Context and Background

This article serves as an analytical review of a scientific paper, informed by my own experiences, peer assessments of prior studies, and public feedback regarding the discussed lifestyle. While I often write about my personal health choices, supported by scientific literature, I emphasize that these choices should not be imposed on others, as everyone is unique.

The focus of this piece is not to advocate for or against any specific diet, but to highlight the confusion and lack of scientific rigor that can arise from certain research, particularly for those attempting to make informed health decisions based on what is presented as scientific evidence.

Respectful criticism plays a vital role in the evolution of scientific discourse. I have no affiliations with the authors, editors, or reviewers of the paper in question, and I maintain a genuine respect for their contributions to the field.

Ethical scientists, like all professionals, can err. While I believe in their integrity and good intentions, I have reservations about the findings presented in this paper, which are echoed by several colleagues in my academic network.

The intention of this article is not to endorse or denounce a diet, but to illustrate how poorly constructed scientific papers can lead to misinterpretations, particularly when confirmation bias is at play.

From my own experiences, I avoid research funded by organizations with vested interests, as it often skews the findings in favor of their agendas. I recount my past errors in relying on misleading information, which had severe repercussions on my health, and describe how I navigated through my complex health issues.

Despite my background in science and technology, I find it perplexing that reputable journals allow sponsored research without stringent reviews or disclaimers. Millions rely on these publications for credible information, making it imperative that the content is trustworthy and not akin to generic self-help articles.

While some exceptions exist for sponsored studies, I approach them with skepticism, as many I have encountered are flawed and biased, undermining scientific integrity and harming consumers.

The authors of this paper are certainly competent scientists, and my critique stems from my analysis as a consumer of information and the reviews of other credible individuals.

Two academics, one from Brazil and another from Algeria, have also evaluated this study, as evidenced by the screen captures included in the reference section. The editor of the paper holds a Ph.D. and has affiliations with reputable medical institutions.

My interest in the credentials of the editorial team stems from a curiosity about their influence on societal perceptions of the research presented. This observation is not a condemnation of the publishing team but rather an exploration of the thoroughness of my review concerning the authority and rigor of the peer-review process.

I offer my perspective on why the paper initially failed to resonate with me and how I subsequently identified its shortcomings.

The paper's conclusions, drawn from selectively chosen studies, assert that:

"Foods and dietary components that typically increase on ketogenic diets (e.g., red meat, processed meat, saturated fat) are linked to an increased risk of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease, while intake of protective foods (e.g., vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains) typically decreases. Current evidence suggests that for most individuals, the risks of such diets outweigh the benefits."

This assertion is problematic as it compares fundamentally different concepts.

Why I Find the Paper Problematic

Having adhered to the ketogenic diet for over a decade, I can attest to its effectiveness in fostering a sustainable lifestyle and achieving fat adaptation. I have previously detailed my health struggles in an article about overcoming various entangled health issues through methodical experimentation.

Through my extensive experience and observation of others on this diet, I have determined that the paper inaccurately defines the ketogenic diet. More concerning is the biased framing of the diet, which stems from misunderstandings and misinterpretations, ultimately misleading consumers.

Before adopting the keto diet, I conducted comprehensive research, discovering its historical use as an effective treatment for epilepsy in children, particularly in the last century. This established dietary approach is well-documented in the medical literature.

For instance, a paper published in Epilepsia notes, "to mimic fasting metabolism, the ketogenic diet was introduced by modern physicians as a treatment for epilepsy in the 1920s. Over the past 15 years, there has been an explosion in the use and scientific interest in the keto diet." The classical keto protocol remains in use in several medical institutions worldwide.

The authors focus predominantly on what is often disparaged in fitness circles as "dirty keto," which typically refers to those who consume primarily fried foods and processed meats. In contrast, the keto practitioners I know prioritize healthy fats and avoid processed meats.

Dr. Eric Charles Westman, a medical professional with expertise in Obesity Medicine, has echoed my sentiments regarding the paper's shortcomings. He remarked:

"Please note that these authors have never conducted research on low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets and have done a poor job in providing a balanced review. I am a Guest Editor at *Frontiers in Nutrition on articles that offer alternative perspectives on low-carb diets."*

Furthermore, I have read Gary Taubes' work, The Case for Keto, which highlights that many physicians successfully implement carbohydrate-restricted diets in their practices. Dr. Westman's patients have also experienced positive outcomes, yet these real-world applications are overlooked in the paper. Taubes is a respected science writer whose rigorous approach is well-regarded in scientific circles, akin to another reputable author, Nina Teicholz.

These two influential science writers have fundamentally shifted my understanding of nutritional science and the scientific process. Their thorough investigations reveal the flaws in the prevailing nutritional dogma and shed light on the detrimental impact of misleading research.

The paper notably fails to address the lipid hypothesis in cardiovascular disease, which has been discredited in the literature, nor does it explore the saturated fat hypothesis, which has also seen significant scrutiny.

When evaluating scientific literature, I pay close attention to the tone adopted by the researchers. An unbiased and dispassionate perspective is crucial for maintaining scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the authors' bias is evident in their writing style, which lacks the neutrality expected in scientific discourse.

I recognize that the ketogenic diet encompasses more than unhealthy fats and processed meats; reputable keto practitioners advocate for high-quality fats and meats. Reducing carbohydrate intake does not necessitate eliminating vegetables. Many individuals successfully follow a plant-based ketogenic diet.

Although I don't adhere to a plant-based regimen due to personal intolerances, I acknowledge the viability of vegan or vegetarian ketogenic diets. For example, there are numerous low-carb recipes available for those pursuing a plant-based keto lifestyle.

Conclusions and Takeaways

My overall assessment of the paper indicates that the authors selectively utilized studies that reinforce their biased perspectives, capitalizing on the public's confirmation bias. Many cited studies are outdated and lack rigor.

Their discourse surrounding cholesterol perpetuates outdated beliefs that have been debunked in contemporary medical literature. Additionally, their caution regarding Type 2 diabetes, though common in mainstream medicine, is not substantiated by emerging thought leaders.

I agree that caution is warranted concerning conditions like kidney disease and pancreatitis, which can pose serious risks, but predicting individual responses can be challenging.

From my literature review, the most significant barrier to maintaining a low-carbohydrate diet appears to be financial, as high-quality protein sources are often prohibitively expensive.

This stance is at odds with political advocacy promoting increased red meat consumption for environmental reasons, a topic fraught with debate across scientific, environmental, and political spheres.

While my intention is not to dissect every claim within the paper, I recommend consumers approach it with skepticism until established scientists can address its inadequacies.

Given the current political landscape, subpar research that critiques ketogenic diets may gain traction over studies that advocate for them, highlighting the divergence between politics and science.

This situation reminds me of the hype surrounding margarine in the 1980s, which was influenced by corporate interests at the expense of dairy farmers, only for recent research to significantly challenge that narrative.

I was disheartened to see a respected writer reference this problematic paper in a critique of the keto diet, labeling it a "Disease-Promoting Disaster." Such sensationalism detracts from credible discourse and prompted me to share my insights.

Despite the article's polished language, the content is misleading. I hold no ill will towards the author, as the flawed paper can easily mislead those without a scientific background.

Even established publications like Frontiers can inadvertently disseminate poorly constructed research. I fear that future generations, empowered by advancements in artificial intelligence, will scrutinize the scientific community of the 21st century for contributing to public confusion.

I firmly believe that this misleading paper should be retracted from the journal, as it does not serve the public good. Maintaining its presence in a reputable scientific publication does not benefit society or future generations.

Obesity is a pressing global health crisis that many believe is preventable, yet millions struggle with it for various reasons, particularly political ones.

In closing, I emphasize the importance of rigor in scientific publications, especially in the field of nutrition, which faces widespread challenges. According to the World Health Organization:

"Worldwide obesity has nearly tripled since 1975. Thirty-nine million children under the age of five were overweight or obese in 2020. Most of the world's population lives in countries where overweight and obesity kill more people than underweight."

While many nutrition papers have perplexed me, I have found clarity in the works of Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz, and Dr. Jason Fung, who meticulously detail the factors contributing to our struggles.

I am convinced that insulin resistance is a critical issue that warrants further examination. Every nutrition scientist should consider the insights presented by these three authors, who have done significant work in the field.

Our Greatness Comes from Understanding and Accepting How Little We Know

Misuse of intellectual capabilities adversely impacts individuals and society.

Here is my perspective on keto diets.

Keto Diets + Intermittent Fasting Lifestyle Tick the Boxes of Health Goals.

Harnessing extensive experience and reviews, I elucidate how ketogenic diets and fasting can address metabolic and mental health challenges.

I also shared my research and experiences on cholesterol, dispelling the notion that it is harmful.

Cholesterol Paradox and How It Impacted My Health Positively

I clarify the cholesterol conundrum and challenge claims that saturated fats are the culprits behind heart disease.

Here’s what happened to me after eating lots of fat.

Eating 200g of fats daily for decades, I did not gain weight yet thrived.

I conclude my journey reflecting on my 15 years following a keto-carnivore diet with intermittent fasting, which has greatly benefited my well-being.

Thank you for reading my perspectives.

How a Leaky Gut Might Lead to a Leaky Brain and Lower Risks in 7 Steps

I discuss how rectifying my leaky gut improved blood-brain barrier permeability and alleviated symptoms of a leaky brain.

Here’s How I Initiate Mitophagy and Make My Mitochondria Denser in 7 Steps

Activating the self-healing mechanism of mitochondria can lead to increased energy and improved mood.

About the Author

Health, Fitness, & Lifestyle Topics Collected on Euphoria

A diverse range of articles addressing significant life matters for individuals and society.

References

I have included public comments from other reviewers of the paper. The link to the original paper is provided, along with screen captures for future readers of my article. This is to ensure context is preserved in case Frontier takes these valid concerns seriously and chooses to retract the misleading paper.

Join Medium with my referral link - Dr. Mehmet Yildiz

Read every story from Dr. Mehmet Yildiz (and thousands of other writers on Medium). Your membership fee directly supports their work.

For more information about my professional background, I emphasize the importance of health, which is rooted in homeostasis.

If you are a writer, consider joining Medium, Vocal Media, and NewsBreak to monetize your content while reaching a broad audience. Repurposing your content across these platforms can save time and enhance income potential.

You can request access to my six publications on Medium, which are contributed by over 16,000 writers.