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/
I've read it twice. Strongly recommended.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164-tripping-over-t...
But I'm very glad that whatever your decision, you're still among the living! Cancer is a terrifying diagnosis.
But worth noting is that there are cancers that feed on estrogen for example. And other users have noted that cancers don't just feed on ketones.
But it's really cool because keto seems to be a diet that truly works, also requires some will power.
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.
https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2019/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/40/34/2870/547549...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
And so on...
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.
Regardless the studies are quite clear. It doesn't matter the fat/protein ratio, the diets with the lowest carbs produce the highest amount of death.
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.
This is backed by other meta-analyses such as https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2... :
> 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.
Pretty much every major study that has done this has found similar results. I linked 4 more large studies below.
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.
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.
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.