Could you provide source (studies not blogposts or youtube videos) on this matter?
Also what is your opinion on 80/10/10 or Okinawa diet? Okinavians used to get most of their calories from carbs and they had one of the longest lifespans in the world.
All things considered I am not against the keto diet but the food that people on it eat. Animal based fats, usually heavily processed meats like bacon, sausages etc on which there are peer reviewed studies that show their correlation to cancer and heart deceases. Most of the information can be found here: https://nutritionfacts.org/ the videos linked have their sources provided in the description. And those are mostly peer reviewed studies as well!
I will say that there's interesting research surfacing that is implicating insulin as the big nasty, not specifically carbs. Which would mean to me that if you consume foods that have a more moderate insulin response coupled with regular physical activity and other hormone balancing behaviors that kind of lifestyle would be okay.
Our addiction to convenience as mediated by oil and refined carbohydrates doesn't ground people in their bodies, causing the acceleration towards extremes (obesity or ascetic diets like keto--which I personally follow).
Also "An effective, medically sound diet that lets you eat bacon, eggs, steak, even cheese? It's true!"
Is just wrong. Medically sound my ass. Of course you're going to get people to buy a book that says that you can eat what you want (E.g. lots of animal fats), doesn't make it the right... far from it actually.
As I said before I have nothing against keto/high fat low carb diets but the commonly consumed foods are awful. Basically no micronutrients, mostly animal fats and excessive amounts of protein. Those really aren't doing you much good. If books on keto diet were suggesting nuts, seeds, berries, avocado and some meat that wasn't heavily proccessed as basis of it's diet I wouldn't comment at now I am sure that lots of people are going to look into keto and hop on bacon + eggs all day every day kind of regime.
As a counter to the Okinawans, we can look at the Maasai people of northern Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maasai_people#Diet, who exclusively ate meat, milk and blood from cattle yet had no incidence of heart disease, cancer, tooth decay, or obesity.
I think the point here is that we haven't really honed in on what exact macronutrient composition is the perfect one for a human body. Humans appear to adapt well to any macronutrient composition, as shown above by the diets of different cultures (I think if you took a global survey in 1900 of what different societies were eating, you would find all manner of different diets but very low rates of disease in all or most of them). What we have identified is that we're seeing unprecedented levels of cancer, obesity, alzheimers and cardiovascular disease. So the question to ask is "What changed in the past 50 years?" I would say it's a few things (ordered by severity):
1. Sugar. We don't need sugar to survive, yet we eat mountains of it.
2. Refined, high GI carbohydrates.
3. Vegetable oils. Seed oils like canola, sunflower, or palm oil (not Olive/Avocado/Coconut oil) are high in pro-inflammatory Omega-6 fatty acids and polyunsaturated fats.
4. Factory farmed meats, also high in Omega-6 fatty acids.
You can find counterexamples to any macronutrient focused diet, as we did above, but there doesn't exist a society that consumes sugar, refined carbohydrates, or vegetable oils in abundance and still lives long, disease free lives. To date, there is no counterexample that says the modern western diet is in any way healthy.
Regarding the studies you mention, I don't doubt that heavily processed meats like bacon and sausages are bad for you, though it's because of the Omega-6 fatty acids in factory farmed meats which are known cause arterial inflammation and contribute to atherosclerosis (grass fed beef, pork, or pastured chicken does not have this problem). That said, I am heavily skeptical of any studies that show 'links' to cancer. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean that one causes the other. Nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct accurately, and have been plagued with bad logic (correlation != causation), bad statistics, and perverse incentives (such as the incentive to reach an interesting conclusion or risk losing government funding) or conflicts of interest (being funded by the sugar industry or big pharma). You ask for a good source (not blogposts/youtube videos) on what the OP posted; in kind, could you link to the studies that you're talking about?
> And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease.
This is an entirely false statement. Different people have different reactions to carbohydrate restriction based on genetics, past diet, medical issues, environmental factors, and a boatload of other well understood reasons.
Edit: My mistake, it looks like someone else made the following mistaken argument, first - not you. My apologies.
[ Elsewhere in this thread your invocation of kidney problems was already corrected, and yet you invoke it here, again. This has everything to do with over-consumption of protein, nothing to do with a supposed "carb deficiency". This is not evidence of any alleged "impairment" resulting from insufficient carbohydrates. ]
The phrase carb deficiency is vague. I took it as 0 carb since that was the context of the original comment. But if you take it to mean anything value you want, then that is shifting of the goalposts from 'you can remain healthy with a 0 carb diet' - a claim that has not yet met its burden of proof.
This is factually wrong. The human body ~100 grams of protein, ~10 grams of fat, and zero carbs to stay healthy. The minimal amount of glucose required for brain function can be synthesized from protein intake. And carb deficiency is not associated with any impairment or disease.