But over 33% of meat eaters are over weight compared to under 10% of vegans so clearly carbohydrates aren’t the problem it’s the amount of food people put in their mouth.
I’d not heard of the keto diet until I read this thread, from what I’ve read it certainly isn’t a healthy long term diet with constipation a particular problem, this is no surprise as there is no fiber in meat or dairy.
I really don’t understand why carbohydrates get such a bad name, unrefined they can be a fantastic source of fiber who’s health benefits are well documented, increasing your fiber intake to 30g a day is possibly the best thing you can do to not only reducing a whole host of diseases but also increasing your life span.
I think it's probably important more to "do" than it is to assume with the atkins diet. I can tell you from experience:
1) eliminating processed carbs will probably reduce poo issues for some people
2) not everyone sees increased blood numbers, but the answer is probably two part -1) genetics, 2) what people are eating (and for how long).
There are a lot of epileptic patients on a modified diet similar to atkins in the long run as eliminating (or nearly) carbs cuts seizures (that is a medical fact). They make a deep pool of outcomes data rather than supposition, but I guess we don't look to their outcomes for some reason. The fact that a modified diet of the type is useful for epilepsy also makes it so that there are docs involved (and not bloggers) in administering and measuring outcomes. No clue if they have any interest in mining the data to look for heart issues.
There is at least one study showing that blood numbers on the modified diet get worse in the short term, but not in the long term.
I do think it's not likely to be a lifetime diet for people, though - it's boring and with such a limited menu, it becomes difficult to keep enough food around - especially if you're the only one doing it. I thought it worked well, but as soon as you bounce out of it cheating on eating something, you feel rotten for a couple of days, and in a house with kids, keeping the balance of fats relatively healthy was just too much work.
The reason I mention outcomes, though, is that associating conclusions to measures that "could or may" when actual outcomes are observable often leads to errors. For a long time, statins were assumed to be better for most (and in some cases, proposed for all) because bloodwork correlated to cardio and stroke risk. That was seemingly enough.
It turns out, using statins to get bloodwork to look good before about age 65 or 70 has no correlation with better mortality or morbidity, but with significant side effect profiles.
Thankfully, someone finally measured mortality and morbidity instead of bloodwork for a small group.
Lisanne Gitsels and Elena Kulinskaya quantify the impact of statins on longevity
Separately, I don't think most people will be on the atkins diet long enough to prove out long term numbers - aside possibly from diabetics and epileptics. It's novel, but not for me. If the overall effect was as bad as vegans think it is, though, there would be definitive data - outcomes based - pretty quickly.
(I also don't believe a vegan diet is unhealthy - though my pdoc likes to talk about the worst bloodwork he sees being from vegans......I can't imagine making it healthy is any more difficult than studying where to get a healthier fat balance in a modified atkins diet (even though it results in eating stuff that just doesn't taste very good in the case of the atkins))