Should I eat less carbs?

1235»

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,143 MFP Moderator
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    Just think how much quicker this World record holder could have been if he followed your system?
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/keto-diet-intermittent-fasting-works-for-sports-peformance-2018-4

    The guy was a record holder prior to being keto. It also doesn't really talk about his intra work out diet. The only mention i saw was he prefers bacon before a race.

    If anything, he would be the anomaly, not the norm. And using ome anecdote to justify the majority is short sighted. In comparison, look at every other athlete and you will see the benefits of carbs. Add in all the bluezones and then you see more benefits.

    But I think the rule is that if an athlete sets a world record and has ever eaten a ketogenic diet for even one day in his life, he's held up and revered as a record setting keto athlete. I'm pretty sure that's the rules. :D

    I've seen Chris Froome held up as an example of a champion keto athlete. But then you dig a little bit and discover that he occasionally trains on low carbs, but most of his training and all of his racing is done on high carbs.

    Oh definitely. I did a little research on this guy and that is why i found he was high carb until like this year. So he was already a trained record holder. There is usually a lot more to the story but it barely ever gets out.

    So there is definitely a possibility that there is carb loading... Or possibly he is just the anomaly.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    A nutritional lchf diet is often higher in protein than SAD (HC) is unless you are doing a therapeutic ketogenic diet, in which case maximizing athletic performance is probably not their top concern. ;)

    It could be the protein. It could be lowered carbs. It could be a placebo effect. Either way, it was a positive result... I just posted it to point out that the book is not closed on the subject because one power walker lchf study (that did not allow much time for ketogenic adaptation, and did they increase electrolytes?) found a poor result.


  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,601 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    A nutritional lchf diet is often higher in protein than SAD (HC) is unless you are doing a therapeutic ketogenic diet, in which case maximizing athletic performance is probably not their top concern. ;)

    It could be the protein. It could be lowered carbs. It could be a placebo effect. Either way, it was a positive result... I just posted it to point out that the book is not closed on the subject because one power walker lchf study (that did not allow much time for ketogenic adaptation, and did they increase electrolytes?) found a poor result.


    However NOT controlling for protein adds a confounding variable to the study that could be critical to proving or disproving a hypothesis (research methods 101); also the huge range of protein (35% +/- 17%) is also a questionable measure - if I were to write an analytics on that paper, I would call the results into question because the authors ave no way of knowing if it truely was the fat intake or the protein variable
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,143 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    A nutritional lchf diet is often higher in protein than SAD (HC) is unless you are doing a therapeutic ketogenic diet, in which case maximizing athletic performance is probably not their top concern. ;)

    It could be the protein. It could be lowered carbs. It could be a placebo effect. Either way, it was a positive result... I just posted it to point out that the book is not closed on the subject because one power walker lchf study (that did not allow much time for ketogenic adaptation, and did they increase electrolytes?) found a poor result.


    However NOT controlling for protein adds a confounding variable to the study that could be critical to proving or disproving a hypothesis (research methods 101); also the huge range of protein (35% +/- 17%) is also a questionable measure - if I were to write an analytics on that paper, I would call the results into question because the authors ave no way of knowing if it truely was the fat intake or the protein variable

    Even more so, the power of protein is well documented. So if there is a question about carbs or fats for performance, you hold protein steady. Its the reason why low carb studies are often flawed... Because they tens to be protein studies.


    Also, they are many diets besides SAD which no athlete would ever follow. Most athletes follow higher protein diets.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    A nutritional lchf diet is often higher in protein than SAD (HC) is unless you are doing a therapeutic ketogenic diet, in which case maximizing athletic performance is probably not their top concern. ;)

    It could be the protein. It could be lowered carbs. It could be a placebo effect. Either way, it was a positive result... I just posted it to point out that the book is not closed on the subject because one power walker lchf study (that did not allow much time for ketogenic adaptation, and did they increase electrolytes?) found a poor result.


    However NOT controlling for protein adds a confounding variable to the study that could be critical to proving or disproving a hypothesis (research methods 101); also the huge range of protein (35% +/- 17%) is also a questionable measure - if I were to write an analytics on that paper, I would call the results into question because the authors ave no way of knowing if it truely was the fat intake or the protein variable

    The variable was the entire diet, and not just one aspect of it.

    But, I do agree that the only way to test if it WAS protein that was indeed the positive variable of the LCHF diet would be to also have another group that had the same protein but higher carb and lower fat.

    It would be interesting to see how a carb loading would affect all sets of athletes' performance too (those normally eating SAD (HC), LCHF or higher carb with lower fat).

    In the power walker study, I'd liked to have seen individuals who were already fat adapted tested. It is normal and expected for people to have a slight dip in athletic performance while the body adjusts to using a new primary energy source, so that is all they really tested - how much of a performance dip happens during fat adaption. Interesting but not as relevant to long term low carbers.

    I'd also like to know if they made sure the athletes had adequate electrolytes during that fat adaption period.