diet
Many amino acids directly stimulate the release of insulin.panacea wrote:there will still be some protein intake and some insulin increase, but this isn't a spike
Consuming a proteinaceous meal, there will therefore be an increase in the release of insulin, which is a 'spike'.
Well, that is a convincing statement...you still call it a spike, then you're delusional.
Still, there is some spiking, with the magnitude depending on how much protein is consumed.
You know what is causing no spike whatsoever?
Fasting. Fasting is known to reverse insulin resistence, due to a 'reset' evoked by an energy deficit.
When one is insulin resistent to some extend, the secretion of insulin is not fully in tune with the influx of glucose and amino acids.
This insulin response needs to be corrected.
The best way to do that, is by setting the influx of glucose and amino acids to 0 (nil) for a period of time, so that also the secretion of insulin must be 0 during at least section of that period.
That is resetting your insulin response.
Consuming some protein interferes with that reset function.
I think you misunderstand what starvation mode means.I think you misunderstand the pathway of fat ... body fat, ... turned into ketones or whatnot for bodily energy - just like in starvation mode
Starvation mode is more than just using ketone bodies for energy.
Starvation mode means there is a severe energy deficit.
Having sufficient fatty acids, triglycerides and/or ketone bodies available for energy, there is no starvation mode.
You are contradicting yourself.Eventually, unless you want to die, EVERYONE has to consume energy, including caloric restriction diets, intermittent fasting, wai warrior, etc, the difference is these diets all take you OUT of ketosis at some point, out of starvation mode. Ketogenic diets allow you to stay in starvation mode 24/7, thereby giving the best life extension from starvation mode benefit.
Starvation mode = energy deficit.
Metabolic phase = energy surplus
You cannot have one without the other and still be in energy balance.
If you are in starvation mode 24/7, you will continuously lose weight, and eventually die.
Re: ketogenic diet
Trying to understand; Me makes equations to try and understand:
Ketogenic diet = starving brain of sugar energy.
Ketogenic diet = supplying brain with ketone energy.
Ketogenic diet = starving insulin of sugar energy.
Ketogenic diet = supplying insulin with ketone energy.
IF&Fasting diet = starving brain of sugar and ketone energy.
IF&Fasting diet = starving insulin of sugar and ketone energy.
Brain = not lifespan.
Brain = not insulin.
insulin = not lifespan.
insulin = not brain.
- Do these equations look okay?
What mechanism of ketogenic diet = lifespan?
What mechanism of IF&Fasting diet = lifespan?
Ketogenic diet = starving brain of sugar energy.
Ketogenic diet = supplying brain with ketone energy.
Ketogenic diet = starving insulin of sugar energy.
Ketogenic diet = supplying insulin with ketone energy.
IF&Fasting diet = starving brain of sugar and ketone energy.
IF&Fasting diet = starving insulin of sugar and ketone energy.
Brain = not lifespan.
Brain = not insulin.
insulin = not lifespan.
insulin = not brain.
- Do these equations look okay?
What mechanism of ketogenic diet = lifespan?
What mechanism of IF&Fasting diet = lifespan?
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: ketogenic diet
Telomeres "TTAGGG" on a DNA strand becomes shorter and shorter with each cell division. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
I imagine, limiting energy periodically, spaces out cell division over a lifespan.
Supplying energy allows for cells to divide.
AUG...UAATTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG
If I had 50 posts left in this "ketogenic diet" thread, and I have posted 4 times including this post, I would be down to
Aytundra-46.
Each time I post, if I write something interesting, I would likely stimulate discussion on this thread.
Posting after my own post, probably wastes discussion stimulation potential of my last post.
Spacing out my posts and waiting for activity of a response to my last post would probably be more effective way to spend my "50 posts".
---
Aytundra...KetogenicdietThread...Post-46
I imagine, limiting energy periodically, spaces out cell division over a lifespan.
Supplying energy allows for cells to divide.
AUG...UAATTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGGTTAGGG
If I had 50 posts left in this "ketogenic diet" thread, and I have posted 4 times including this post, I would be down to
Aytundra-46.
Each time I post, if I write something interesting, I would likely stimulate discussion on this thread.
Posting after my own post, probably wastes discussion stimulation potential of my last post.
Spacing out my posts and waiting for activity of a response to my last post would probably be more effective way to spend my "50 posts".
---
Aytundra...KetogenicdietThread...Post-46
A tundra where will we be without trees? Thannnks!
Re: ketogenic diet
No, on a ketogenic diet, the body simply converts more fatty acids to glucose to the extend that it is required (for the brain)Aytundra wrote:Ketogenic diet = starving brain of sugar energy.
No, insulin is secreted in response to glucogenic bodies, such as sugars and glucogenic amino acids, and not in response to ketone bodies.Ketogenic diet = supplying insulin with ketone energy.
No, IF temporarily induces an energy deficit in most cells in our body.IF&Fasting diet = starving brain of sugar and ketone energy.
Purely using more ketone bodies instead of glucogenic bodies for energy does not increase lifespan.What mechanism of ketogenic diet = lifespan?
To increase lifespan, you must induce a lack of energy to evoke autophagy.
Feeding cells with sufficient energy (regardless of what the original source is; ketone bodies or glucogenic bodies) does not evoke autophagy.
Re: ketogenic diet
Yes, as it forces cells to use damaged organelles for energy.Aytundra wrote:I imagine, limiting energy periodically, spaces out cell division over a lifespan.
This prevents apoptosis caused by the accumulation of damaged organelles.
This postpones the eventual cell death and its replacement.
Replacing old cells comes with shortening of telomeres.
Repairing damaged cells (by autophagy) postpones the shortening of telomeres.
Re: ketogenic diet
RRM, you are flat out using a binocular approach to this topic, which is making you delusional. Yes fasting has a greater food based energy deficit than a ketogenic diet, that is the most narrow way ever to approach this topic, since fasting causes death as a diet plan. Are you saying fasting forever is in any way healthy? No. Because fasting forever is impossible. What happens when you have to stop fasting? you got it, the opposite of starvation mode - bulking up mode, if you ever want to fast again you better eat enough to store energy in your body so that you can fast again. By looking only at the fasting time period, and not the time period you bulk up again on bodily energy by not fasting, you are making fasting appear to be great, and ignoring the time that it is impossible to fast and just fast, because you'd die from it.
You also have 0, flat out 0 understanding of what a spike is. If insulin increases on a diet that represents the least amount of insulin increase possible to sustain life, it is less of a spike than fasting for a period, having less insulin increase or none at all, and then HAVING to eat more and causing a BIGGER insulin increase compared to the diet which had the minimal increase. Because it's not the time period where no insulin increase is important, it's the degree of insulin increase that is important. If humans didn't need energy, then you're right, fasting forever would be the best cure for insulin-spike related diseases like diabetes, but that is the most idiotic narrow minded way to consider a solution, since it doesn't work in the real world, people just die or have to eventually eat an energy-intensive diet with shocks their insulin and prolongs diabetes.
Again, you're saying that in order to beat diabetes, a good plan would be to get obese, store up a lot of energy, so that you can fast for long enough to reset insulin reactions. That is not only stupid, painful, and dangerous, it may also not be long enough for even mild cases to 'reset', whereas a ketogenic diet is a constantly low level of insulin, with no periods of 'repletion' to undo all your hard work. Furthermore, a ketogenic diet is actually sustainable and not pure hell to go through for a long time, when already unhealthy and having diabetes, like fasting is.
Furthermore, while fasting, your body is NOT really in a severe energy deficit, since it is GETTING that energy by taking a adaptation (ketosis) to extract energy from the body. A SEVERE energy deficit means you're in ketosis or not, and still can't get energy. You die within minutes, hours, or days, depending on how severe. If your body can get 0 energy, you die instantaneously. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an energy deficit is. What you seem to actually mean is an external, food based energy deficit. The cells do not know "oh hey, that energy delivered to me came from food fat, not body fat, let's react differently to this energy and improve this persons health".
During nutritional ketosis, the SAME bodily adaptation happens. The SAME bodily responses happen, regardless of if the energy comes from body fat or food fat.
You also have 0, flat out 0 understanding of what a spike is. If insulin increases on a diet that represents the least amount of insulin increase possible to sustain life, it is less of a spike than fasting for a period, having less insulin increase or none at all, and then HAVING to eat more and causing a BIGGER insulin increase compared to the diet which had the minimal increase. Because it's not the time period where no insulin increase is important, it's the degree of insulin increase that is important. If humans didn't need energy, then you're right, fasting forever would be the best cure for insulin-spike related diseases like diabetes, but that is the most idiotic narrow minded way to consider a solution, since it doesn't work in the real world, people just die or have to eventually eat an energy-intensive diet with shocks their insulin and prolongs diabetes.
Again, you're saying that in order to beat diabetes, a good plan would be to get obese, store up a lot of energy, so that you can fast for long enough to reset insulin reactions. That is not only stupid, painful, and dangerous, it may also not be long enough for even mild cases to 'reset', whereas a ketogenic diet is a constantly low level of insulin, with no periods of 'repletion' to undo all your hard work. Furthermore, a ketogenic diet is actually sustainable and not pure hell to go through for a long time, when already unhealthy and having diabetes, like fasting is.
Furthermore, while fasting, your body is NOT really in a severe energy deficit, since it is GETTING that energy by taking a adaptation (ketosis) to extract energy from the body. A SEVERE energy deficit means you're in ketosis or not, and still can't get energy. You die within minutes, hours, or days, depending on how severe. If your body can get 0 energy, you die instantaneously. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an energy deficit is. What you seem to actually mean is an external, food based energy deficit. The cells do not know "oh hey, that energy delivered to me came from food fat, not body fat, let's react differently to this energy and improve this persons health".
During nutritional ketosis, the SAME bodily adaptation happens. The SAME bodily responses happen, regardless of if the energy comes from body fat or food fat.
Re: ketogenic diet
Imagine a flat line representing insulin level. This represents fasting lets say, and also results in death if not countered by high energy intake.
High energy intake would be a line that spikes up by a lot.
Nutritional ketosis would be a moderate energy intake which is represented by a line that goes up higher than the flat line, but not higher than the high energy intake state.
So is nutritional ketosis increasing from the flat line? Yes. Is this actually a "spike" in insulin? No of course not, because that is the NORMAL level for insulin to be at, to sustain life. Fasting does not sustain life, it is using built up energy from a high spike diet to sustain life, which is not good to do for diabetics.
The term "spike" literally means: a sharp increase in the magnitude or concentration of something.
That does NOT mean that "ANY" increase from the magnitude or concentration of insulin is an insulin SPIKE. It must be COMPARED to what is normal. Not what is most often encountered by the masses on a shitty diet, but what is NORMAL for sustaining life.
High energy intake would be a line that spikes up by a lot.
Nutritional ketosis would be a moderate energy intake which is represented by a line that goes up higher than the flat line, but not higher than the high energy intake state.
So is nutritional ketosis increasing from the flat line? Yes. Is this actually a "spike" in insulin? No of course not, because that is the NORMAL level for insulin to be at, to sustain life. Fasting does not sustain life, it is using built up energy from a high spike diet to sustain life, which is not good to do for diabetics.
The term "spike" literally means: a sharp increase in the magnitude or concentration of something.
That does NOT mean that "ANY" increase from the magnitude or concentration of insulin is an insulin SPIKE. It must be COMPARED to what is normal. Not what is most often encountered by the masses on a shitty diet, but what is NORMAL for sustaining life.
Re: ketogenic diet
Hee, panacea, I think this discussion is really interesting, and you bring in interesting point, but I think it may be better to keep caps a little bit more down, otherwise, people may interpret the tone as being to "aggressive". 
But on-topic. What I don't understand, do you think insulin spikes being necessarily a bad thing? Or do you think it is only bad for diabetic persons.
I must say I doubt both. That insulin spikes would be bad in healthy or diabetic persons. RRM also writes that maybe a bit more fat and less sugar may be better for diabetic on his website. But there have actually studies been shown that higher sugar consumption was correlated with less change of diabetic type 2. I can't find that study directly, but here is study that shows no correlation with sugar:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/4/1008.full
Here is documentary of twins. One did a high fat diet, one a high sugar diet. Actually, the one on high fat diet began to develop diabetes, while the one on the high sugar diet, had no problems:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1arp ... v-fat_tech
The main reason, I say this, is because of personal experience. I have a high sugar, and high starch diet myself (I think high sugar only may be better actually), and personally, it just seems to do me very well. I have not any marks of loosing insulin sensitivity.
But on-topic. What I don't understand, do you think insulin spikes being necessarily a bad thing? Or do you think it is only bad for diabetic persons.
I must say I doubt both. That insulin spikes would be bad in healthy or diabetic persons. RRM also writes that maybe a bit more fat and less sugar may be better for diabetic on his website. But there have actually studies been shown that higher sugar consumption was correlated with less change of diabetic type 2. I can't find that study directly, but here is study that shows no correlation with sugar:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/4/1008.full
Here is documentary of twins. One did a high fat diet, one a high sugar diet. Actually, the one on high fat diet began to develop diabetes, while the one on the high sugar diet, had no problems:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1arp ... v-fat_tech
The main reason, I say this, is because of personal experience. I have a high sugar, and high starch diet myself (I think high sugar only may be better actually), and personally, it just seems to do me very well. I have not any marks of loosing insulin sensitivity.
Re: ketogenic diet
I agree, but it's just passion, I tried calmly stating the obvious appeal of a keto diet but it didn't work, so hopefully treating RRM like he's acting like an idiot (which I don't think I've ever done to him since he's usually scientifically very objective) will provide the stimuli necessary for a paradigm shift in thinking about diet. He's been on a high high carb diet and it's been working for him for a long time, it's hard to contemplate that it might not be the best diet for certain goals/diseases even if you can become an Olympic athlete on it.
I don't know if insulin spikes are necessarily the bad thing or not, because the body can adapt to different diets somewhat and, in the short term, mask any problems from diet based on just looking at insulin. You can't just look at one thing alone. However, in general, over the very long haul, not spiking insulin every single meal is most likely better than spiking it all of the time, and forcing your body to adapt, which it might not be able to keep doing forever (eventual diabetes). I'm sure that with really healthy sugary foods, before you're diabetic, the body's resistance to diabetes is increased so much that it may be largely irrelevant. But for treating an already diabetic person, you have to control the insulin as it's like an allergy to the body, the body overreacts, or can't react well enough, to insulin, causing a problem. The body has to calm down, over time, and not act like this, but just like any feedback loop, this only happens if you stop electrocuting it, aka torturing it, with an insulin bomb diet plan. Fasting is great, except that it's not sustainable, and that it requires you to eat insulin bombs before or after fasting in order to fast again at length, at least, compared to a nutritional ketogenic diet. Many people are slightly over their natural/normal weight, and maintain that weight, on a traditional non-keto diet, and they think that fasting is just a natural ability they have, but they would be healthier and better off, especially regarding diabetes, if they went on a keto diet, got to their lower normal weight (or higher weight in case of anorexia etc), and just maintained a moderate keto diet for a long time.
Regarding your link, I can see how it sparked questions, here you will find the answers http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/02/hori ... ar-vs-fat/ which directly relate to that video.
In regard to videos and studies at large, there are a huge myriad of reasons they can be misleading, especially when over simplifications are used. Nutritional ketosis is not merely a high fat diet, it's not even a rigid type diet that is copy pasted for every individual. An obese person on a correct nutritional ketosis diet, even by traditional standards (not wai raw foods), would not be eating a lot of fat, since he has plenty of body fat to use for energy instead. Also, it still matters where the fat comes from, how it's prepared, etc, to some extent, as well as the protein, etc.
The general overlying principle of a ketogenic diet is moderation, something severely lacking in today's culture where we gorge all year long and expect it never to cause problems, when we have more medical problems than any other animal that doesn't have unrestricted access to carbs (which is another word for addicting food). However domesticated animals, fed by humans, that are allowed to gorge, develop similar diseases. I don't trust the body to limit its own intake of carbs, especially regarding processed or cooked foods, unless it's a ketogenic diet which naturally inhibits appetite. Carb based diets may be fine on paper, or in theory, but in the behavior results of the worldwide population it's a disastrous way to diet. However we are definitely adapted to eat high carb diets, as well as no carb or low carb diets, I simply think that in the current context of the modern lifestyle, a no or very low carb diet (nutritional ketogenic diet) is superior in every way except taste.
I've been on keto for more than 3 weeks now, or somewhere around there, and I've never felt more liberated from food, I also feel better, but 3 weeks is generally the minimum amount of time to become truly keto adapted, and I'm not sure I'm even that yet, since I've been eating a lot of protein to try and use body fat stores. I'm noticing my skin, where I have acne or black spots on nose, is becoming more leathery/smooth and the black spots are coming out of my nose whereas they've been there for years and years without moving, I've also had red marks from previous acne on my nose, face, back, etc which are fading now, and I'm still eating a very cooked keto diet (wai raw keto is healthier but I can't make myself eat the raw food yet). I've had similar benefits eating all wai, all raw diets for short periods, but couldn't sustain them due to addictive cravings for carbs, which this diet solves. The difference is, I didn't get these benefits on a cooked wai diet, it had to be absolutely all raw, no cheating, etc. On raw keto I can eat cooked and much more slowly, still improve. That alone tells me, personally and not speaking from certainty just anecdotal intuition, that raw keto would amplify the healing process.
I don't know if insulin spikes are necessarily the bad thing or not, because the body can adapt to different diets somewhat and, in the short term, mask any problems from diet based on just looking at insulin. You can't just look at one thing alone. However, in general, over the very long haul, not spiking insulin every single meal is most likely better than spiking it all of the time, and forcing your body to adapt, which it might not be able to keep doing forever (eventual diabetes). I'm sure that with really healthy sugary foods, before you're diabetic, the body's resistance to diabetes is increased so much that it may be largely irrelevant. But for treating an already diabetic person, you have to control the insulin as it's like an allergy to the body, the body overreacts, or can't react well enough, to insulin, causing a problem. The body has to calm down, over time, and not act like this, but just like any feedback loop, this only happens if you stop electrocuting it, aka torturing it, with an insulin bomb diet plan. Fasting is great, except that it's not sustainable, and that it requires you to eat insulin bombs before or after fasting in order to fast again at length, at least, compared to a nutritional ketogenic diet. Many people are slightly over their natural/normal weight, and maintain that weight, on a traditional non-keto diet, and they think that fasting is just a natural ability they have, but they would be healthier and better off, especially regarding diabetes, if they went on a keto diet, got to their lower normal weight (or higher weight in case of anorexia etc), and just maintained a moderate keto diet for a long time.
Regarding your link, I can see how it sparked questions, here you will find the answers http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/02/hori ... ar-vs-fat/ which directly relate to that video.
In regard to videos and studies at large, there are a huge myriad of reasons they can be misleading, especially when over simplifications are used. Nutritional ketosis is not merely a high fat diet, it's not even a rigid type diet that is copy pasted for every individual. An obese person on a correct nutritional ketosis diet, even by traditional standards (not wai raw foods), would not be eating a lot of fat, since he has plenty of body fat to use for energy instead. Also, it still matters where the fat comes from, how it's prepared, etc, to some extent, as well as the protein, etc.
The general overlying principle of a ketogenic diet is moderation, something severely lacking in today's culture where we gorge all year long and expect it never to cause problems, when we have more medical problems than any other animal that doesn't have unrestricted access to carbs (which is another word for addicting food). However domesticated animals, fed by humans, that are allowed to gorge, develop similar diseases. I don't trust the body to limit its own intake of carbs, especially regarding processed or cooked foods, unless it's a ketogenic diet which naturally inhibits appetite. Carb based diets may be fine on paper, or in theory, but in the behavior results of the worldwide population it's a disastrous way to diet. However we are definitely adapted to eat high carb diets, as well as no carb or low carb diets, I simply think that in the current context of the modern lifestyle, a no or very low carb diet (nutritional ketogenic diet) is superior in every way except taste.
I've been on keto for more than 3 weeks now, or somewhere around there, and I've never felt more liberated from food, I also feel better, but 3 weeks is generally the minimum amount of time to become truly keto adapted, and I'm not sure I'm even that yet, since I've been eating a lot of protein to try and use body fat stores. I'm noticing my skin, where I have acne or black spots on nose, is becoming more leathery/smooth and the black spots are coming out of my nose whereas they've been there for years and years without moving, I've also had red marks from previous acne on my nose, face, back, etc which are fading now, and I'm still eating a very cooked keto diet (wai raw keto is healthier but I can't make myself eat the raw food yet). I've had similar benefits eating all wai, all raw diets for short periods, but couldn't sustain them due to addictive cravings for carbs, which this diet solves. The difference is, I didn't get these benefits on a cooked wai diet, it had to be absolutely all raw, no cheating, etc. On raw keto I can eat cooked and much more slowly, still improve. That alone tells me, personally and not speaking from certainty just anecdotal intuition, that raw keto would amplify the healing process.
Re: ketogenic diet
To extrapolate, a wai based high carb diet would no doubt be extremely superior to the current processed/cooked high carb diets, I'm not contesting that at all, the problem is it's often not possible, too expensive, in terms of either time, money, or travel, and still retains the addiction for carb-based cheat foods for much longer, or even indefinitely, on a level of intensity that is for the majority of people, not worth the sacrifice, even if they are slightly annoyed by health problems. It appears this forum over the years is proof that you have to be extremely motivated by acne or some other social embarassment, or life-threatening scare, to adhere to raw wai 100%, or perhaps, just be really healthy to begin with and/or have a rich lifestyle surrounded by entertainment, passion, etc, so that food is not so important to you.
It appears many more people are able to adhere to a keto diet, once they know about it and learn about, with much less effort. But there is currently no gradual plan to turn them into raw wai keto-ers, since I don't think there is any movement out there for raw animal food keto, merely the vegetarian movement based on "animal ethics", which has its own problems getting all their fat and protein not from any animal sources
It appears many more people are able to adhere to a keto diet, once they know about it and learn about, with much less effort. But there is currently no gradual plan to turn them into raw wai keto-ers, since I don't think there is any movement out there for raw animal food keto, merely the vegetarian movement based on "animal ethics", which has its own problems getting all their fat and protein not from any animal sources