P&V do not have data to back this up. Their definition has moved throughout the years. Sometimes it's "0.5", other times it has been "0.8", now it's apparently "1.0 to 3.0". That's a pretty big range and they only seem to exclude ketoacidosis. Good for them for that. What happened to 0.5? They never say.

The data they do have is based on four cyclists who cycled 200 miles a week and one injured one who did 100 miles.. These cyclists had very high ketones. These cyclists did not lose weight. They were not trying to lose weight.

P&V make the statement "optimal ketosis" but they do not define optimal. Optimal for what? A low RQ? Weight loss? They never say.

For those interested, here is a link to their paper, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ozbkbj6j3...sponse.pdf?dl=0

Table 2 has the data for the cyclists. They show the cyclists have a lower RQ after going to the EKD diet. That's axiomatic though. The EKD has a higher energy density (fat) and hence the ratio of H2O to CO2 changes when people eat fat instead of carbs. It has to or we need to rewrite particle physics.

Unfortunately Jimmy Moore has taken these ad hoc statements from P&V and misrepresented them. So badly in fact that Dr. Westman is now very clear that there is no "optimal" level of ketosis, just like Atkins said. Moreover given the subsequent success of lowish carb diets and cyclic keto diets, one has to wonder if ketosis is necessary for most people to have success by simply lowering carbs..