What’s interesting about this research is that it points to a possible biological reason why something like psilocybin might help, I.e it seems to loosen really rigid brain patterns. That’s basically the core issue in OCPD: being stuck in overcontrol and perfectionism. It’s not a treatment yet, but it does help explain why psychedelics could be useful for this kind of rigidity.
Would love to see more talk about this - OCPD is often overlooked both by the general public and unfortunately by those impacted by it
For one, the paper specifically studied brain structures that are directly homologous in both mice and humans (retrosplenial cortex). The researchers specifically targeted evolutionarily-conserved circuitry.
Second, there is already human research on the topic, too, and this paper is reporting on a likely mechanism to understand "why" rather than "if." Here's one from a Yale researcher:
https://news.yale.edu/2025/09/23/psilocybin-breakthrough-men...
Not a magic bullet (since I know many idiots will comment who are incapable in thinking in probabilities but only think in black and white), but the fact that some people were fully healed or at least partially improved their life quality is obviously insane progress compared to any medication, which either doesn't work fully or stops working over time.
This channel has more examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mlku8oWrQLk
Having had quite a lot of experience with the keto/low carb crowd, I think we’d see a lot more adoption/interest in their ideas if they approached things in a less ideological/dogmatic way. It’s hard for responsible clinicians to get involved with, say, Metabolic Mind when people like Bret Scher hand wave around the CVD risks from high SFA intakes, or big up low quality work like the godawful Keto-CTA paper.
There _are_ responsible keto advocates out there like Ethan Weiss, and I suspect that if the keto/low carb community were to promote _their_ work rather than that of people like Nick Norwitz and Dave Feldman then their diet of choice would be taken more seriously.
Unfortunately much of the low carb movement is quack town at the moment. I hope they get their act together, there are benefits in there for people in need, but they need to get serious first.
>> but I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that it’s superior to other diets that achieve the same things
You can find many N=1 examples for this on the linked youtube channel and then you have hundreds of testemonials here (click load more) on the carnivore diet healing autoimmune issues: https://www.revero.com/blog/success-stories
No other non-keto diet comes even close to this.
I've only ever come across the keto diet as the one that can do this to such an extent. I've only heard of some T2 diabetics reversing it by losing weight in the context of "any diet that causes weight loss".
They don't wave around CVD risks: they show you that all the pro "SFA is bad because of CVD" crowd is also full of biases and very bad science and pharma sponsored studies that shill statins etc...
I agree that the Keto-CTA paper was trash. Horwitz isn't the best when it comes to this.
Though when you say that most are quaks: the entire "SFA is bad" field can also be marked like this when you see that most of those studies are trash, how eg "lasagna" is designated as "meat" in studies and similar trash.
There is no clear signal about SFAs being bad since you can find counter-studies for each viewpoint.
> They don't wave around CVD risks: they show you that all the pro "SFA is bad because of CVD" crowd is also full of biases and very bad science and pharma sponsored studies that shill statins etc...
That is hand waving. The implicit claim being made by your statement is that because researchers have biases (true of all researchers) or they’re sponsored by interested parties (also true of keto studies, and not necessarily an indication of an issue with any given study) or also push medications or supplements (again, also true of keto studies) then we should treat all hypotheses tested in ways that contain these “flaws” as identical in validity.
However, that’s absurd. The evidence in favour of the claim that substituting PUFA in place of SFA reduces CVD incidence is absolutely mountainous in comparison to the evidence base supporting the claim that ketogenic diets cure mental health disorders.
In both cases, there exist sponsored studies, biased researchers and medication peddlers that support the hypothesis. Yet it sounds like you are willing to believe one but not the other. So what explains the difference in your attitude towards the two? Why do you believe it’s likely that keto cures these mental health issues but not that SFA consumption increases CVD incidence?