>this is so general that it’s not helpful

I think digging into the minutiae of specific numbers is silly, when the better frame is to construct the right diet the comports w/ human evolution and lifestyle, energy, activity and go from there.

Generally low carb (particularly avoiding high glycemic index carb, and sugars) preferring lower starch vegetables, while prioritizing animal fats, meat, fish.

Keto / keto carnivore, low carb etc have been around and well studied for a while now. People should do their own research (I like all of Gary Taubes' books and presentations, there are many others as well and podcasts) but ultimately I summarize the point as our bodies have evolved to follow this diet and observations of societies or time periods when one or the other was more prevalent show stark differentials in health, obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome...

I have no idea what my cholesterol numbers are (I'm sure they are "high"), but I certainly would never take a statin which would destroy my brain.. and as the OP mentioned, I know what makes me feel rested, energetic, what provides energy and muscle mass along with workouts in the weight room, what does or does not result in brain fog (sugar), better sleep, lower body fat, etc. All low carb / high fat. The more intense the exercise one does, the more carbs they can consume.

Keto diets have most definitely not been around long enough for anyone's bodies to evolve to follow them. That takes many thousands of years.

Why would our bodies need to evolve to follow them when the mechanisms are already built-in?

Our body already contains the necessary pathways, enzymes and processes to switchover to utilizing fat as fuel. We quite literally evolved to do this...

That being said, I think this adaption was more of an energy conservation mode for when food was scarce rather than our ancestors intentionally eating in a ketogenic compatible manner.

> That being said, I think this adaption was more of an energy conservation mode for when food was scarce rather than our ancestors intentionally eating in a ketogenic compatible manner.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. I am aware that humans have the capability of surviving on a ketogenic diet, but that doesn't support the argument I was replying to that following such a diet is what we evolved to do.

The diet of primitive humans was more similar to keto than to current developed country diets and it was in place for hundreds of thousands of years. The first big change was from agricultural civilizations in neolithic, less than ten thousands year ago. Current diet is at most a hundred years old. And specifically the diet that is causing so many problems is only fifty years old.

primitive humans also lived 20-30 years tops. today at 20 you can eat whatever you want and you’ll mostly be fine short term.

i’m tired of people justifying their life choices by what primitive humans were doing. we’re not primitive humans.

Life expectancy may have been that low, but overwhelmingly due to infant mortality. It's not like primitive humans were dying of old age in their 20s.

not in their 20s but definitely not in their 80s like today. if you reached 50s you were a boss. a lot of things that we consider routine to fix today would have ended your life (broken leg/hand, infections, severe diarrhea, etc). We really under-appreciate how many things we have as tools to expand our lifespan today.

From what I remember, it was more like if you made it past adolescence, making it to 50 was about normal. All kind of beside the point; you seemingly rejected the relevance of the primitive human diet based on their life expectancy. I don't think that follows.

Considering that soldiers in Ancient Greece could only retire after 30 years of service, I think it's fair to say there were plenty of 80 year old "primitive" humans.

I think we're talking prehistory, pre-agriculture here.

that what i also though. at least 10000 years ago if not more

Typical diets these days are pretty bad. But few, if any, societies of anatomically modern humans have lived under conditions where they would almost always be in ketosis, so evolutionary history doesn't provide a reason to think that we are best adapted to that being our normal state.

i don’t like this line of thinking. digging in can help you tailor your diet and lifestyle on the genetics you have. also, decades of medical research cannot just be swept away based on a gut feeling. do know everything? no. do we have some good indicators? definitely.

LDL is correlated but not causative and it's been discovered that HDL is a much better indicator.

Take a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/14...

It goes into it quite a bit more -- cholesterol is a _terrible_ indicator of overall health. This is well known in the Keto community.

when you use LDL, HDL and cholesterol interchangeably this tells me that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Cholesterol itself is part of the lipid membrane of every cell. It’s essential. When people say “high cholesterol” they usually talk about high cholesterol carrying lipo-proteins in the bloodstream. high ldl is definitely a risk factor for CHD

How do you explain what Dave Feldman refers to as the lipid triad which is common in people that are on a low carbohydrate diet?

In this case, there is not sufficient evidence that those who have elevated HDL, LDL and low triglycerides have higher rates of cardiovascular disease...

https://cholesterolcode.com/a-dialog-on-the-lipid-triad-with...

not familiar with this fellow but if I had to guess I would say that in some cases ldl-c (volume) is high while ldl-p (count) is low leading the ldl not to cause as much damage as it a high number of particles

I didn't use them interchangeably...? Did you mean to refer to someone else?

And the opposite is well known in the Whole Foods Plant-Based community.

I don’t have a horse in this race but appeals to authority when it comes to the science of diet are highly suspect.

Nah, I used to be on a plant-based diet -- have done quite a bit of research. This is _not_ well known in the community, but sure, a few under-researched people in the group might say that has to do with it.