Summary: cherry picked data from cohort studies show minor correlation but no causation, from the least competent heart experts US industry has to offer.

"Correlation is not Causation" - it is a fallacy to think it is

Somebody offered up this short piece from a "lifestyle blog" thinking it was proof the ketogenic diet is harmful. First, the blog has an "astrology" section on it.

Now, I don't know about you, but when looking at rational insight in the life sciences I tend to avoid those sources that have entire sections on delusional and magical thinking and it's unclear whether I'd have progressed past the Astrology link in the top middle of the page, that's usually assign to close the window, ads are bad enough but ads and an astrology column? "science".

But ok, lets say we ignore the forays into the astrological arts and see what the article says.

1) Ketogenic diet was developed in the 1920s. 2) It was the only treatment that worked in some forms of epilepsy.

So first off they're talking about a 100 year old medical practice that happens to eliminate some disease conditions that medical science otherwise has no cure for. Put another way, a dietary change had success where no medical procedure or pill could. Well that does't sound so bad.

So what's the problem? These people are not dropping dead from the diet and after 100 years of it you think if there was a huge problem or even a small problem it would show itself by now.

Now they make their next point: 3) "“When you eat foods containing carbs, your body stores the excess carbs in your muscles as glycogen to use as energy, along with some extra fluid,” explains registered dietitian Victoria Lindsay R.D. “Then when you greatly restrict your carb intake, your body dips into your muscles’ glycogen stores for energy. When those are used up, you lose the fluid that was stored along with the glycogen as well. That leads to pretty rapid fat loss at first – even though it’s mostly ‘water weight.’”

Vicky is a dietitian. That's a high school diploma in the US and a mail order nutrition program run by industry. This is not the cardiologist we were promised, but ok, what are they saying?

a) "when you greatly restrict your carb intake, your body dips into your muscles’ glycogen stores for energy" b) " it’s mostly ‘water weight."

Well, I've taken 80 pounds off that's stayed off for 15 years now, so, in my case at least, it's not "water weight" whatever that is. If I ever hear of this happening I'll me sure to make a note but my guess would be Vicky has never tried it and doesn't actually know what she's talking about because that's not what people who stick to the diet say and what is the point of listening to somebody that either hasn't tried it or tried it and can not stick to it and claimed the diet failed them. Maybe it's the other way around, certainly no evidence is offered to back up this claim,it's just another opinion on a blog with out evidence.

As for a), your body burns glycogen, a lipid or fat, instead of glucose, a sugar so the amount of blood sugar doesn't go up and down all the time which causes problems for some people.

So, two unsupported opinions from a high school students means that so far, they have no point. Let's go on. "Furthermore, a number of experts are now warning about the potential for dangerous side effects." Uh oh. "A number of experts". Zero is a number. One is a number. And they warn of a "potential for harm". Not harm itself, that would be too easy, but when you have a bunch of people that did this and you can't show harm (that would make their argument here, "see, harm. end of story.") you imply potential harm.

"Among these experts is Dr. Kim Williams, the former president of the American College of Cardiology. While he admits that the science makes sense if you are looking for quick weight loss, it may come at an incredibly steep price – weight loss in exchange for lifespan."

Ok, he's not "among these experts" he's the only one quoted. And he's an administrator not a teacher, a professional mouthpiece. Now, keep in mind the president of the American Heart Association recently had a heart attack at the America Heart Association annual dinner at 53 and heart is still the #1 leading cause of death in the US (Cancer is #2, the medical system itself is #3)

Here's the problem with the study they cite. It's cherry picked data that tells one side of a story about a tiny statistical difference. Also, correlation is not causation. This study is like comparing a graph of the rise in vegan diets and the rise in murder. They're the same curve and this is why the phrase "correlation is not causation" exists.

It shows there is an anomalous trends in one tiny subset of the data. It happens, especially when you look for it and zero in on it.

A few years back a study came out that showed grapefruit caused cancer. Hundreds of studies tried to reproduce it but they would not, ever. It was just a fluke. When you have a medical practice that's been helping patients for over 100 years if it's really so harmful where's the pike of bodies? So many people wold be so sick if it were true and that's not happening.

"The concerning part, he advised, was that the studies pointed to a higher risk of cardiovascular health, and an increased mortality rate."

Ok, they're worried about rate of CVD? Let's recap: Heart is the #1 killer of Americans and nothing they've done has changed that The bad cholesterol turns out to be made from sugar, not fat, they made a mistake. Eliminating sugar, the sole source of the bad cholesterol that is the major source of CVS drives up CVD? No it does not Consider the possibility other factors were at play. Uncontrolled diets means all bets are off. There's no control here, anything could have happened. They at best found a single digit difference Which they can not explain and do to try to. Correlation is not causation.

" “It was a 53 percent increase in mortality." 1) Cherry picked. There where is the pile of bodies if it's so bad? 2) Now that we know sugar along causes the bad cholesterol any "heart" expert that thinks any amount of the sole substance the bad cholesterol that cause the majority of CVD are made from is the same thing as the "doctors" at the beginning of the previous century that were considered "foul humors" and not germs, were responsible for disease. They are simply under-educated and the last people you want ot take advice from.

Another study was cited that compared a lot of carb (less than 50% carbs by calories) diet (note: keto start at 30%, at 50% they're not "in keto" and are still eating a carb heavy diet ans the results are predictable) and noticed different values for plant and animal food. Again, no controls. A proper diet and junk american diet are going to produce the results there. Choosing between meat or plants is not practical health, where is the fish? Marine oils are vital and the missing 1/3 to the diets here.

When you leave out a large number of important fats, minerals and enzymes from your tests you odn; tger to tocoptojas people die. Try feeding them riper.