Keto Diet Question

stevencloser

You keep saying "increased fat burning" as a benefit. But you admit the "increased fat burning" has no effect on net fat loss.
So...
what exactly do you think is the benefit here?

GottaBurnEmAll

Keto endurance athletes all time carbs around endurance events. This is all so laughable.

I will quote Brad Schoenfeld on your continued use of one single study in regards to keto and endurance ahtletes:

"It's common to hold up the results of a study as definitive evidence on a topic. But a single study is a piece in a puzzle. To formulate an informed opinion we must consider the entire body of research and draw relevant practical conclusions based on the preponderance of evidence."

The preponderance of the evidence on endurance sports is that carbs are needed for performance, even in "fat adapted" athletes, because even those said "fat adapted athletes add carbs in special timing around their training and events. They might still be in ketosis due to the utter load of their activity, but the fact remains that they are adding carbohydrates for fuel.

VintageFeline

I'm confused too. Why is increased fat burning of benefit though? It has been demonstrated it has no benefit to elite endurance athletes and can in fact be detrimental to other athletes. So I am completely lost as to what point you are making. Of course keto utilises fat for fuel in a larger proportion because there is generally more fat ingested in the diet. I don't see why that's a benefit. A someone else said, it's neutral.

So it really comes back to the benefits being if you like it, do it. It can be "prescription" diet for some epilepsy sufferers. I take issue with anything else being brought up (specifically cancer, just no).

So I'll chime in with where's the benefit in sports? Why are you saying fat is better than carbs when there are endurance athletes in this thread with extensive experience (and not marathoners, or as you put it, running 3-4 hours which is a weird way to talk about running but that's by the by) saying that refuelling will happen regardless and needing to refuel less is again neutral because everyone has to pause for either/and rehydration and toileting.

stevencloser

And being all "those bad non-low carbers are being mean so barely any low carbers are posting on the forums!" when there's multiple low carb threads literally every day, is...

GottaBurnEmAll

VintageFeline wrote: »

I'm confused too. Why is increased fat burning of benefit though? It has been demonstrated it has no benefit to elite endurance athletes and can in fact be detrimental to other athletes. So I am completely lost as to what point you are making. Of course keto utilises fat for fuel in a larger proportion because there is generally more fat ingested in the diet. I don't see why that's a benefit. A someone else said, it's neutral.

So it really comes back to the benefits being if you like it, do it. It can be "prescription" diet for some epilepsy sufferers. I take issue with anything else being brought up (specifically cancer, just no).

So I'll chime in with where's the benefit in sports? Why are you saying fat is better than carbs when there are endurance athletes in this thread with extensive experience (and not marathoners, or as you put it, running 3-4 hours which is a weird way to talk about running but that's by the by) saying that refuelling will happen regardless and needing to refuel less is again neutral because everyone has to pause for either/and rehydration and toileting.

Some people don't handle refueling options well, that's the only thing I can think of. I have heard runners talk about stomach upset experienced using various refueling options.

Saying that, I can't see how any of this matters. If you're simply talking marathon runners, none of them are going to want to do keto because of performance taking a hit.

If you're talking ultra runners, well, that's another issue, and the fueling options are different.

I'm with you on the just no for cancer and Chad Macias has posted a lot of good information on Facebook to ISSN countering a lot of this nonsense.

GottaBurnEmAll

stevencloser wrote: »

And being all "those bad non-low carbers are being mean so barely any low carbers are posting on the forums!" when there's multiple low carb threads literally every day, is...

The funny thing is there are very few of us who are full stop anti-low carb.

We're anti-nonsense and dietary "superiority".

If anyone makes false claims about anything, they're going to be called out on it. That's not being "against" anything but bad information.

Low carbing can be a great choice for a great many reasons. There is no need to make unfounded claims about it.

sijomial

To nvmketo.....

Not seeing the performance comparison in the FASTER study - because it was just a study on the metabolic characteristics not on actual performance. So it's (mildly) interesting but all it shows is metabolic adaptation to different fuel availability and does not demonstrate a performance difference.
Your leap to thinking someone eating more fat burns more fat is somehow an advantage is what is driving people to distraction.
There's no need to "prove the study wrong" as the study does not support the conclusion you are making. The study has a conclusion (about fat oxidation rates) and it's not the same as your conclusion!


You can LOL all you like but I've repeatedly explained things you simply don't seem to understand, or want to understand.

The hostile response is not to keto or low carb.
Here's a couple of honest (in the sense of truthful) responses someone could have contributed:

• Ingested carbohydrate is rarely stored as body fat.
• Fat is the easiest and most common of the macronutrients to be stored as body fat.

Although truthful statements both would be deliberately misleading and irrelevant to the OP and to weight loss in general. Do you really not get why you (personally) get a reaction and pushback?

russelljam08

LOL @ the FASTER study. The economy data that was *surprisingly* left out of the study was the most interesting and it was performed by an Atkins funded researcher lol

Here is some real science. ie Ketoers just "perceive" an increase in energy but the actual measured output is pretty pathetic. It is good for little 1/4 mile hike at granny speed though LOL

GottaBurnEmAll

stevencloser wrote: »

You keep saying "increased fat burning" as a benefit. But you admit the "increased fat burning" has no effect on net fat loss.
So...
what exactly do you think is the benefit here?

I think the supposed benefit is something to do with fueling frequency for endurance athletes. Who still use carbs to fuel.

stevencloser

russelljam08 wrote: »

LOL @ the FASTER study. The economy data that was *surprisingly* left out of the study was the most interesting and it was performed by an Atkins funded researcher lol

Here is some real science. ie Ketoers just "perceive" an increase in energy but the actual measured output is pretty pathetic. It is good for little 1/4 mile hike at granny speed though LOL

Can you explain the graphic to me?