Keto Long Distant Runners
foxlikestoplay
Posts: 1 Member
Hello 
I recently became Keto adpted ( and do 16/8 fasts). My energy levels have been thru the roof and I wanted to get back to doing marathons again. Any Keto marathon runners here? Do you have a ‘snack’ or drink to fuel up for long distance runs? Any tips welcomed
I recently became Keto adpted ( and do 16/8 fasts). My energy levels have been thru the roof and I wanted to get back to doing marathons again. Any Keto marathon runners here? Do you have a ‘snack’ or drink to fuel up for long distance runs? Any tips welcomed
17
Replies
-
I'm currently am injured runner (not running) and I'm about 10 days into ketosis. Following this post with interest. Have only one marathon under my belt so far but crave more. Aiming for ultras.0
-
I'm also very interested in responses to this post. I am an endurance runner (although only halves!) and have had a few failed attempts at running since I have started Keto. Would love to get back to it, but can't imagine how my body would fare!0
-
Dr Tim Noakes may be of interest. He wrote the Lore of Running but has asked people to tear out the nutrition part of the book on carb loading.
18 -
Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt22
-
I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.3
-
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.35 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
25 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
In this specific instance it’s because all but a small handful of people have success doing endurance running on a very low carb diet. SOME can do it. Some can do it while supplementing with extra carbs around their runs. The vast majority cannot. So we don’t. That’s why this thread has almost no responses from people who run long distances (half marathon or longer) and also do very low carb diets.
If you’re not an actual long distance endurance runner who is also doing a low carb/keto diet-there’s no reason to be in here spouting the merits of low carb/keto.
There’s a reason marathons give out Gu, bananas and Gatorade, and there are Oreos at aid stations in ultras.
OP-this topic comes up frequently and the overwhelming response from those of us that actually run long distances is that low carb/keto does not give us the energy we need (fat adapated or not) to run long distances frequently and run well.
YMMV. There are a very few exceptions. Perhaps you will be one of them.20 -
I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?19 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Perhaps it was Dr Fung?
13 -
Personally, I see the woo button as one where people are able to express agreement or disagreement with the thoughts expressed and their credibility. If certain ideas and concepts draw a lot of woos, then people don't find them credible. There will always be some that woo anything. I think the idea that people woo things because they feel threatened is absurd and probably wishful thinking.
As far as keto and endurance sports, the research to date indicates it is suboptimal for performance. Some endurance athletes devote some of their training to keto training in an effort to improve their ability to burn fat as a fuel source and prolong the period before they bonk or hit the wall. But very few elite endurance athletes compete without carb intake.
Some sources:
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/1z/54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-performance/ (multiple studies embedded in the article)
https://sci-fit.net/ketogenic-diet-fat-muscle-performance/
9 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.19 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
Ironic post considering the comments about woos. Not exactly on topic with that one. Not sure what that had to do with the OP.9 -
jseams1234 wrote: »
Very interesting and seems to have the same conclusions as other studies in terms of performance. 2 quotes jumped out at me. The conclusion paragraph:
In the end, there are still plenty of openings where ketogenic diets might conceivably offer an advantage. But in terms of actual evidence, this study is the best we’ve got so far—and it suggests that switching to fat incurs a measurable efficiency penalty.
And this statement, which reflects what I've seen stated around here by advocates of keto:
As fitness writer Matt Fitzgerald put it after the study was released, “How long does it take to ‘fat adapt’? Apparently, always one week longer than the study proving it sabotages endurance fitness.”
For clarity, this is an article but the study it is discussing has a link for it in the article.
11 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
If someone's energy is really "through the roof," then why the question about fueling up for activity? The party line about keto endurance is that being fat-adapted makes refueling unnecessary (although I don't personally know of any keto athletes who have been able to actually achieve these results for 20+ miles).
I don't know if anyone is "threatened," just more skeptical that keto will achieve good results for more than a handful of endurance athletes.
"How it really works" does seem to be the topic at hand.11 -
I've been following this thread with interest. I'm an endurance runner myself, and will be running a marathon next month. My curiosity is piqued to hear from others how they have faired running long distances on a lower carb lifestyle.
I, myself, don't have anything worth contributing because I do eat a very high carbohydrate filled diet in order to fuel my runs - but I am interested in hearing from others who have a different way of eating and are able to sustain their energy levels through long runs. Also, performance levels in general from pre to post run.
I do tend to agree that the lack of responses are most typically due to the lack of endurance runners who fuel themselves on a lower carbohydrate lifestyle, but that's certainly not to say there aren't people who do. 5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Especially considering that my dietitian -- who focuses on sports medicine/sports nutrition, and lectures at a national level -- told me that of all the poor choices I could make, she would rather have me *restrict* to <1000 than she would have me do keto. And she has OPINIONS about <1000. That's how strongly she feels about the negative effects of keto.
Regarding judging: Generally, I don't care what people do, and how they eat. You do you. But if "you" tell me that I'm doing it all wrong, and that low carb and keto are the only way to go, I will come down on you like a hammer on a fruit fly. Because that *kitten* doesn't fly -- don't food shame me, and don't food shame other people.12 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
I believe the response was due to bolded below.I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
Which would be why the poster would have responded as to how it it really works. So maybe, your post may have started the "bit off topic".... I guess...... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯9 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
I believe the response was due to bolded below.I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
Which would be why the poster would have responded as to how it it really works. So maybe, your post may have started the "bit off topic".... I guess...... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This. ^^^ I was responding appropriately to the bolded.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
If someone's energy is really "through the roof," then why the question about fueling up for activity? The party line about keto endurance is that being fat-adapted makes refueling unnecessary (although I don't personally know of any keto athletes who have been able to actually achieve these results for 20+ miles).
I don't know if anyone is "threatened," just more skeptical that keto will achieve good results for more than a handful of endurance athletes.
"How it really works" does seem to be the topic at hand.
Keep teaching then; someone might find it helpful, just like someone may find the woo'ed posts helpful.
For more info on keto and athletics, it can also be helpful to go to keto forums and sources. The main boards is not where most ketoers post.18 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
I believe the response was due to bolded below.I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
Which would be why the poster would have responded as to how it it really works. So maybe, your post may have started the "bit off topic".... I guess...... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
True. I'll back out of the thread now.
I guess I sometimes get frustrated by the woo. Look into paleo of IF posts. Unfortunately, the woo count is high even when there us no woo/wrong science being discussed.11 -
Just as a lot of us are equally frustrated when the woo continually gets posted as fact.snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
I believe the response was due to bolded below.I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
Which would be why the poster would have responded as to how it it really works. So maybe, your post may have started the "bit off topic".... I guess...... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
True. I'll back out of the thread now.
I guess I sometimes get frustrated by the woo. Look into paleo of IF posts. Unfortunately, the woo count is high even when there us no woo/wrong science being discussed.janejellyroll wrote: »I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
These would be my questions as well.10 -
collectingblues wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Especially considering that my dietitian -- who focuses on sports medicine/sports nutrition, and lectures at a national level -- told me that of all the poor choices I could make, she would rather have me *restrict* to <1000 than she would have me do keto. And she has OPINIONS about <1000. That's how strongly she feels about the negative effects of keto.
Regarding judging: Generally, I don't care what people do, and how they eat. You do you. But if "you" tell me that I'm doing it all wrong, and that low carb and keto are the only way to go, I will come down on you like a hammer on a fruit fly. Because that *kitten* doesn't fly -- don't food shame me, and don't food shame other people.
Yeah, I can get having other reasons to want to eat ketogenically and then working to do that in a way that supports your endurance training. It's harder for me to imagine reasons why one would choose to eat ketogenically specifically because one was doing endurance training.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Especially considering that my dietitian -- who focuses on sports medicine/sports nutrition, and lectures at a national level -- told me that of all the poor choices I could make, she would rather have me *restrict* to <1000 than she would have me do keto. And she has OPINIONS about <1000. That's how strongly she feels about the negative effects of keto.
Regarding judging: Generally, I don't care what people do, and how they eat. You do you. But if "you" tell me that I'm doing it all wrong, and that low carb and keto are the only way to go, I will come down on you like a hammer on a fruit fly. Because that *kitten* doesn't fly -- don't food shame me, and don't food shame other people.
Yeah, I can get having other reasons to want to eat ketogenically and then working to do that in a way that supports your endurance training. It's harder for me to imagine reasons why one would choose to eat ketogenically specifically because one was doing endurance training.
Agreed. It's counter-intuitive at best.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
If someone's energy is really "through the roof," then why the question about fueling up for activity? The party line about keto endurance is that being fat-adapted makes refueling unnecessary (although I don't personally know of any keto athletes who have been able to actually achieve these results for 20+ miles).
I don't know if anyone is "threatened," just more skeptical that keto will achieve good results for more than a handful of endurance athletes.
"How it really works" does seem to be the topic at hand.
Keep teaching then; someone might find it helpful, just like someone may find the woo'ed posts helpful.
For more info on keto and athletics, it can also be helpful to go to keto forums and sources. The main boards is not where most ketoers post.
I'm sorry, what am I teaching here?
Someone may find the "woo'ed" posts helpful, just as others may find them worthy of a "woo." The entire thing seems manifestly petty to focus on (to me, obviously others will focus on what seems important to them).
To find out about keto and endurance running, it may be helpful to go to keto forums. It may also be helpful to gather feedback from those engaging in endurance sports. It's not like asking here means that OP also can't ask at your preferred forums.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Especially considering that my dietitian -- who focuses on sports medicine/sports nutrition, and lectures at a national level -- told me that of all the poor choices I could make, she would rather have me *restrict* to <1000 than she would have me do keto. And she has OPINIONS about <1000. That's how strongly she feels about the negative effects of keto.
Regarding judging: Generally, I don't care what people do, and how they eat. You do you. But if "you" tell me that I'm doing it all wrong, and that low carb and keto are the only way to go, I will come down on you like a hammer on a fruit fly. Because that *kitten* doesn't fly -- don't food shame me, and don't food shame other people.
Yeah, I can get having other reasons to want to eat ketogenically and then working to do that in a way that supports your endurance training. It's harder for me to imagine reasons why one would choose to eat ketogenically specifically because one was doing endurance training.
There is an allure in being able to theoretically run off my existing fat stores for fuel vs messing with gels and things. So I can understand why many have tried (myself included).
But everyone that I know who has tried (myself included) found that we didn’t care how much fat we were burning if we’re running slower (and with less overall energy). Since that is literally no one’s goal.
So as seems to be the message in the studies and things on the prior page (and vast amounts of anecdotal evidence), higher carbs is better for performance in endurance running.6 -
azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
Because why would you run if you don’t like carbs? Carbs fuel runs. I really couldn’t imagine chugging bone broth at mile 25....9 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am keto and training for a marathon. I was put in the direction of keto by my doctor after he discovered I was doing endurance sports. During the initial stages it was difficult training and I had to cut back a bit as my energy levels dropped, but they have since recovered. I usually train fasted as that is what is better for me, but I have noted when I have something about 2 to 3 hours before a long exercise a session it appears to help.
I would be so skeptical if a doctor recommended keto to me specifically because I was doing endurance running. Given that the most successful endurance athletes tend to eat carbohydrate-rich diets (especially during training), what was his justification? Also, does his practice focus on endurance athletes and their nutritional needs?
Especially considering that my dietitian -- who focuses on sports medicine/sports nutrition, and lectures at a national level -- told me that of all the poor choices I could make, she would rather have me *restrict* to <1000 than she would have me do keto. And she has OPINIONS about <1000. That's how strongly she feels about the negative effects of keto.
Regarding judging: Generally, I don't care what people do, and how they eat. You do you. But if "you" tell me that I'm doing it all wrong, and that low carb and keto are the only way to go, I will come down on you like a hammer on a fruit fly. Because that *kitten* doesn't fly -- don't food shame me, and don't food shame other people.
Yeah, I can get having other reasons to want to eat ketogenically and then working to do that in a way that supports your endurance training. It's harder for me to imagine reasons why one would choose to eat ketogenically specifically because one was doing endurance training.
There is an allure in being able to theoretically run off my existing fat stores for fuel vs messing with gels and things. So I can understand why many have tried (myself included).
But everyone that I know who has tried (myself included) found that we didn’t care how much fat we were burning if we’re running slower (and with less overall energy). Since that is literally no one’s goal.
So as seems to be the message in the studies and things on the prior page (and vast amounts of anecdotal evidence), higher carbs is better for performance in endurance running.
Yeah, it *sounds* amazing. When I first read about it, I was intrigued. And while I've never tried it, what I've read from the experiences of others is that it is kind of like "fool's gold."4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »Why do people woo? such negative people. I havent started running again but with keto it might be handy to have some bone broth to fuel electrolytes depletion and give you salt
I think some people feel threatened by others who find success through other diets. Perhaps they feel judged. Who knows. But almost every post that does not just focus on moderation in terms of "eat less, move more" gets woo'ed around here.
But even a keto diet requires one to maintain a calorie deficit, which is what the "eat less, move more" describes, even if in somewhat simplistic terms. And the "move more" part isn't actually a requirement - a person can lose weight through calorie restriction alone. The "move more" part just lets you eat more and still remain in the deficit required for weight loss.
Keto does not defy CICO - the success or failure of *all* ways of eating depends on compliance with its principles. So keto-ites (or anyone following any other way of eating) who claim they're losing weight *without* actually having to be in a deficit to do so will usually get woo'd. Because it's scientifically impossible for a healthy person to lose weight while in a consistent caloric surplus.
Different ways of eating can make it easier for individuals to achieve a calorie deficit. I've never seen anyone dispute that. Different people find different foods satiating, making it easier for them to stay in a consistent deficit, and, as a result, lose weight.
But when I see people ascribing benefits to their way of eating that aren't scientifically possible, I'll either post to counter it, or if someone else has already done so, I'll 'woo' the originating post and 'like' the countering response.
And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with feeling 'threatened' or 'judged.' It has everything to do with science.
Edited to add: This is how it all really works:
I realize that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. No one said it wasn't.
The posts that were woo'ed were:
1. The OP which asked for keto food tips for marathon training, which they planned to resume because of improved energy.
2. My recommendation if an A rated publushed scientist who has put 40 years into researching endurance runners, and is a marathoner too. But that's me and i have some very reliable woo stalkers to amuse me.
3. Someone who pointed out the woo and then recommended taking care of electrolytes with the increased activity.
Nothing in this thread had to do with weight loss except your response to teach ketoers (or at least those interested in running while keto) that weight loss comes down to CICO. The thread is just about marathon running while keto, with a comment on the reactions to the OP.
In the end "how it really work" is a bit off topic.
If someone's energy is really "through the roof," then why the question about fueling up for activity? The party line about keto endurance is that being fat-adapted makes refueling unnecessary (although I don't personally know of any keto athletes who have been able to actually achieve these results for 20+ miles).
I don't know if anyone is "threatened," just more skeptical that keto will achieve good results for more than a handful of endurance athletes.
"How it really works" does seem to be the topic at hand.
Keep teaching then; someone might find it helpful, just like someone may find the woo'ed posts helpful.
]b]For more info on keto and athletics, it can also be helpful to go to keto forums and sources. The main boards is not where most ketoers post[/b].
One can certainly do that if all they are interested in is the pro keto point of view. Possible the OP posted here looking for a less biased and more objective point of view and evidence based information. Is there something wrong with that?15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions