The Ketogenic Diet (continued)

Thanks to Honest Medicine, I found some interesting videos about the ketogenic diet. The first two are from Dateline NBC: Part 1 and Part 2. In Part 1, Dr. Donald Shields, head of pediatric neurology at the UCLA Medical Center, says, in answer to a question about why he didn’t recommend the ketogenic diet to the Abramsons, who discovered it for themselves:

Because I don’t think we had exhausted all the medical approaches [to treating their son’s epilepsy] yet. There were actually still other medications that we hadn’t tried yet.

The last is a great talk (9 minutes) by Dr. Deborah Snyder. “To say the ketogenic diet has touched my heart would be a great understatement,” said Dr. Snyder.

More videos from The Charlie Foundation. The Ketogenic Diet and Evidence Snobs.

14 thoughts on “The Ketogenic Diet (continued)

  1. @Dennis Mangan

    They may well be.

    https://www.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.info/content/toxins.aspx


    Though their are many toxins and pharmacological chemicals in nature, the following chemicals are found foods we eat and can cause adverse effects in the wrong individual:

    Lectins (beans, pulses, grains, nuts, nightshades)
    Cyanogens, cyanogenic glycosides, and amygdalin (seeds of many fruits and nuts, rose family, particularly amygdaloideae – cherry, almond, peach)
    Coumarins (tonka bean, woodruff, bison grass, clover)
    Goiterogens (soya, cabbage family)
    Alkaloids and glycoalkaloids (diverse sources, caffeine, theobromine, solanine, chaconine, nicotine)
    Oxalates and oxalic acids (vegetables particularly leafy green, sorrel, spinach, rhubarb)
    Protease inhibitors (beans)

  2. So how did our hunter-gatherer ancestors survive? Humans are one of many generalist forger species on the planet (pigs and rats are also generalist foragers). Generalist foragers must learn what to eat from the availability in their environment. Such species typically live in much broader ranges, both in terms of geography and in terms of habitat type. I doubt our HG ancestors sat around the camp fire at night discussing which categories of food were associated with thyroid problems later in life. The statistical associations presented in studies that keep appearing in this and related blogs are weak at best and contentious at worst. Maybe the answer is that, while certain natural foods (plant parts in particular) may have chemicals associated with epidemiologically detectible adverse effects, these effects are too weak to select for a natural mechanism to avoid such foods (e.g., taste detectors). While I take much of what I read in Taube’s GCBC to heart, I am not going to give up soy milk (I don’t drink that much anyway), dairy (great source of protein, fat, calcium, and Vitamin D), fruits, nuts, or vegetables. I WILL avoid overly processed foods and refined carbohydrates because these things have been so altered that they don’t even resemble the thing plucked off of the tree or sheared off the stock. And the scientific and epidemiological evidence for their dietary malfeasance is much stronger. I’m not saying certain people shouldn’t avoid certain foods that they know they have allergies too. That makes obvious sense. But to worry about each fruit, vegetable, whole grain, and nut or seed that goes into my mouth just goes too far.

  3. Maybe the answer is that, while certain natural foods (plant parts in particular) may have chemicals associated with epidemiologically detectible adverse effects, these effects are too weak to select for a natural mechanism to avoid such foods (e.g., taste detectors).

    You are missing one piece of the puzzle. What we know today as fruit and vegetables did not exist in our ancestors’ world. Today’s fruits and vegetables are distant domesticated cousins — that is, we ate fewer plants than today — of wild plants for which we most certainly developed natural mechanisms such as morning sickness (see Margie Profet) which might be an evolutionary response acting to protect the growing fetus from ‘natural’ teratogins (toxins that cause birth defects) and abortifacients (toxins that induce miscarriage) found in edible plants.

    Also, ever try to eat a very unripe apple — you will get sick to you stomach as the apple tree doesn’t want its apples to be eaten before its seeds are ready for dispersal — and your body is clearly reacting to the plant toxins found therein.

    I don’t think we can reject the hypothesis that plant foods may not be harmful.

  4. Thanks for your comment Varangy. What you say suggests the hypothesis that there should be a strong correlation between the degree to which modern fruits and vegetables (and tubers, legumes, grains, etc.) have been altered through domestication and with how toxic to the human body they may be. Primates (including Chimps) living in natural conditions eat a lot of plant materials that we also still eat, such as figs. It would be a very interesting analysis (hint, hint, somebody reading this blog).

  5. Some plant foods are obviously toxic enough to be considered inedible. As for the ones we do eat, they are indeed loaded with toxins, most of which are identical to the “phytochemicals” and antioxidants that make fruits and vegetables health-promoting, and which is why five or more daily servings are recommended. If anything, I would suspect that domesticated plants would have fewer of these toxins than their wild cousins, precisely because we can care for the former, but the latter are on their own.

  6. Take eggplant. It used to be white and about the size and shape of an egg. Now it is large, black and squash shaped.

    Or lima beans. They have 1% of the cyanide they used to have and produce four times as many beans.

    Lots of modification going on. Much of it causing health problems. Corn drove out the prior food which had a lot more protein in it (and also did not taste as good).

  7. ““New study shows how broccoli helps reduce cancer riskâ€

    Rather bizarre study, and certainly a headline that isn’t supported by the data. The correct headline would be something closer to, “Certain genetic markers were more likely to change when subjects ate a pound of broccoli a week, relative to eating a pound of peas a week.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *