A bright young person I found on the Internet. She has eidetic memory - which makes it very hard for someone to 'out fact' her. ;)
Peanuts are toxic and are legumes just like soy and beans. They contain aflatoxin, a potent carcinogenic compound in fungus that grows on grains and legumes. They contain toxic lectins which lead to autoimmune dysfunction, leptin resistance, tissue deterioration, poisoning, inflammation, and a whole slew of other issues. They contain agglutinins, proteins which cause binding of other proteins and generate random clotting of blood, and this goes for high blood glucose as well, and promote metastatic response of cancer and cancer-like tissues. They contain an obnoxious amount of polyunsaturated omega-6, which is the same as those rancid vegetable oils and is pro-inflammatory and atherogenic (causes atherosclerosis).
agglutinin [agglutinin [ah-gloo´tĭ-nin] Any substance causing agglutination (clumping together) of cells, particularly a specific antibody formed in the blood in response to the presence of an invading agent. Agglutinins are proteins (immunoglobulins) and function as part of the immune mechanism of the body. When the invading agents that bring about the production of agglutinins are bacteria, the agglutinins produced bring about agglutination of the bacterial cells.] ~Take note that agglutinins from sources like grains and legumes have a caustic effect, not the same as your immune system, but instead your immune system attacks itself. They cause clotting of everything, including blood.
I would stick with other forms of fat like butter or even virgin coconut oil. Peanuts, like grains, have been blown out of proportion as a health food and it's completely wrong.
Someone posted this in another group. I’m interested to hear response. Someone who is a “certified health coach and trainer” gave me their opinion on why they believe keto is bad. I would appreciate input. Starving your body of carbs shifts the metabolic pathways through which your body obtains energy. This is what people refer to as ketosis. It's essentially your bodies starvation mode. Carbs are our primary source of energy. When we refuse our body carbs, we're communicating to our system that we are in a crisis state unable to obtain propper nutrition. Your body then switches up and starts looking to breakdown things in our body and use different metabolic pathways so we can make more use of the fat and protein we're getting. In order for this to happen, the body had to become very acidic. Our bodies at equilibrium are alkaline. To throw your body off equilibrium and make it acidic, we become more susceptible to sickness, disease , and even cancer. Side affects of keto can be adrenal fatigue, mood swings, depression, rage. Because chemically and hormonally your body believes you are in a state of crisis, it will respond accordingly. That's the best I can sum it up. It's not natural. I see keto as an eating disorder. Starving your body of necessary macronutrients in order to lose weight or obtain a desired physique is an eating disorder.
To which Malaena responded:
That is one uneducated coach. None of this is true.
For one, ketosis is the natural state of the body and is optimal for performance, energy, and mental clarity. It's not just for starvation mode, it's just a swap from carbs to fat and nothing more. Plus, the benefits of fasting have been shown overwhelmingly to have health benefits, and a starvation mode while actually getting your nutrients would thus be a benefit to your body.
Keto has zero nutrient deficiencies and opens new nutrient pathways, meaning you are getting more for less when you don't eat those carbs.
5 Nutrients You’re Deficient In… If You Eat Too Much Sugar https://www.thepaleomom.com/5-nutrients-youre-deficient.../ ~Remember, carbs are sugar. Plain and simple, they all break down into glucose. Some are benign, like those found in animal sources. Fat and protein buffers the effects from these sources. Some are really bad, like those found in grains and legumes, and these are loaded with all sorts of anti-nutrients, anyway.
Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/ [CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated.] ~There you have it.
The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064?dopt=Abstract [CONCLUSION: Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss.]
Keto does not avoid carbs, it avoids sugar and starch (which is still sugar), while focusing on carbs from vegetables and a moderate amount of fruit. Carbs have overwhelmingly been shown in scientific literature to cause diseases. The only thing being eliminated from the diet are toxic, subsidized commodities which have a huge role in influencing political, nutritional, and pharmaceutical agendas, and are proven without a single doubt that they are the cause of many diseases.
When under trial, it was shown that the body suffers no detriment in making its own glucose, and that it doesn't even use the glucose for energy and thus negates that little factor because you don't waste materials making glucose if your body makes enough of its own while not even using it except on the very few processes that need it. Athletes who were Ketogenic had no change in glycogen levels because they were using fat instead.
Metabolic characteristics of keto-adapted ultra-endurance runners https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S0026049515003340 [Conclusion: Compared to highly trained ultra-endurance athletes consuming an HC diet, long-term keto-adaptation results in extraordinarily high rates of fat oxidation, whereas muscle glycogen utilization and repletion patterns during and after a 3 hour run are similar.] ~My reaction? If you’re not using glucose to begin with, why would you need it in the first place? You only use glucose as fuel to prevent sugar toxicity.
Endurance athletes who 'go against the grain' become incredible fat-burners https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel.../2015/11/151117091234.htm [Elite endurance athletes who eat very few carbohydrates burned more than twice as much fat as high-carb athletes during maximum exertion and prolonged exercise in a new study -- the highest fat-burning rates under these conditions ever seen by researchers.]
Our bodies are neutral. Protein makes us remove acids from circulation or alkali because protein is not acidic nor alkaline. "Amino acid" literally means alkaline acid--they are bound together with carbon bonds. The idea that we are alkaline stems from nonsense a scientist hypothesized called the "Acid-Ash hypothesis" which was subsequently debunked. Considering it ignores the vital role of the kidneys and lungs in maintaining homeostasis, it was automatically a failure the moment it was suggested. Alkaline bodies are filled with disease. Acidic bodies less so. Plus, it also depends on what part of the body we're talking about because some are alkaline, and some are acidic. Acidic environments prevent illness by destroying germs, and so does fever. Cancer produces acid, acid does not produce cancer. That's another myth from the early 1900's that was debunked. Read the book “Eat Meat and Stop Jogging” for further details.
Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of the Acid‐Ash Hypothesis of Osteoporosis on Calcium Balance** https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1359/jbmr.090515 [There is no evidence from superior quality balance studies that increasing the diet acid load promotes skeletal bone mineral loss or osteoporosis. Changes of urine calcium do not accurately represent calcium balance. Promotion of the “alkaline diet” to prevent calcium loss is not justified.]
Oh but soy, sugar, carbs, and alcohol can affect acid levels, particularly uric acid. Exercise also affects this. The point is that these can have an effect, but it’s the dose that makes the poison. Of the things that cause acid spikes, only those high in carbs were detrimental, preventing the acid from being removed from the body. Milk- and soy-protein ingestion: acute effect on serum uric acid concentration. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2000819
Side effects of Keto include weight loss; temporary fatigue during fat adaptation and Keto flu, then normalizes; mood swings as your hormones balance out after being jacked up by carbs for so long, then a state of mental clarity and peace for a lot of people; you hardly get sick at all; it reverses and even prevents depression (the second being for those born to a Ketogenic mother); there is no rage on Ketogenic, that's not even supported by science.
Do High-Fat Diets Cause Depression? http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/high-fat-diets-and-depression/ [So, what about the role of fat in depression and anxiety disorders? When it comes to brain conditions, high-fat, low-sugar diets are GOOD. While there is very little scientific research available to tell us whether a high-fat diet could be helpful in treating depression, it is well-established that ketogenic diets, which are very high in fat, have uniquely powerful healing properties when it comes to other serious brain conditions such as epilepsy and neurodegenerative diseases.]
Again, the body does not believe it's in a crisis. It's swapping from one fuel to another because it no longer has to compensate for the obnoxious amount of carbs you're shoving into it, which would otherwise cause massive amounts of damage to your body, and still do, but this mechanism of obesity is actually the body's attempt to protect itself.
The body's own fat-metabolism protects against the harmful effects of sugar https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel.../2017/09/170915144158.htm [Researchers from Aarhus University have discovered a metabolite that reveals how the body's fat-metabolism provides protection against the harmful effects of sugar. This may explain be the chemical link between a low carbohydrate diet and healthy aging.]
That “sum” of Keto was so pseudoscientific it's not even close to funny.
Vegetarian and vegan are eating disorders.
Calorie restriction is an eating disorder.
The food guidelines are an eating disorder.
Ketogenic is real, whole foods without proven inflammatory and poisonous things going into the body.
These are things I have science on, without bias, because I am a former vegetarian and it almost killed me from nutrient deficiency and hormone dysregulation.
"Necessary macronutrients". Never in the history of science have carbs been shown to be necessary in the diet. Quite the opposite. Fat and protein are required. Carbs are not.
Is dietary carbohydrate essential for human nutrition? https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/75/5/951/4689417 [Thus, although carbohydrate could theoretically be eliminated from the diet, the recommended intake of 150 g/d ensures an adequate supply of glucose for the CNS. However, it appears that during starvation (a condition in which the intakes of carbohydrate, protein, and fat are eliminated), an adequate amount of substrate for the CNS is provided through gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis (6). The elimination of dietary carbohydrate did not diminish the energy supply to the CNS under the conditions of these experiments. Second, carbohydrate is recommended to avert symptomatic ketosis. In the largest published series on carbohydrate-restricted diets, ketosis was not typically symptomatic (7).] ~Throughout the article, it’s been pointed out that there has never been one study proving any use for dietary carbohydrates at all.
Protein, fat, and carbohydrate requirements during starvation: anaplerosis and cataplerosis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9665093 [Hepatic and renal gluconeogenesis were not curtailed. Blood glutamate served as a vehicle for carbon and nitrogen transport; the contribution of glycerol to gluconeogenesis equaled that of all amino acids combined.] ~The body has no issues making its own glucose, and doesn’t even use it for many systems unless there’s way too much.Manage
First and foremost, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEE-oU8_NSU explains the metabolic state of cancer cells, from the fermentation of glucose, which you already know is a major factor in cancer and is in my post in the portion above (I can bring it down here if you need to see it), to the Warburg effect.
"The reason that acidity is seen as an issue is because while healthy cells get the majority of their energy from oxygen respiration, cancerous cells tend to inefficiently use glucose at a higher rate than healthy cells. This consumption of glucose (a process called glycolysis) results in acidic waste products, and consequently a higher acidity around cells which use this mechanism. This increased reliance of cancer cells on glucose even when there’s enough oxygen is known as the Warburg effect." ~Ergo, cancer causes the acidic environment around it through glycolysis, the fermentation of glucose in the cell. That is explained earlier in the video.
One important thing to take note of is that the alkaline diet is most definitely not Ketogenic, and is vegan in nature; this is the common one that most websites use as their basis: Acidic: Meat, poultry, fish, dairy, eggs, grains and alcohol. Neutral: Natural fats, starches and sugars. Alkaline: Fruits, nuts, legumes and vegetables.
Now, I usually do not post Snopes because they aren't a scientific site, but they did post science I will place under the article and have a good explanation and even links to the site of the man who made up that nonsense. His name was 'David “Avocado” Wolfe'.
Nutritional disturbance in acid–base balance and osteoporosis: a hypothesis that disregards the essential homeostatic role of the kidney https://www.cambridge.org/.../3EAD569004A55B4.../core-reader ~This study, for one, shows that in order for blood to be overly acidic, one would have to not have kidneys. Other important PH-balancing organs which would need to not exist are the liver and lungs.
Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine pH. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7797810 ~This study explains that diet affects urinary PH. Beyond that, it pretty much has nothing to do with your blood or tissue PH, which is controlled tightly by your lungs, kidneys, and liver--if we were able to alter that in any way with diet beyond a fraction, we would die, period.
THE METABOLISM OF TUMORS IN THE BODY. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../PMC2140820/pdf/519.pdf [In every case, the veins contain more lactic acid than the arteries, hence in every case lactic acid is formed as the blood passes through the tumor.] "That means, by his model, that both the acidity and the low oxygen would be a symptom, not a cause. It also bears highlighting that Warburg is talking about the pH of blood in veins and arteries here, which, as discussed above, cannot be modified by diet."
~~ These two studies show that not only do cells become more invasive with acidity rise, it's caused by the cancer, themselves, and is a part of the cancer metabolism, not because of bodily PH. That metabolic state of acidity is an isolated pathway not affected by dietary factors.
Acid treatment of melanoma cells selects for invasive phenotypes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18301995 [Solid tumors become acidic due to hypoxia and upregulated glycolysis. We have hypothesized that this acidosis leads to more aggressive invasive behavior during carcinogenesis (Nature Reviews Cancer 4:891-899, 2004). Previous work on this subject has shown mixed results. While some have observed an induction of metastasis and invasion with acid treatments, others have not.] ~This concludes that further, it's not even solid evidence because while it happened in some, it didn't happen in others. It was more along the lines that acid actually destroyed weaker cells and the more aggressive ones were able to survive. Thus it's not actually a case of "acid makes it more invasive", it's a case of the acid killing off the weaker cells and the invasive ones proliferating because they have no competition.
~~ Now, with all of that research above, it can be simply explained by this doctor; no, I don't like quackwatch--this man just explains everything in a comprehensive article which can be verified by biology texts and the above information--I'm working on my own article on my site for this group: