> So the brain is happily deriving energy from ketones – sure, but why would this be protective against such a variety of brain diseases?
> One answer may be energy. Despite their superficial differences, many neurological diseases share one major problem – deficient energy production. During metabolic stress, ketones serve as an alternative energy source to maintain normal brain cell metabolism. In fact, BHB (a major ketone) may be an even more efficient fuel than glucose, providing more energy per unit oxygen used. A ketogenic diet also increases the number of mitochondria, so called “energy factories” in brain cells. A recent study found enhanced expression of genes encoding for mitochondrial enzymes and energy metabolism in the hippocampus, a part of the brain important for learning and memory. Hippocampal cells often degenerate in age-related brain diseases, leading to cognitive dysfunction and memory loss. With increased energy reserve, neurons may be able to ward off disease stressors that would usually exhaust and kill the cell.
> Although the cellular and molecular mechanisms by which IF enhances cognitive and motor performance have not been established, the shift to ketone utilization appears to be one of the key biological mechanisms that prevents age‐related reductions in brain white matter integrity and preserves spatial memory
Wait I might have to dig up the sources. But it is generally accepted in the “Keto sphere” that the brain runs on glucose. Even in ketosis the body creates some glucose for this purpose.
I don't have sources handy, but IIRC the brain will generally to run on about a 60/40 or 70/30 mix of ketones/glucose, but in some experiment they gave people in ketosis a does of insulin to drop their blood sugar to near 0, and they didn't pass out and were otherwise fine.
That's an interesting point, but I only think it's true under the correct assumptions. If we assume that all bodies are more or less interchangeable, then yes. You'd want to look at large scale, repeatable studies that tie diet into health outcomes, and just follow those.
If, however, there is a large amount of variation among human bodies, large scale objective studies may not hold much value for any particular individual. In that case, the proper bounds of the experiment might be one person, or a small group of similar people. In that case, trying various experimental diets and observing the effects is quite scientific, even if not universal.
Well I imagine what OP meant was that the testing phase in this "science" is not verifiable/repeatable/etc. Perception is an awful way to perform tests, and is very frequently wrong.
