The notion that low-carb diets are superior has deeply unsettling political implications, for exactly the same reason that low-meat diets don't: what are the staple crops of humanity?

The top ten in order are: corn, rice, wheat, potatoes, sassava, soybeans, sweat potatoes, yams, sorghum, and plantains. These are all carbs! If we accept that low carb diets are better for people, then we must either accept that we are going to feed humanity sub-optimally, or that humanity is well past the healthy carrying capacity of the planet. There is simply no way in hell we can get 7.5 billion people eating keto, or anything close to it.

Vegan activists are proposing a dietary future that is very much in line with the current global agro-industrial status quo. However low-carb proponents are proposing a diet that, if universalized, would necessarily put them in the camp of people like Pentti Linkola.

Please, understand that Atkins diet is not a diet recommended for everybody. It's a diet created to help people that suffer an imbalance in their diet (or worse, in their metabolism) that has made them get fat and they want to lose weight.

That's why "balanced diet" is an absurd recommendation for fat people. If you're following a balanced diet, you probably don't need to lose weight. Atkins himself recommended a balanced diet, just avoiding refined carbs, for most people.

One personal comment: I wouldn't follow any diet proposed by activists of any kind, specially when their main motive is their particular ethics that, at least for me, suggest a strong bias. Unless of course I share that same ethical vision. Edit: I actually wouldn't follow any life advice from activists of any kind, I'd rather have my own agenda.

There are people who recommend obese people adopt diets that induce ketosis. These people are not suggesting diets that should be followed by everybody. However there are also people who say that carb intake should be greatly reduced across the board for everybody, that even something seemingly extreme like a 90% reduction of carbs in the average diet wouldn't be enough to induce ketosis but would nevertheless be far healthier.

However the current size of the human population is incompatible with anything other than the vast majority of people getting the vast majority of their calories from carbs. For that reason, people recommending a large reduction on carb intake across the board will almost certainly continue to be marginalized, pushed to the sidelines in most mainstream discussions.

It's interesting how the two articles differ. The article about low carb diet is written in a very hateful style, while the one on Ketosis is very technical and includes no judgment on "fadness" or whatever.

Same thing about saturated fat. There are multiple articles that contradict each other, going as far as having a different selection of sources. One links only articles that support how harmful saturated fat is, while the other cites a some sources that say this, and some that say "there's no effect found".

It shows that trusting wikipedia might on something that's not physics or math might be losing proposition.

However, while both are low carb the ketogenic diet and the atkins diet are different. Keto generally refers to a diet very low carb, protein as needed, and higher fat (generally most calories come from fat). Atkins was a low carb, high protein diet.

Atkins diet is a ketogenic diet. First week is next to zero carbs. Then slow carbs are introduced gradually, always trying to keep the ketosis, that stops around 60 or 70 g of carbs a day.

No idea what "keto" label currently means. If you take a moment to review my previous comment, you'll see what exactly I was responding to.

Edit: just to make it more clear, Atkins didn't tell how much proteins or fat you should eat, that's up to you, just that you must keep ketosis on so you need to keep carbs under certain limits and completely avoid sugars.

Indeed Atkins advised tracking ketosis with test strips in his book.