Judging from the comments, people are committed to their atkins thing.
I don't expect this to be well received.
Fiber. You need it. This 'ketogenic' thing is suicide.
you can eat plenty of fiber and still be keto
Also you can eat none and be perfectly healthy
Can you point to research that says we require fibre?
I guess you are kidding, but sure. It's good to get the info out there. All ya gotta do is google it tho ...
Would you prefer Stanford, Harvard, Mayo Clinic, or NIH?
I mean a paper that is not an epidemiological one (as they have no ability to show cause and effect) that shows you die without fibre after however long without it
Like life without vitamin C or its precursor goes on for a couple of months then symptoms get serious and you die of scurvy
What's the time limit on fibre?
Well, for me it was about 42 years, till I was bleeding out my ass all the time.
You know, some of us are hard to convince.
I'm cured, but I'll require regular colonoscopies for the rest of my life.
I'll see you at the butt doctor when it hits you too. Or ... you could act sensibly. Now.
That's pretty funny, I know it's not true though as a no fibre diet for that long has to be very high fat and I've read a lot about low fibre high fat diets that I know that make shitting easy
Shitting was not a problem. Shitting blood was the issue.
Your gut bugs need fiber to eat. Or they will eventually eat you.
You cannot maintain a healthy microbiome without fiber.
The older you get, the less your guts can tolerate the type of self-abuse you are pushing here.
Additionally, fiber consumption has a dramatic impact on cholesterol processing. That's actually what finally brought me to the table for a balanced meal.
Ah, your story was trying to build up to "fibre is vital" the only studies of fibre on constipation and straining on the toilet showed fibre increased both, reducing fibre improved both, eliminating fibre completely fixed both
The comparison that one made was "adding fibre to improve constipation is like adding cars to improve traffic"
Ya, that's never been a problem for me. I think the 'bad thing' was dental infections and a bunch of antibiotics. That threw my shitter out of kilter and made me understand you have to manage your gut like a garden. When you see that bright red blood in the bowl, you realize change is in order and start listening to doctors instead of diet fads and 'your own research'.
That's what happens when you eat too much sugar
I would not argue that point, but ... its beside the point.
If we're doing n=1 anecdotes, removing fibre from my diet cured my constipation.
N=2 now
Is xep your other account? Just curious.
No. Xep is in a different timezone than me and doesn't have as good English. All my accounts are named psud or pseudopsud. I have three accounts as I have had bad luck with instances.
I try not to post or comment under my other logins - when Aussie.zone is down I just read, otherwise I'd get replies I wouldn't see for months
What about a high fat high carb diet?
Obesity is linked to higher risk for many cancers
That'll make you fat and bring on metabolic syndrome and all that
...asking for a very unhealthy friend...uhm...
As long as it's high in saturated fats and simple carbs, you'll be fine. But don't do anything physically demanding, or could be considered exercise.
Didn't you mean complex carbs?
But don’t do anything physically demanding, or could be considered exercise.
He's joking.
Complex carbs are like corn and potatoes. They break down slower and give you more energy over time. They're not super great but simple carbs are like white bread and candy, which spike energy and blood sugar levels.
It’s almost as if the most healthy diet is a diverse one.
What were the mice fed? Is this like a vegetarian low carb diet where the fats come from factory fats - seed oils?
Does "susceptible mice" mean mice that are highly prone to cancer?
Were they also fed carcinogens?
There is reason to think that high meat, high animal fat diets are protective against cancer, as cancer depends on sugar
What were the mice fed? Is this like a vegetarian low carb diet where the fats come from factory fats - seed oils?
this was the diet used https://researchdiets.com/en/formulas/d06040601 sucrose, corn starch, soybean oil, food dyes... you know... keto stuff.... 6% daily energy from soybean oil
Were they also fed carcinogens?
the mice were genetically engineered to develop tumors, so not fed, designed.
There is reason to think that high meat, high animal fat diets are protective against cancer, as cancer depends on sugar
This study isn't about keto, its about the pathway of tumor growth in genetically engineered tumor laden mice in a high fat diet.... unless your a mouse engineered to develop tumors genetically this doesn't apply to you.
So these mice were on a high carb diet with exogenous ketones? 6% energy from fat isn't ketogenic
6% from soybean oil, total energy from fat was about 80%, except they didn't count fibre in the diet as carbohydrates... if you do that its a 15% carb diet.
I don't tolerate sugar or fibre well, and I'll avoid plant oils in general
Ok so I'm not a mouse, I'm not from a line deliberately bred for cancer, and my diet has none of those things; my 80% energy from fat is from beef fat. I think I'm not going to worry about this
also 50g of fibre in the feed diet, maybe the tumors are responding to fibre?
i'm just skimming right now, but the papers studies each used 2-4 mice, and are not powered at all. it's hard to say even if you WERE a PPAR-CPT1A engineered mouse that these results are relevant... they knocked out ketogenesis in a few of the mice and still saw tumor growth.... let's not forget the genetic engineering here not only induces tumors, but also suppresses bhb production... so maybe these tumors respond well to fatty acids, but would be suppressed by healthy bhb production and ketone metabolism... this paper doesn't know. it's possible the net effect of a healthy ketogenic metabolism would be enough in non-genetically engineered mice to reduce the tumors.... they didn't test that.
plus...... they didn't measure all cause mortality! so we just know tumor growth for a window... why not actually get all cause mortality data? nothing ruins short term results like long term data.
the fact we have human interventional studies directly linking tumor growth to glucose intake, and in this mice study we see the opposite only in their genetically engineered tumors.... i'm not sure we can make any meaningful conclusions from that.
They conclude the cancers are triggered by the fats not ketones based on the study title (I haven't had time to read the study yet)
the study isn't open access, I'm pretty sure nobody has read the study including the nature "article" author.
it's pretty bad form, and intellectually dishonest, to share a paywalled article on a paywalled paper, just because you like the title... ensuring nobody will read what is actually said is pretty anti-science.
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind