I never understand why any study that claims to be researching a ketogenic state, or ketogenic fat loss, or ketogenic muscle gain, would begin the measuring point sooner than minimum 3 weeks in, preferably six. Obviously the body is in an adaptation cycle during that, this is hardly rocket science, and measuring something four days into starving yourself of carbs while not yet being fat adapted seems like intentionally trying to set something up to provide much lesser results. When I see this in research I feel like that tells me up front that they didn't actually really want to know the objectively-so answer; they wanted to try and bias it against lowcarb in whatever way they could.

I realize that's just my opinion but this has been going on since the 1970s when they were poorly, NOT-replicating Atkin's work, then not getting the results (they were pointedly using like 55 carbs, not <35), then made massive media promotion headlines on how his lowcarb didn't work at all and it was a scam and just a popular fad, and so on. The carb count is one thing. The protein count is one thing (since too much "for them" will keep people out of keto). The period of time allowed for adaptation FIRST before a study is one thing. All those things need to be reasonable up front or I see no point in taking a study seriously.


HALF A CENTURY PEOPLE! They've been using 'research' as a 'marketing' tool to jerk the public's chain for that long!



PJ