I admit, sometimes I get too picky with words. When we broaden the definition of a word we dilute the word. It makes communication less specific.

Vegetarian used to mean someone who ate only plant matter.

Then milk/butter/cheese people decided they were vegetarians because it doesn't kill an animal. So cows are now vegetables?

Oh and then some people added eggs to the milk/butter/cheese and still call themselves vegetarians. So by that logic cows and chickens are now vegetables.

And for a decade or so I've heard people who eat fish along with milk/butter/cheese/eggs calling themselves vegetarians. By the same logic cows, chickens and fish are now vegetables.

So we have lacto, lacto-ovo, lacto-ovo-ichthyo-vegetarians.

And the true vegetarians who eat nothing but plant based (vegetable) foods had to invent a new name for themselves, "Vegan".

If someone comes up to me and says they are a vegetarian I have no idea if they eat eggs, dairy, fish or if they have added something else.

In music, the word "Funk" or "Funky" meant light and bouncy like the song "Alley Cat" in the big band days (according to one of my old teachers who used to play in a Big Band).

In my youth, slow triplet based blues like "Stormy Monday Blues" was called Funk. That's like calling oranges apples.

I won't bore you with the details, but Funk has gone through at least a half dozen different musical meanings since then, and they are as different as apples and bananas.

So to a musician, if I see a piece of music and the direction is Funk or Funky, I have no idea which funk they mean. I have about a 10% chance of playing it correctly.

That's one reason why I'm a self-appointed language protector.

So to me keeping nouns specific is important, but I'm probably a bit overboard in that respect.

Back on topic.

There will always be anti-???? pieces written by people who have an agenda.

The anti-keto people probably have either an emotional reason to not want to kill the furry animals, or a financial stake in selling plant based food. And they will sound as convincing as the groups with scientific sounding names that told us smoking was good for us in the 1950s (3 out of 4 doctors recommend Camels for the relief of health compromising tension).

It's just the way things are. It's also why if it isn't published in pubmed it doesn't matter to me. If it is published in pubmed it has more credibility, at least it's peer reviewed by other reputable scientists, but remember, science changes as new discoveries are made.

Bob

PS, I probably abuse the language as much as the next guy, and appreciated when I'm enlightened.