Contrary to popular belief, dietary carbohydrates are not necessary for a healthy diet. Many confuse the need for blood glucose with the need to consume carbs. While glucose is essential for energy and proper bodily function, our bodies have a remarkable ability to produce glucose through a process called gluconeogenesis. This process allows the liver to convert amino acids and, especially, lactate into glucose, ensuring that our blood glucose levels remain stable even in the absence of dietary carbs. It's important to distinguish between the necessity of glucose and the consumption of carbohydrates. Fats and proteins can provide all the necessary nutrients without relying on carbs. This can be particularly beneficial for those managing conditions like diabetes or insulin resistance, where controlling blood glucose and insulin levels is crucial. Emphasizing the flexibility of our metabolic pathways highlights that a low-carb diet can be both safe and effective. It’s time to rethink the role of carbs in our diet and focus on the broader picture of nutritional health.

By now, you've likely seen the headlines about the study detailing a 91% increased in heart disease from fasting. To be specific, they found that people who reported eating less than 8 hours in a day, compared to this who reported eating 12-16 hours in a day, had an almost twofold increased risk of dying from heart disease. The fact that this has received so much attention is more evidence of the dangers of trusting media, even (perhaps especially) with science. And even putting too much trust in "science". A few points: 1. This is correlational evidence. This is another way of saying it's results based on questionnaires conducted over years. It can only establish coincidence, not causality. 2. These results are unpublished. This report hasn't undergone any peer review and we have no idea about confounding variables (likely many) or the study population. Again, these results were presented at a scientific meeting, not in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, what if people who eat in a narrower time window are people who work 16-hour days? 3. On a similar note, it's amusing that 8 hours is somehow considered restrictive. And who eats in a 16-hour window? Once the final report is published, we can tease it apart and criticize the methods. Until then, we can laugh (and cry) at how silly biomedical science has become.