If you think this article is about the "wrong" keto diet, please read this FAQ before posting.
Isn't this the trendy keto diet that's in the news?
No. The typical minimum fat content for most kids on this diet is more than the maximum fat content for adults who are on the very most extreme keto diets for weight loss and other goals. Most adults on a "keto" diet plan for 60% to 80% of calories from fat (and then they cheat). Most kids on this diet get 90% of their calories from fat (80% of their food by weight), and cheating has potentially deadly consequences. The sample menu shown at Ketogenic diet#Classic contains about 150 grams of fat, 25 grams of protein, and 10 grams of carbohydrates (including fiber). The very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet typically recommends up to 50 grams of total carbohydrates per day, with 50 to 100 grams of protein.
Why doesn't this article talk about weight-loss or bodybuilding diets? Bodybuilders call their diets "ketogenic".
Any diet that metabolizes any fat at all is "ketogenic", because ketones are the natural, unavoidable metabolic byproduct of eating fat. Even everyday, normal diets are "ketogenic" at some level. This article is not about weight loss or body building, which produce higher levels of ketones than typical diets, but far lower levels than this medically supervised treatment for epilepsy. The average diet for epilepsy usually produces 150% of the ketones that even an extreme diet for weight loss or bodybuilding does. If you are interested in those diets, please read Low-carbohydrate diet.
Why doesn't this article talk about Inuit dietary practices? They ate a lot of fat during part of the year.
This article is not about the Inuit diet. This article is only about the medical diet for treating epilepsy. The diet for epilepsy eats far more fat than even the highest estimates for the Inuit diet. The Inuit diet is estimated to have included high levels of fat, amounting to 25% to 35% of the food by weight. A typical diet to treat epilepsy is 80% fat by weight, which is more than double the amount in the Inuit diet.
Lots of diets have been called "ketogenic" since 2015. Why did you pick this name for an epilepsy treatment?
Pick a subject – in this case, an extremely strict dietary treatment for epilepsy.
Look at high-quality reliable sources about your subject to identify possible names for the subject – in this case, "ketogenic diet" is the most widely used name for this treatment for epilepsy, and has been for the last century.
Determine whether the common name used by sources is already used for another article – it wasn't, so we used it. Note that this article was named in 2004, a full decade before the "keto" diet trend started.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
The first umbrella review of 68 randomized clinical trials on the effects of the ketogenic diet has been published. The results of high-quality evidence were a reduction in seizure frequency, triglycerides and a significant increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Moderate-quality evidence included a decrease in weight and an increase in total cholesterol. If the review is to be cited it would be worth citing the high-quality results. There is no long-term clinical data because the trials were between 8weeks and 9 months. But these findings suggest that the ketogenic diet is not heart healthy long-term, as they raise LDL-c and total cholesterol which will increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and events. Here is a link to the paper [1], in full [2]. High-quality evidence supports a reduction in seizure frequency but this is already stated on the article. If anyone wants to add this umbrella review to the article please add it. I wouldn't say there is anything new here that we did not know already but this is the biggest review to date that has looked at 68 trials. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the research included is mostly about adults, and mostly not about epilepsy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ketogenic diet is not a fad diet. So the link to Fad diet in the "See also" section should be removed. CometVolcano (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is outside of epilepsy treatment. See also sections are for tangential topics, they are not categorizations. Bon courage (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. While diets that are (somewhat) ketogenic can be fad diets, those are covered in other articles, not this one. It is rather odd for someone to get to the bottom of a medical therapy article and be given a link to "fad diet" as though that was relevant to this topic. -- Colin°Talk 22:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
harms or dietary intolerance in young children[edit]
This edit by User:FULBERT added the text "while harms or dietary intolerance in young children were rarely reported in the literature." The relevant text I can find in the source (Pharmacologic and Dietary Treatments for Epilepsies in Children Aged 1–36 Months) is "Dietary harms were not well-reported." There is a section in the source called "Harms of Dietary Treatments" It discusses four trials that report various harms along with their other findings. It isn't clear what led them to conclude "Harms of diets were rarely reported, so we drew no conclusions about harms or dietary intolerance." Possibly the wide range of occurrence reported, type of side-effect or lack of specifics of side effects mean they were unable to draw conclusions. But I think the text added to our article suggests harm or intolerance is rarely reported because it rarely occurs, rather than that details of harm or intolerance are rarely adequately collected during studies. Often there is just a non-specific rate of drop-out without going into details of why. The review is critical of current studies in this population group ("the lack of reporting on treatment outcomes beyond seizure frequency"). I would be surprised if the infant population was significantly better at tolerating this diet compared to slightly older children.
My conclusion is this is a review critical of the lack of knowledge in this field (epilepsy treatment of very young children) and a comment that they so lack information in one aspect (harm caused by diet) they can't draw any conclusions is probably not encyclopaedically relevant to this article. We certainly shouldn't give the impression that side-effects or harm is rare in infants, because it doesn't say that. If you agree, I'll remove the sentence. Perhaps there is something else we can draw from this source? -- Colin°Talk 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding that sentence confusing, and now that I've read your comment, I'm even more confused about what was meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert of addition of immunomodulatory effect[edit]
bon courage reverted my addition of what I thought was a pretty interesting finding, published by folks from the NIAID. He said in his revert the edit needed a Med RS. -:) Oh well , I am not sure what more of a medical resource it would need, if he had cared to look it up ( or my credentials -:). It is a medical resource. This entire page doesnt have anything about immune modulation (yet) and this new finding is cutting edge, might explain why ketogenic diet works in epilepsy. I will restor emy edit as I think this was a frivolous revert of a well sourced good faith edit. Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added this paper [3], a 2-week primary study. It doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. No dispute that you added this in good faith but this is not well sourced content. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“No dispute that you added this in good faith but this is not well sourced content” I agree. It seems too early. Let’s wait for better sources (MEDRS-compliant-reviews). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... if he had cared to look it up ( or my credentials -:). It is a medical resource ... I think this was a frivolous revert ← this combination of cluelessness about the basics of our medical sourcing guidelines, assumption of bad faith, and "don't you know who I am!?" argumentation is pretty alarming in an editor with a non-trivial contribution history. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
