Keto Diet Question
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
That's still significant. 0.25lb = 125 calories per day, so you are saying keto created an additional 375 calories per day deficit from somewhere.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Then you weren't in a 500 calorie deficit. The error(s) were somehow in your measuring and tracking. Going to keto caused you to focus more accurately. These claims of you being exempt to physics are ridiculous really. Interesting that your "exceptional" results have never been duplicated in any reliable study.14 -
The only diet that has been consistently proven to cause someone to both lose weight and keep it off is one that (1) creates a calorie deficit, and (2) the individual can comply with long-term. That's all. Some people find restrictive diets such as keto to be easier to comply with because they simplify food choices - don't eat X,Y,Z, do eat A,B,C. Generally they are even more restrictive than necessary to counter people's difficulty judging portions, or else rely on the fact that many people find carbs easy to eat a lot of so focusing on cutting them is often effective. So person A tries calorie counting with little success. They then try keto and lose weight. Chances are pretty good they were underestimating their portions when calorie counting or otherwise not accurately counting. Keto is a shortcut, that's all. Any metabolic benefits that hypothetically exist would be so minor as to be irrelevant if the person can't comply with the restrictions to maintain a deficit.8
-
@midwesterner85: Yeah, keto can be very effective, no question, and I have no doubt of your results. But, it's not magic (except for the diuretic part, which is pretty dramatic). Somewhere in there, the CICO argument applies. But, who cares if it worked?2
-
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@midwesterner85: Yeah, keto can be very effective, no question, and I have no doubt of your results. But, it's not magic (except for the diuretic part, which is pretty dramatic). Somewhere in there, the CICO argument applies. But, who cares if it worked?
I'm not suggesting that the same results will work for others. I'm just sharing my observations after years of calorie tracking vs. years of low carb.1 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.5 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Burning more fat because someone eats more fat - not an advantage at all then, just a difference. An indicator of how adaptable we are to different diets.
And completely irrelevant for weight loss - you do agree that fuel substrate used during exercise makes no difference for loss of body fat I assume?
You are also aware I hope that the fat burned during exercise isn't subcutaneous fat? Burning (mostly) your intra muscular fat isn't really what people are trying to achieve.
Why do you think it's wrong when you very clearly have no special knowledge around endurance sports, sports nutrition and fuelling? Odd assumption to think something is wrong because you haven't heard about something outside your experience. It's very clear you don't from your posting history that endurance sports aren't your speciality!
Here's a couple of articles-
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-performance/
Alan Aragon "“The amount of energy the body can extract from carbs is much greater per unit of time than the energy it can extract from fat,” nutrition expert Alan Aragon, co-author of The Lean Muscle Diet, told me. “When carbs are oxidized, they yield two-to-five times more ATP (energy) than fat.”
Aragon explained that when using fat for fuel, “You can’t access that energy as quickly. With fat, you have a bigger pool of energy, but you can only drain it with a straw. With carbs, the pool is smaller but you can drain it with a firehose.”
And....
"Aragon went on to explain that just because your body becomes better at burning fat doesn’t mean this enhances performance. “You decrease your ability to burn carbs,” he said. “You become ‘carb impaired’ because pyruvate dehydrogenase, the enzyme that allows your body to break down glycogen and access to glucose to extract ATP, decreases. This is exactly why people who keto adapt have repeatedly had impaired sprinting performance.”
It’s also worth noting that Aragon says, “You’re not burning more body fat, per se. The increase in fat oxidation is a direct result of an increased ingestion of dietary fat. Eat more fat, burn more fat. But your love handles are not decreasing. No difference in body fat reduction has been seen, as long as you equate protein and total calories.”
The article also mentions how the so called elite keto or low carb athletes actually use carbs strategically for their events. Again this is something well known but strangely omitted by keto evangelists.
Another article (better written IMHO and with links to studies) which puts numbers on the increased oxygen need and effort required....
http://www.eatsleep.fit/endurance-sports/fat-burning-why-its-overrated-for-the-competitive-endurance-athlete/
Abstract summary from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP273230/full
Abstract
Key points
Three weeks of intensified training and mild energy deficit in elite race walkers increases peak aerobic capacity independent of dietary support.
Adaptation to a ketogenic low carbohydrate, high fat (LCHF) diet markedly increases rates of whole-body fat oxidation during exercise in race walkers over a range of exercise intensities.
The increased rates of fat oxidation result in reduced economy (increased oxygen demand for a given speed) at velocities that translate to real-life race performance in elite race walkers.
In contrast to training with diets providing chronic or periodised high carbohydrate availability, adaptation to an LCHF diet impairs performance in elite endurance athletes despite a significant improvement in peak aerobic capacity.
12 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?7 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Substrate utilization does not affect net fat loss or gain.0 -
20 thousand? Holy poop.. even if you picked the most dense macro (fat) at 9 calories per gram.. you would still have to consume 2,200+ grams of just pure fat to achieve a calorie surplus that big..0
-
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?
Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?
Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.
Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?
Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..2 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?
Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.
Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?
Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..
Yes, lots of "unique" counts there.1 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Burning more fat because someone eats more fat - not an advantage at all then, just a difference. An indicator of how adaptable we are to different diets.
And completely irrelevant for weight loss - you do agree that fuel substrate used during exercise makes no difference for loss of body fat I assume?
You are also aware I hope that the fat burned during exercise isn't subcutaneous fat? Burning (mostly) your intra muscular fat isn't really what people are trying to achieve.
Why do you think it's wrong when you very clearly have no special knowledge around endurance sports, sports nutrition and fuelling? Odd assumption to think something is wrong because you haven't heard about something outside your experience. It's very clear you don't from your posting history that endurance sports aren't your speciality!
Here's a couple of articles-
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-performance/
Alan Aragon "“The amount of energy the body can extract from carbs is much greater per unit of time than the energy it can extract from fat,” nutrition expert Alan Aragon, co-author of The Lean Muscle Diet, told me. “When carbs are oxidized, they yield two-to-five times more ATP (energy) than fat.”
Aragon explained that when using fat for fuel, “You can’t access that energy as quickly. With fat, you have a bigger pool of energy, but you can only drain it with a straw. With carbs, the pool is smaller but you can drain it with a firehose.”
And....
"Aragon went on to explain that just because your body becomes better at burning fat doesn’t mean this enhances performance. “You decrease your ability to burn carbs,” he said. “You become ‘carb impaired’ because pyruvate dehydrogenase, the enzyme that allows your body to break down glycogen and access to glucose to extract ATP, decreases. This is exactly why people who keto adapt have repeatedly had impaired sprinting performance.”
It’s also worth noting that Aragon says, “You’re not burning more body fat, per se. The increase in fat oxidation is a direct result of an increased ingestion of dietary fat. Eat more fat, burn more fat. But your love handles are not decreasing. No difference in body fat reduction has been seen, as long as you equate protein and total calories.”
The article also mentions how the so called elite keto or low carb athletes actually use carbs strategically for their events. Again this is something well known but strangely omitted by keto evangelists.
Another article (better written IMHO and with links to studies) which puts numbers on the increased oxygen need and effort required....
http://www.eatsleep.fit/endurance-sports/fat-burning-why-its-overrated-for-the-competitive-endurance-athlete/
Abstract summary from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP273230/full
Abstract
Key points
Three weeks of intensified training and mild energy deficit in elite race walkers increases peak aerobic capacity independent of dietary support.
Adaptation to a ketogenic low carbohydrate, high fat (LCHF) diet markedly increases rates of whole-body fat oxidation during exercise in race walkers over a range of exercise intensities.
The increased rates of fat oxidation result in reduced economy (increased oxygen demand for a given speed) at velocities that translate to real-life race performance in elite race walkers.
In contrast to training with diets providing chronic or periodised high carbohydrate availability, adaptation to an LCHF diet impairs performance in elite endurance athletes despite a significant improvement in peak aerobic capacity.
I did not say increased fat burning causes faster weight loss. I said there was increased fat burning.
I don't have time to read your link now, I'll come back to it, but three weeks on a lchf is not enough to create a fat adapted athlete, in most cases. According to Volek and other keto specialists like D'Agostino, it takes many weeks, usually a few months, to become fully fat adapted. In the faster study, which showed a large vo2 max for the keto group, they used fat adapted athletes to address that time requirement.
6 -
stevencloser wrote: »For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Substrate utilization does not affect net fat loss or gain.
I know. I did not say it did.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Substrate utilization does not affect net fat loss or gain.
I know. I did not say it did.
Where's that "proven fat burning advantage" then?4 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Burning more fat because someone eats more fat - not an advantage at all then, just a difference. An indicator of how adaptable we are to different diets.
And completely irrelevant for weight loss - you do agree that fuel substrate used during exercise makes no difference for loss of body fat I assume?
You are also aware I hope that the fat burned during exercise isn't subcutaneous fat? Burning (mostly) your intra muscular fat isn't really what people are trying to achieve.
Why do you think it's wrong when you very clearly have no special knowledge around endurance sports, sports nutrition and fuelling? Odd assumption to think something is wrong because you haven't heard about something outside your experience. It's very clear you don't from your posting history that endurance sports aren't your speciality!
Here's a couple of articles-
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-performance/
Alan Aragon "“The amount of energy the body can extract from carbs is much greater per unit of time than the energy it can extract from fat,” nutrition expert Alan Aragon, co-author of The Lean Muscle Diet, told me. “When carbs are oxidized, they yield two-to-five times more ATP (energy) than fat.”
Aragon explained that when using fat for fuel, “You can’t access that energy as quickly. With fat, you have a bigger pool of energy, but you can only drain it with a straw. With carbs, the pool is smaller but you can drain it with a firehose.”
And....
"Aragon went on to explain that just because your body becomes better at burning fat doesn’t mean this enhances performance. “You decrease your ability to burn carbs,” he said. “You become ‘carb impaired’ because pyruvate dehydrogenase, the enzyme that allows your body to break down glycogen and access to glucose to extract ATP, decreases. This is exactly why people who keto adapt have repeatedly had impaired sprinting performance.”
It’s also worth noting that Aragon says, “You’re not burning more body fat, per se. The increase in fat oxidation is a direct result of an increased ingestion of dietary fat. Eat more fat, burn more fat. But your love handles are not decreasing. No difference in body fat reduction has been seen, as long as you equate protein and total calories.”
The article also mentions how the so called elite keto or low carb athletes actually use carbs strategically for their events. Again this is something well known but strangely omitted by keto evangelists.
Another article (better written IMHO and with links to studies) which puts numbers on the increased oxygen need and effort required....
http://www.eatsleep.fit/endurance-sports/fat-burning-why-its-overrated-for-the-competitive-endurance-athlete/
Abstract summary from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP273230/full
Abstract
Key points
Three weeks of intensified training and mild energy deficit in elite race walkers increases peak aerobic capacity independent of dietary support.
Adaptation to a ketogenic low carbohydrate, high fat (LCHF) diet markedly increases rates of whole-body fat oxidation during exercise in race walkers over a range of exercise intensities.
The increased rates of fat oxidation result in reduced economy (increased oxygen demand for a given speed) at velocities that translate to real-life race performance in elite race walkers.
In contrast to training with diets providing chronic or periodised high carbohydrate availability, adaptation to an LCHF diet impairs performance in elite endurance athletes despite a significant improvement in peak aerobic capacity.
I did not say increased fat burning causes faster weight loss. I said there was increased fat burning.
I don't have time to read your link now, I'll come back to it, but three weeks on a lchf is not enough to create a fat adapted athlete, in most cases. According to Volek and other keto specialists like D'Agostino, it takes many weeks, usually a few months, to become fully fat adapted. In the faster study, which showed a large vo2 max for the keto group, they used fat adapted athletes to address that time requirement.
Why mention it at all then if it's no advantage to a person losing weight such as the OP?
Why mention it at all let alone in context of elite endurance athletes? (For whom it's a disadvantage.)
You obviously think there's some significance.
"“How long does it take to ‘fat adapt’? Apparently, always one week longer than the study proving it sabotages endurance fitness.” I saw this sarcastic post on Facebook, written by 2:41 marathoner Matt Fitzgerald, author of The Endurance Diet.
What Matt is talking about is how many keto proponents say that every study of the performance effects of keto didn’t give the study subjects long enough to adapt their bodies to using fat as fuel instead of being a nasty ol’ “sugar burner.”
“The most measurable feature of keto adaptation is that your body increases fat oxidization,” said Aragon. “You can measure this via respiratory exchange ratio. The data shows it plateaus within the first week of going on keto. The idea that you need to go for several months to really fat adapt is *kitten*.”
6 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?
Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.
Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?
Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..
I'll answer your question and then suggest we get back to the main topic of the thread.
The answer is: Donuts, pizzas, cakes, spaghetti, cookies, brownies, ice cream... maybe some muffins or pancakes. The key is quantity. There were times early on that I tried to cook it all myself and I basically would be maxing out my capacity both in time and oven/stove space. It's a lot faster to eat 2 cakes than it takes to bake and frost 2 cakes. But then when do I have time to eat? So what I would do is cook a lb. or 2 of spaghetti on a burner while cooking sausage and sauce on another burner, meanwhile mixing the cake (and if I'm eating at all during that time, it is just munching on donuts quickly in between). Eventually, spaghetti would be ready and I would start eating that just as I put the cakes in the oven. The cakes would finish around the time I was done eating spaghetti, so they would come out to cool before frosting (frosting a still hot cake is difficult). Meanwhile, I'm not eating... so would have to crack open a box of cookies. So even on those days I cooked, I would often buy a dozen or 2 donuts and cookies, and often order pizza. So I started having to go to buffets and such.
When I switched to low carb, some cheat days included carbs and were special cheat days on those occasions (basically, for my birthday). But on other cheat days where I didn't eat carbs, I would often make chili. It included browning some hamburger and some sausage (a few lbs. of each) while cooking a few lbs. of bacon in the oven in a baking pan - that way the grease and all can go right into the chili, as did the grease from browned hamburger and sausage. Of course, I would add chili powder and some other spices. Usually there were no tomatoes in it, and never beans (too many carbs). I have a stock pot, so the end result could potentially be as much as 15 - 20 lbs. of what basically ends up as a meat salad that I called chili.
You say you don't understand it, but consider from my perspective... I can't understand how it is possible to only eat 6K calories in a day and have surpassed the feeling of exploding. It just doesn't make any sense to me how one could possibly be satisfied on so little. Unfortunately, I can't eat without consequences. So I have opted for better health and to have a healthy body fat level over feeling satisfied with food and being very heavy.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?
Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.
Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?
Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..
I'll answer your question and then suggest we get back to the main topic of the thread.
The answer is: Donuts, pizzas, cakes, spaghetti, cookies, brownies, ice cream... maybe some muffins or pancakes. The key is quantity. There were times early on that I tried to cook it all myself and I basically would be maxing out my capacity both in time and oven/stove space. It's a lot faster to eat 2 cakes than it takes to bake and frost 2 cakes. But then when do I have time to eat? So what I would do is cook a lb. or 2 of spaghetti on a burner while cooking sausage and sauce on another burner, meanwhile mixing the cake (and if I'm eating at all during that time, it is just munching on donuts quickly in between). Eventually, spaghetti would be ready and I would start eating that just as I put the cakes in the oven. The cakes would finish around the time I was done eating spaghetti, so they would come out to cool before frosting (frosting a still hot cake is difficult). Meanwhile, I'm not eating... so would have to crack open a box of cookies. So even on those days I cooked, I would often buy a dozen or 2 donuts and cookies, and often order pizza. So I started having to go to buffets and such.
When I switched to low carb, some cheat days included carbs and were special cheat days on those occasions (basically, for my birthday). But on other cheat days where I didn't eat carbs, I would often make chili. It included browning some hamburger and some sausage (a few lbs. of each) while cooking a few lbs. of bacon in the oven in a baking pan - that way the grease and all can go right into the chili, as did the grease from browned hamburger and sausage. Of course, I would add chili powder and some other spices. Usually there were no tomatoes in it, and never beans (too many carbs). I have a stock pot, so the end result could potentially be as much as 15 - 20 lbs. of what basically ends up as a meat salad that I called chili.
You say you don't understand it, but consider from my perspective... I can't understand how it is possible to only eat 6K calories in a day and have surpassed the feeling of exploding. It just doesn't make any sense to me how one could possibly be satisfied on so little. Unfortunately, I can't eat without consequences. So I have opted for better health and to have a healthy body fat level over feeling satisfied with food and being very heavy.
And you didn't compete in food competitions, why?4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Substrate utilization does not affect net fat loss or gain.
I know. I did not say it did.
Where's that "proven fat burning advantage" then?
Keto adapted endurance athletes will burn more fat during endurance exercise that a (as someone name Matt was quoted above) 'nasty ol’ “sugar burner”' would during a long endurance event. If they pause to eat something partway through, there would be not real benefit, but if not the fat burner does not need to worry about hitting the wall like the other athletes might.
ETA because my computer crashed in the middle of responding7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions