Worth noting that unlike the cells of the human body, cancer cells are unable to utilize ketones as an energy source[0][1], hence the benefits of a ketogenic diet.
A ketogenic diet can also be ideally coupled with intermittent fasting[2] in order to engage/enhance autophagy within the body.
The fascinating story of these dualing theories of cancer (somatic vs. metabolic) is told in Tripping Over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer [0].
Back when I had cancer in 2015, I read about this effect but I also read there was some potential danger in the cancer cells adapting to ketosis and accelerating their growth, so I thought it seemed too risky. It seems like the research may have improved since then though to suggest some benefit.
I don't follow your logic there, cancer cells have an effective metabolism by default, so the chance that they can adapt to ketosis seems much better odds than the 100% that they're already adapted to your diet.
But I'm very glad that whatever your decision, you're still among the living! Cancer is a terrifying diagnosis.
I would expect all explicit diets to feature higher mortality, as the correlation with having some sort of health concern (obesity, chronic condition, etc.) is going to be extreme. Skimming the whole study at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/ the "compared to what?" question does not appear to be asked or answered. Is it?
They analyzed multiple studies that included 272,216 people, they scored the subjects for LCD (higher score, less carbs). Statistically, the study found an overwhelming (my adjective) correlation that the higher a population scores on the LCD scale, the higher their mortality, showing an average of ~30% higher mortality for those eat a low carb diet.
Pretty much every major study that has done this has found similar results. I linked 4 more large studies below.
Nod to that. Where I'm going is the possibility of comparing people with "normal" diets and low-carb diets, and thus running the risk of comparing people who do not feel compelled to lose weight for health reasons and those who do. Same story as the various vitamin supplementation paradoxes, which can also be influenced by the fact that people supplementing are more likely to have some pre-existing cause to worry about their health.
The studies control for weight and many other health factors. Controlling for weight basically counters your suggestion outright.
There are also many diets that aren't keto so the population of people who felt compelled to lose weight but chose not to do a keto diet, but perhaps a low fat diet (which tends to be high carb) are well represented in the study, once again rebuffing your hypothesis.
In terms of your vitamins supplementation paradoxes, which is a separate point. I also disagree with with you there (these supplement studies also control for various health factors as well), and feel it's much more the problem of absolutely no regulation and there really is nobody making sure the supplement contains the thing it says it is in the quantities it says it does, with nothing else. Also people tend to over do things, and over supplement with the "if some is good more is better". Taking to much vitamin C for instance, spikes your iron absorption, and iron is the most powerful oxidant in your body, or just taking too much iron outright. I could go on and on about supplements, but I'll spare you.
"Weight" is a poor control. BMI is a better one. Going back over the study, it looks like the controls are listed in table 2. 12/17 appear to adjust for BMI, with the following note from the authors regarding the resolution: "We were unable to perform a subgroup analysis according to the body-mass index because the mean values were not stated or estimable in the majority of the reports." (emphasis mine) This certainly doesn't throw out the results for me, but I still find myself asking the same question. But moreso the protein vs fat ratio question, as in my reply to the subthread above. With only three macronutrients in play, I can't fathom throwing two of them together.
You are reading way too far into my words when I'm speaking causally, I do not write my comments in the dense and precise language in which studies are written as it's a bit overwrought for casual discourse. I had hoped you would give me the benefit of the doubt that when I said weight you would take that to mean some sort of levelized metric.
The people that do these studies aren't as dumb as you seem to think they are nor are the type of confounding variables you are expressing foreign to them. Not even study can get exactly the quality or quantity of date it wants, that's why its a good idea to look at multiple studies and examine large-scale trends and repeatably, which is the type of studies I linked.
Some of them did only consider weight. It is the conclusion of the meta itself a mean BMI couldn't be determined from the 12/17 that had it. I don't think those running the studies are at all dumb. They are often focused on specific things, and to the exclusion of generalizable conclusions. I do find it odd that even mean BMI wasn't of apparent interest in diet studies, but I haven't gone thru each sub-study to see why or why not.
I wouldn't feel comfortable reading too much into this one's conclusion. "Low-carb w/o any additional specificity looks like bad news" seems technically fair to me, but actual diets are going to tend to distinguish fat and protein as well as their sources so that isn't a a very logical stopping point for an actual decision. Including core concerns like fat vs protein and plant vs animal sources can yield different conclusions, as the meta linked in the sub-thread above did.
The literal name of the study is "Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies".
It specifically found " Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence."
Perhaps you are on the "oh but the study does specifically say, "low carb, high fat" diet, so it obviously only looked at people eating low carb, low fat diets!" train? There seems to be some fantasy with the Keto crowd that these studies somehow only look at some mysterious section of the population in which eats a very low carb diet but also low fat? People don't eat a low carb diet by accident, when they do they often follow the horrible advice given by the many misguided keto diet proponents: eat low carb, high fat, medium protein.
You can find a near endless amount of longitudinal meta analysis and more focused studies that nearly universally find diets that are lowest in carbs (regardless of protein/fat ratio) produce the highest all-cause mortality.
> People don't eat a low carb diet by accident, when they do they often follow the horrible advice given by the many misguided keto diet proponents: eat low carb, high fat, medium protein.
This is not remotely my anecdotal experience. The overwhelming majority of those I know that I have dabbled with low carb ran the bunless burger, chicken wings, bacon, and steak game and I would guess that their macro intake was high protein, medium fat (if that), low carb. The textbook versions are high fat, medium protein, low carb. And seemingly pretty hard to pull off without eating a lot of stuff like salads with a cup of olive oil.
This is not my diet, it is the diet I commonly observe from those going simply lo-carb or attempting "keto": hi-protein, rather than hi-fat. This directly questions the unvalidated assertion that, "People don't eat a low carb diet by accident, when they do they often follow the horrible advice given by the many misguided keto diet proponents: eat low carb, high fat, medium protein."
Hi-protein is glucogenic and thus not ketogenic, so the ratio would seem to matter. So would the resolution between an avocado and a fistful of bacon, given the safe assumption that the materials and cooking of them rate to have different impacts on human health.
> Both high and low percentages of carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality, with minimal risk observed at 50–55% carbohydrate intake. Low carbohydrate dietary patterns favouring animal-derived protein and fat sources, from sources such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas those that favoured plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads, were associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the source of food notably modifies the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality.
Stressing that both hi carb (contra your claim) and lo carb when specifically overindexed on animal protein had higher mortality, not just lo carb.
A ketogenic diet can also be ideally coupled with intermittent fasting[2] in order to engage/enhance autophagy within the body.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842847/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6375425/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6257056/