Keto Diet Question
Options
Replies
-
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*.”
I have no idea what you are getting at now. Being fat adapted, meaning many weeks or months of ketosis is not an endurance disadvantage? Where did you get that? From the 3-week, not fat adapted study?
Aragon may have said that taking longer than a week to fat adapt is *kitten*, but he is far from an expert in this area. I'll trust Volek and D'Agostino on that.
I responded with some possible benefits of keto to the OP. What the OP asked for. You responded because.... ?5 -
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 responding
Such sciences. Many evidence.
Or,
6 -
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.
Increased fat burning?
Aragon: “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."
You're not burning more stored fat.
Saying there was "increased fat burning" seems highly deceptive.
6 -
Currently doing Keto, primarily for weight loss, but also enjoying the other benefits (feeling of well being, mental clarity, satisfaction). Regarding weight loss, it is true that you still have to run a calorie deficit to lose weight regardless of your particular diet. So it got me thinking (mental clarity???) if you still have to run a deficit, what exactly is the benefit of Keto? In my mind, if your protein intake is adequate, you would still be burning fat either way, Keto or not. Would love to hear thoughts from others, Ketoers and non-Ketoers.
So most those benefits are the same proposed for every diet out there. Its kind of like the soup de jour. If people go from a horrible diet or even just begin a new diet they will believe those things will occur. And its possible some will occur if they start getting more nutrient dense foods or addressing medical issues that they have (i.e., IR, Diabetes, etc...).
All diets work off of CICO, but some diets allow individuals to increase tbe CO side or control the CI more easily. I respond to carbs much better. Fata dont satiate me. They dont give me energy and generally more grumpy from lack of food volume.
At worst, you try this diet out for a month and go from there.3 -
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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
8 -
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*.”
I have no idea what you are getting at now. Being fat adapted, meaning many weeks or months of ketosis is not an endurance disadvantage? Where did you get that? From the 3-week, not fat adapted study?
Aragon may have said that taking longer than a week to fat adapt is *kitten*, but he is far from an expert in this area. I'll trust Volek and D'Agostino on that.
I responded with some possible benefits of keto to the OP. What the OP asked for. You responded because.... ?
You should have stopped at "I have no idea".
The fuel substrate ratio you use during exercise is easily tested and measured by gas analysis of the air you breath in and out while exercising - I've done it myself in a sports science lab. Your weeks and months of adaptation is a myth that allows you to discount evidence that refutes your agenda.
I'll take the advice of a highly qualified expert who designs programs for Olympic and professional sportsmen over people who preach to the converted and gullible.
You responded with two statements, one that is clearly designed to be misleading and one that is factually incorrect. I responded to refute false information.
Misleading -
Burning more fat because you eat more fat is not a benefit - it's neutral. Same as eat more carbs, burn more carbs would be neutral.
Factually incorrect -
Claiming a performance advantage for elite endurance athletes. It's the reverse, a clear and well known disadvantage.8 -
so you don't use your internal body fat stores for energy and thus faster weight loss while being on Keto ? I always read this information on keto blogs and sites but I was not sure if it is correct or not.2
-
so you don't use your internal body fat stores for energy and thus faster weight loss while being on Keto ? I always read this information on keto blogs and sites but I was not sure if it is correct or not.
You'll use internal fat stores only if you're in a calorie deficit, regardless if you're in keto or not. Anyone who tries to tell you you can't if you're eating carbs, or that you can lose more on keto is lying to you.8 -
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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
I was an endurance athlete. I used to have to bring a handful of raisins or jelly beans along to avoid hitting the wall during a three to four hour run. I was not elite but I was not a back or mud packer. I too participated in multifaceted sports. I had to stop due to arthritis.
Climb off your horse.14 -
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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
I was an endurance athlete. I used to have to bring a handful of raisins or jelly beans along to avoid hitting the wall during a three to four hour run. I was not elite but I was not a back or mud packer. I too participated in multifaceted sports. I had to stop due to arthritis.
Climb off your horse.
To carry on the analogy....
Remove your blinkers. (US = blinders).
If you stuck to facts without bias then none of this discourse would be necessary and it would be more helpful to people like the OP. It's a style of eating that suits some people, not magic, not superior - just different and with personal and general pros and cons.
I'm genuinely glad you found a way of eating that suits you by the way, just wish you would contain your enthusiasm.11 -
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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
This is exactly right. In that you have to consume water during endurance events, it's no added difficulty to fuel some. Also, we seem to be talking about ultra marathons and more only (which are at less intensity -- a 100 mile run is incredibly difficult, I can't imagine doing it, but the winners are not running at the same intensity as marathoners).
The idea that no matter the intensity, if you are just fat adapted you don't have to fuel isn't true, from anything I've read, not if you want to retain the capacity for intense activity. Also, it's possible to get fat adapted without being keto (training to be more fat adapted is popular now).
That said, if keto was helpful at, say, the marathon level, you'd see world class marathoners training that way, and you don't. (For ultra, ultra, people eat a huge variety of ways and fueling during a race often means chowing down lots of kinds of foods.)3 -
The ketogenic diet is not ideal for athletes who need to go all out effort over a short minutes or seconds. It isn't horrible for it but at the elite level, it makes a difference. I think most people who have read about nutrition know that.
For athletic events lasting a longer time, say over an hour or so, ketosis has its place.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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
I was an endurance athlete. I used to have to bring a handful of raisins or jelly beans along to avoid hitting the wall during a three to four hour run. I was not elite but I was not a back or mid packer. I too participated in multiday sports. I had to stop due to arthritis.
Climb off your horse.
To carry on the analogy....
Remove your blinkers. (US = blinders).
If you stuck to facts without bias then none of this discourse would be necessary and it would be more helpful to people like the OP. It's a style of eating that suits some people, not magic, not superior - just different and with personal and general pros and cons.
I'm genuinely glad you found a way of eating that suits you by the way, just wish you would contain your enthusiasm.
You are arguing your bias just as strongly, including some assertions on fat adaption and suffering endurance without science to back it up, and then tossing in some added personal judgments about me for some reason.
I did not write that ketogenic diets are superior. Nor magic. This was not a "keto-zealot, OMG keto saved the world, and it is better than any other diet for all people" thread. It was a thread about the possible benefits of ketosis. If you want to discuss the possible benefits of your diet (ie. a "balanced" diet) on endurance events, perhaps you could start a new thread. If you want to debate the efficacy of ketosis on health, try the debate section - I think there are some old threads in there.9 -
The ketogenic diet is not ideal for athletes who need to go all out effort over a short minutes or seconds. It isn't horrible for it but at the elite level, it makes a difference. I think most people who have read about nutrition know that.
For athletic events lasting a longer time, say over an hour or so, ketosis has its place.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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
I was an endurance athlete. I used to have to bring a handful of raisins or jelly beans along to avoid hitting the wall during a three to four hour run. I was not elite but I was not a back or mid packer. I too participated in multiday sports. I had to stop due to arthritis.
Climb off your horse.
To carry on the analogy....
Remove your blinkers. (US = blinders).
If you stuck to facts without bias then none of this discourse would be necessary and it would be more helpful to people like the OP. It's a style of eating that suits some people, not magic, not superior - just different and with personal and general pros and cons.
I'm genuinely glad you found a way of eating that suits you by the way, just wish you would contain your enthusiasm.
You are arguing your bias just as strongly, including some assertions on fat adaption and suffering endurance without science to back it up, and then tossing in some added personal judgments about me for some reason.
I did not write that ketogenic diets are superior. Nor magic. This was not a "keto-zealot, OMG keto saved the world, and it is better than any other diet for all people" thread. It was a thread about the possible benefits of ketosis. If you want to discuss the possible benefits of your diet (ie. a "balanced" diet) on endurance events, perhaps you could start a new thread. If you want to debate the efficacy of ketosis on health, try the debate section - I think there are some old threads in there.
Unlike you, he doesn't have a bias. He would use whatever works best for his athletic interest. He posted the article with multiple studies referenced as well as an additional study that supports his point. I'm guessing you have still not read them and dismissed Alan Aragon, one of the most respected people in the sports nutrition circle. Lol @ that.
You makes these specious, vague references about "benefits" for endurance athletes with no supporting data, while sjomial supported his. Sadly, this seems to be typical of some of your posts.5 -
The misapplication of the term "endurance" as it applies to athletic pursuits in this discussion is amusing to me and honestly has me scratching my head.
5 -
I don't even know how we came to be having a discussion about elite endurance athletes in relation to an OP asking if calories behave the same way in any way of eating. And the answer to that is yes. Everything else noise and preference.4
-
The ketogenic diet is not ideal for athletes who need to go all out effort over a short minutes or seconds. It isn't horrible for it but at the elite level, it makes a difference. I think most people who have read about nutrition know that.
For athletic events lasting a longer time, say over an hour or so, ketosis has its place.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 responding
Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.
Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).
If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?
I was an endurance athlete. I used to have to bring a handful of raisins or jelly beans along to avoid hitting the wall during a three to four hour run. I was not elite but I was not a back or mid packer. I too participated in multiday sports. I had to stop due to arthritis.
Climb off your horse.
To carry on the analogy....
Remove your blinkers. (US = blinders).
If you stuck to facts without bias then none of this discourse would be necessary and it would be more helpful to people like the OP. It's a style of eating that suits some people, not magic, not superior - just different and with personal and general pros and cons.
I'm genuinely glad you found a way of eating that suits you by the way, just wish you would contain your enthusiasm.
You are arguing your bias just as strongly, including some assertions on fat adaption and suffering endurance without science to back it up, and then tossing in some added personal judgments about me for some reason.
I did not write that ketogenic diets are superior. Nor magic. This was not a "keto-zealot, OMG keto saved the world, and it is better than any other diet for all people" thread. It was a thread about the possible benefits of ketosis. If you want to discuss the possible benefits of your diet (ie. a "balanced" diet) on endurance events, perhaps you could start a new thread. If you want to debate the efficacy of ketosis on health, try the debate section - I think there are some old threads in there.
You opened the door by going off at a tangent and completely failed to show an advantage at all. Nothing backs up your view that performance is improved. Burning more fat (dietary fat) is not a performance goal and to be elite is all about performance.
You could have offered some useful advice to the OP on keto resources, recipes or hints on electrolyte supplementation but instead you attempted to mislead and came up with an unsupported opinion that elite endurance athletes on keto have an advantage - despite no mention of exercise in the OP by the way.
I have no aversion to keto, I do have a passion for sport and also honesty. That's where my bias lies and why I will argue strongly.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I don't even know how we came to be having a discussion about elite endurance athletes in relation to an OP asking if calories behave the same way in any way of eating. And the answer to that is yes. Everything else noise and preference.
She always brings it up because it's the last hope she can cling to to claim some sort of superiority for keto. It's frankly ridiculous. Also considering the fact that the endurance athletes who use keto carb up for events, it's a non-starter of an argument.
7 -
Currently doing Keto, primarily for weight loss, but also enjoying the other benefits (feeling of well being, mental clarity, satisfaction). Regarding weight loss, it is true that you still have to run a calorie deficit to lose weight regardless of your particular diet. So it got me thinking (mental clarity???) if you still have to run a deficit, what exactly is the benefit of Keto? In my mind, if your protein intake is adequate, you would still be burning fat either way, Keto or not. Would love to hear thoughts from others, Ketoers and non-Ketoers.
The OP is above.
For those of you who joined late, to address the bolded I mentioned many possible benefits of ketosis including increased fat burning which is seen in endurance events as seen in the FASTER study. I never did link to it. Apologies.
Summary:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26892521
Full text:
http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(15)00334-0/fulltext
It was then implied, as I understood it, that this was wrong and that fat adaption beyond what occurs in a week is a myth, and that endurance athletes need to work harder for the same power output. I disagreed. I was told I know nothing about endurance sports. I became annoyed and rude in return. Then I was told that my enthusiasm should be contained and I went off on a tangent. LOL OP did not ask for resources but this is the best spots on MFP:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/1143-keto
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
TBH, very, very few low carbers or keto'ers post on the main boards because any positive experienced on the diet is often denied and dissected. The main boards are far from low carb friendly.
I posted an honest response. Positive effects of ketosis that I know of or have experienced. I don't think I exaggerated anything. I feel as though some posters, in their exuberance to shut down any misinformation or outrageous claims are missing the point that none were made here about a ketogenic diet.
I have no problem with hearing the truth about sports but I feel no one has proved the FASTER study study wrong here. I've agreed that keto is not best for all sports. I don't know what else people want me to say. Its starting to feel like personal attacks and clarifying grammar.
This thread has veered way off course from what the OP asked for. Not uncommon. Exactly why most low carbers skip the main forums.
I'll bow out and let others have their last words.
6
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