https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_Turk

Only people with compromised circulation? Last I checked only 96% of westerners have compromised metabolic health.

So this article is saying for 4% of the population aphrodisiacs are ineffective. Ha

Don’t review the game until after people buy it!

The term of art is “price discovery”

Sure, but keto says it totally fine to eat a steak and a stick of butter and nothing else. That doesn’t seem sustainable.

Yet it is, we only need to look at the documented human populations that only had access to animal food before westernization. They sustained, even thrived.

Also I’ve never met anyone that does keto that allows any carbs.

Keto is just metabolic ketosis, any biological state while the body is producing detectable levels of blood ketones. Anyone can achieve it <20g carbs per day, and many people have higher tolerances (age, muscle mass, resting metabolic rate etc).

Just trying to offer insight into the down votes. I don’t think it’s the IF crew doing it. It’s probably people who are anti-keto.

Which includes you… https://lemvotes.org/comment/sh.itjust.works/comment/23819049

Keto (the actual dietary principle) is just based on a different distribution of macronutrients when achieving your caloric deficit.

Keto is any diet that maintains the metabolic state of ketosis. This can be done with overfeeding, underfeeding, fasting… and doesn’t even require complete nutrition (though that is always a good idea).

You need fiber, friend. You. Need. Fiber.

Citation please. As far as I’ve read fibre does two things:

1. Anti-nutrient, when people eat terrible food fibre blunts it so it isn’t as terrible by preventing some of the bad food absorption

2. Fibre is digested by the gut into short-chain fatty acids (SCA / BHB) which get absorbed through the gut, and has a boost to health in the area of absorption. However, in a ketogenic context the liver is making Ketones (BHB) all the time which gets deposited into the blood stream being available to the entire body including the gut… so this benefit is only seen in a carbohydrate metabolism, and not in keto.

Since your waiting on the follow-up it might still be helpful to learn about the mitochondrial model of cancer.

It doesn’t hurt to go zero/very low carb while waiting for your results, then there isn’t extra glucose to feed any stray cancer cells floating around.

I hope they got it all!

My car doesn’t have a internet connection, so any threat they make from the internet doesn’t seem credible to me.

It might be worth your time to look at the mitochondrial theory of cancer: https://hackertalks.com/post/23421392

Happy to supply books, papers, and talk in depth with you on the details.

Tldr: cancer cells only burn glucose, using a very low carb diet as a adjunct to standard of care is a strict positive in treatment.

Genuinely I’m hoping you recover fully!

Yes, the oncogenic paradox… We don’t know what causes cancer… But ever source of inflammation seems to increase risk… The mitochondrial theory of cancer (Seyfried, Warburg) would say the high glucose environment people create in their blood is the core reason for the surge of modern cancers.

New Red dwarf content with the original cast makes me feel human, happy, and very, very old.

Adults are better at delayed gratification, children aren’t. As we get older we’re able to make our expenses less and less expensive, because we can wait for the optimal moment.

The $70 price tag is aimed at games for teens who haven’t developed the ability to wait, who suffer from heavy emotional swings and have a big case of fomo.

They are trying really hard to do something

It’s weird, when the keto and carnivore papers get published they are always open access… but this paper… closed… and doesn’t define their categories… it’s curious. If i wasn’t a charitable man I make think that was intentional.

I have lots of biases in the area the paper is talking about. I’ve acquired the actual paper and on first pass they don’t define what low carb means… really, they don’t, anywhere… including the supplemental material. Making best effort inferences on how they make the category cohorts, it seems 40% of energy from carbs is the cutoff. 40% of a 1800 calorie diet is about 200g of carbs per day.

Currently my smells on this paper

• Who : Harvard nutrition, a org with a history of heavy plant based bias
• What they said : PBF beats ABF in a 200g “low carb” diet using intermediate health metrics
• On the basis of what : Epidemiology, on food frequency questionaries, using major assume corrective factors
• In what context : 200g/day carb diet, not controlling for processed foods (so healthy user bias the unprocessed abf group isn’t represented at all)… they explicitly say this paper doesn’t apply to keto “evidence from our study regarding the LCD and LFD patterns cannot be directly generalized to diets with much lower carbohydrates or fats intake, such as the ketogenic diet.”

The bias is really evident in that they defined healthy and unhealthy LCD in terms of animal products… that is presupposing the outcomes in their healthy fat ranking system!

When I have more time I’ll do a full post on this paper after I’ve had time to read it and figure out what the actual data is. I’m gobsmacked a paper on low carb doesn’t even define what % of carbs is low carb explicitly… why make that so indirect and hidden!!!

The good news is harvard is finally acknowledging the tsunami of low carb and keto research in their own way, but they are going to do it kicking and screaming on the pbf hill the entire time… but progress is progress.

Anson Keys

Ancel Keys

Talking to people about what I’m currently reading or just finished and they give me recommendations, that’s worked really well for me.

Rewording the title

Intermittent fasting just as good as typical weight loss diets!