Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How does the body fuel itself?
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic.
My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV 11 -
100_PROOF_ wrote: »I skipped breakfast this morning and then had coffee with oil and whipping cream in it for lunch. I guess I'm keto now and because I went to the gym, I'm also a keto athlete who is fat adapted.
After the gym I had a huge salad and a protein shake with banana but that doesn't count. Im Still a keto athlete because one time I happened to eat low carb.
Not ridiculous at all.10 -
Chemicals.
Different chemicals are used differently for different parts of the body. Potassium, chlorides, glucoses, protiens, water.... And so forth.4 -
"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
12 -
This was a interesting read from a professional cyclist's 'study of one', when transitioning from a HC diet model to a LC diet model.
http://www.cyclingascents.com/blog/?p=619
6 -
"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
Well these athletes were only 3 months fat adapted. They were able to harvest data from this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/291089018 -
"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
Is this the study you are referencing?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00260495150033406 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
Well these athletes were only 3 months fat adapted. They were able to harvest data from this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
An alternative view would be that the higher protein group made marginal improvements which is what you would expect from people training hard.
Why would you not keep protein equal across the two groups if you intended a proper comparison between high and low carb?
Ah - Volek amongst the authors, quelle surprise.
9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
Well these athletes were only 3 months fat adapted. They were able to harvest data from this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
An alternative view would be that the higher protein group made marginal improvements which is what you would expect from people training hard.
Why would you not keep protein equal across the two groups if you intended a proper comparison between high and low carb?
Ah - Volek amongst the authors, quelle surprise.
Because all studies have at some level have a bias foundation. Whether its pro high carb or pro low carb the authors would have had a hopeful destination for the outcome in mind.
I think the take home from all of these studies so far is the differentials in either direction seem minimal.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic. My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV
Kevin Hall didn't release that narrative. And ironically, it showed up on a pro-keto propaganda site. And if you watch the video, he discusses the short term increase in EE from converting to keto, because the metabolic requirement of ketone production. Ironically, you'd think there would even be an increase in fat loss since EE requirements went up, but there isn't. So I am not surprised you felt it was biased, but many pro-keto'ers say this narrative and went with it.5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
Well these athletes were only 3 months fat adapted. They were able to harvest data from this study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29108901
An alternative view would be that the higher protein group made marginal improvements which is what you would expect from people training hard.
Why would you not keep protein equal across the two groups if you intended a proper comparison between high and low carb?
Ah - Volek amongst the authors, quelle surprise.
Because all studies have at some level have a bias foundation. Whether its pro high carb or pro low carb the authors would have had a hopeful destination for the outcome in mind.
I think the take home from all of these studies so far is the differentials in either direction seem minimal.
That is the exact reason why meta analyses > single studies. They look at a variety of parameters by a ton of studies. Why I posted was lead by examine.com (IIRC).5 -
"For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
They were testing metabolism effects from fuel used in athletes who eat carbs for fuel vs fat. That's all. They weren't racing the against each other...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
7 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic. My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV
Kevin Hall didn't release that narrative. And ironically, it showed up on a pro-keto propaganda site. And if you watch the video, he discusses the short term increase in EE from converting to keto, because the metabolic requirement of ketone production. Ironically, you'd think there would even be an increase in fat loss since EE requirements went up, but there isn't. So I am not surprised you felt it was biased, but many pro-keto'ers say this narrative and went with it.
But this isn't a KH debate. We'll move on.
12 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »This was a interesting read from a professional cyclist's 'study of one', when transitioning from a HC diet model to a LC diet model.
http://www.cyclingascents.com/blog/?p=619
Interesting blog. His experience seems to fit with what I've heard from other low carbers in the first month or so of cutting carbs - energy is a bit low, there is a bit less kick, and they need a bit more of a warm up for a while.
6 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic. My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV
Kevin Hall didn't release that narrative. And ironically, it showed up on a pro-keto propaganda site. And if you watch the video, he discusses the short term increase in EE from converting to keto, because the metabolic requirement of ketone production. Ironically, you'd think there would even be an increase in fat loss since EE requirements went up, but there isn't. So I am not surprised you felt it was biased, but many pro-keto'ers say this narrative and went with it.
But this isn't a KH debate. We'll move on.
Interesting how interested in moving on you are when the info doesn't suit your narrative.18 -
I know what the study presented and also know they performance tested both groups at maximal and very sub-maximal exercise levels (unfuelled 3hr run)."For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
They were testing metabolism effects from fuel used in athletes who eat carbs for fuel vs fat. That's all. They weren't racing the against each other...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
But despite selecting elite athletes and testing them they didn't publish their actual performance stats.
A long run at race pace when both groups were allowed to fuel would also have been of interest. It might have revealed the level of carb impairment though in the LC group.
5 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic. My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV
Kevin Hall didn't release that narrative. And ironically, it showed up on a pro-keto propaganda site. And if you watch the video, he discusses the short term increase in EE from converting to keto, because the metabolic requirement of ketone production. Ironically, you'd think there would even be an increase in fat loss since EE requirements went up, but there isn't. So I am not surprised you felt it was biased, but many pro-keto'ers say this narrative and went with it.
But this isn't a KH debate. We'll move on.
Interesting how interested in moving on you are when the info doesn't suit your narrative.
Well it had to move away from the original topic because you guys were mistaken and it’s easier to change the subject than to admit your mistakes
.
13 -
9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
If that book is about how the brain is fuelled I know a handful of people on this post that would benefit from reading it.
8 -
I know what the study presented and also know they performance tested both groups at maximal and very sub-maximal exercise levels (unfuelled 3hr run)."For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted. "
And isn't it strange that no performance results were published?
The one thing that athletes really want to get out of testing was the one thing not made public.
A cynic might think that there was bad news that didn't fit the agenda or the sales pitch for keto supplements......
They were testing metabolism effects from fuel used in athletes who eat carbs for fuel vs fat. That's all. They weren't racing the against each other...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
But despite selecting elite athletes and testing them they didn't publish their actual performance stats.
A long run at race pace when both groups were allowed to fuel would also have been of interest. It might have revealed the level of carb impairment though in the LC group.
It would have been interesting, but that's not what they were testing at that time.
But I think carb impairment test is an OGTT. I have no idea what relevance that would have had on performance since the fat adapted athletes are not using a lot of glucose. I suppose it would also be interesting to give them all an OFTT to see how fat impaired the higher carb group is.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Any athlete participating in a high-intensity sport wouldn't seek ketosis in the first place if they've done enough research to understand how it impairs ATP replenishment. Fat adapted = carb impaired.
There is also some evidence indicating that LCHF is sub-optimal for endurance sports (study referenced in the infographic):
I think your graph is the study Nvmomketo referenced (3 week trial).
Yep. That's the one. Funnily enough, the info graphic says that adaptation to a ketogenic diet impaired racing performance. So it's the adaptation phase that hurt their performance.... Most who have switched to low carb would agree that racing while adapting to a new fuel source is a dumb choice. Eat keto at least 3 months and then race...
It's a shame they didn't test the athletes AFTER fat adaptation.
It seems to me like the time you claim adaptation takes is longer the longer the study times are that say people on keto diets have decreased performance.
Really? From what?
There is no exact adaptation time. I've seen as long as 6 months recommended, although 2-4 is more common. My guess is that the amount of time to adaptto a primary fuel of fat will vary between individuals, as will the effect on performance during that time.
According to KH, fat adaptation can occur within days and fully adapted in a few weeks. Thomas DeLauer also shares that sediment; at least according to the few YouTube vids I have watched.
Kevin Hall is more of an anti-keto expert. I wouldn't trust his opinion. I'm assuming he means constant ketosis can occur in a few days.
I'd never heard of DeLauer. The first thing I looked at said:
"Now the thing is, studies are starting to show that you can remain fat adapted even when you're not in ketosis. So like I've said before, ketosis can be a tool for six to eight, ten weeks of being consistently in keto, to get your body optimized to using those fats as a source of fuel. Even Dr. Dom D'Agostino in the University of South Florida was talking about how people that have been in ketosis for a long period of time can usually get into ketosis much faster the second, third, fourth, et cetera, et cetera time around. They can just pop right back into keto 'cause their body already has the mitochondrial machinery and the cellular efficiency to utilize those ketones. So that's really cool stuff. That means even if you start consuming carbs and you come out of keto, your body still wants to use fats."
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/blog/fat-adaptation-vs-ketosis-sciencesaturday/
So he estimates fat adaptation (at least the first time) take 1.5-2.5 months.
For their FASTER study, Phinney and Volek went with athletes that were at least 20 months into their diets to ensure they were fat adapted.
KH isn't anti keto, even Gary Taubes doesn't believe that. Its biased sites that assert that. Hell, KH has promoted LCHF for many things, especially for those with IR, non active individuals and those with diabetes. In fact, his last diabetes paper suggested it.
I feel the bigger problem is, when people don't hesr what they want, they assume someone is biased.
Perhaps anti-keto was an exaggeration. He was a known pro low fat proponent which was part of the reason NuSi hired him - less pro low carb bias to deal with.
But I have never seen him say anything pro low carb. Hi most recent paper is a maybe on low carb for diabetics:
SUMMARY:
Low-carbohydrate diets have several potential benefits for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes, but more research is required to better understand their long-term consequences as well as the variable effects on the endocrine control of glucose, lipids, and metabolism
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013
My main knowledge on him is how he presented his results from NUSI. I remember seeing this:
and then his video came out saying the pretty much the opposite and his final released data only highlighted those ideas. I don't trust how he presents his data knowing this and his apparent bias.
Anyways... I'll stop on that. Why beat the dead horse. And it's off topic. My point was that I don't trust his spin. YMMV
Kevin Hall didn't release that narrative. And ironically, it showed up on a pro-keto propaganda site. And if you watch the video, he discusses the short term increase in EE from converting to keto, because the metabolic requirement of ketone production. Ironically, you'd think there would even be an increase in fat loss since EE requirements went up, but there isn't. So I am not surprised you felt it was biased, but many pro-keto'ers say this narrative and went with it.
But this isn't a KH debate. We'll move on.
Interesting how interested in moving on you are when the info doesn't suit your narrative.
Yeah... I really don't want to debate my personal opinion of someone. Sorry.7 -
So, since it looks like there isn't much debating going on anymore and yall have resorted to just poking fun at each other, again, this is getting locked.
4Legs
MFP mod/ babysitter
9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions