Tree dating at the great dismal swamp
(Lest low-carb advocates think that I am anti-low-carb, I’d like to reiterate that both the research and my clinical experience suggest that low-carb diets can be incredibly effective therapeutic tools for certain conditions.
I have personally witnessed some remarkable transformations using ketogenic diets therapeutically in my practice.
Or a clinician that works primarily with people suffering from neurological conditions has great success with ketogenic diets, and then makes the assumption that all people (regardless of their health complaints) will benefit from them.
The belief that “everyone” will benefit from one particular dietary approach—no matter what it is—ignores the important differences that determine what is optimal for each person.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it has caused quite a stir.
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true).
Instead, they’ll argue that anyone who doesn’t succeed with low-carb is either doing it wrong, cheating, or somehow imagining their symptoms. That everyone who gets worse with a low-carb diet is either incapable of following directions, weak-willed, or delusional?
Or that a low-carb diet simply does not work for everyone? It’s true that VLC/ketogenic diets are effective for improving the metabolic markers associated with type 2 diabetes.
Some low-carb advocates have claimed that most traditional hunter-gatherer societies consumed diets that were very low in carbohydrates.
I’ve even seem some suggestions that nutritional ketosis was “the norm” for these cultures. The majority of studies have shown that traditional hunter-gatherer (HG) societies typically consume between 30–40% of their total calories from carbohydrate, though the range can vary between 3–50% depending on the population studied and the latitude at which they live.