It's time for another rant, I think.
Misinformation about diet is still as abundant as it ever was, and I thought it would be fun to talk about some of the underlying causes. One big reason is the political influence of dietitians on the medical establishment. Members of latter, having detailed knowledge of physiology, really ought to be able to hand out proper advice about diet. The former, having no knowledge of anything much, cannot and should not. But they do, and they use respected media channels to do it. A case in point is Medical News Today; these guys rarely miss a chance to support the USDA plate and/or take a dig at low-carb. I was intending to write about their latest advice on diabetes, but then I came across this:
medicalnewstoday.com/articl...
Now, although there is such a thing as 'starvation ketoacidosis', it happens almost exclusively in people with comorbidities. A healthy but starving body does not experience ketoacidosis: it's physiologically impossible. Your blood pH is buffered (primarily by means of the bicarbonate buffer system), and the production of ketones and fatty acids is under closed-loop control, in much the same way as glucose (ie., via insulin signalling). This is the basic reason why Type 1 diabetics must inject a certain amount of insulin and cannot control their condition via diet alone.
True ketoacidosis is an uncontrolled cascade of ketone production (beyond what is actually required for energy), which overwhelms bicarbonate buffering. It is a life-threatening scenario and occurs if (and only if) insulin drops to an abnormally low level - or more precisely, when the pancreas fails to properly respond to circulating levels of glucose and ketones. It therefore happens almost exclusively to Type 1 diabetics, and in fact if you scroll down, other related articles correctly explain the phenomenon.
The "trusted" Pubmed source quoted points out that 'starvation ketoacidosis' (SKA) is a qualitatively different scenario to diabetic and alcoholic ketoacidosis:
"The pH may not be as low as in DKA or AKA, and the glucose levels may be relatively normal."
but I'm guessing the nutritionist who "medically reviewed" the article doesn't have adequate medical training to comprehend the difference. In fact AKA is very similar to SKA and doesn't normally involve genuine ketoacidosis; in the rare cases where death results it's usually caused by a combination of factors (chronic and acute) resulting from prolonged, relentless alcohol consumption; people in this state quite often present with a medication overdose too. Those few cases of life-threatening SKA happen for similar reasons: poor health due to prolonged malnutrition as a result of an eating disorder, not (as the article implies) a one-off "lack of glucose". Even at the point of death from starvation - which usually occurs as a result of illness, heart failure, or just running out of fuel - ketoacidosis is unlikely.
None of that prevents Medical News Today from getting in a snide remark about low-carb diets:
"However, intermittent fasting, particularly in combination with an extreme diet such as the ketogenic diet, can put a person at higher risk of developing ketoacidosis. People interested in following specialized diets, such as the keto diet, should talk with their doctor before starting the diet."
Yeah, but no. Personally I'm not a fan of either the 'ketogenic diet' or IF, but there is no evidence that either of them might be harmful in and of themselves, nor is there any theoretical basis for thinking that they might be. Your risk of ketoacidosis on keto/IF is in the ballpark of zero. All that happens in these cases is that your body adapts to the diet, and continues to maintain its optimum target range for blood pH.
I'll do the diabetes article another day.