Ketogenic diets DON'T build muscle

parkscs

I for one was disappointed to find there isn't a baby making entry under cardiovascular activity. Probably a good burn.

I think it's in there somewhere- but it's unfortunately low burn. Oh well- gotta make the most out of it.

While I don't really want babies- I have no problem practicing- and you know- you gotta practice a lot if you want to get any good at anything!!!

I really shouldn't post before having my requisite 4 cups of coffee in the morning. I was trying to be silly and thinking of a uterus repping out 100 lbs/inch when I made that comment ... but after re-reading it, that's not quite how it came across, haha.

hat's incorrect. I've done HIIT sprinting while 60+ hour fasted, as in NO FOOD whatsoever, only water.

Edit: 60 hour fasted is a much harsher condition than ketosis, as the body has not yet manufactured enough ketone producing bodies to keep up with high intensity exercise.

You must be doing something wrong if you're in deep ketosis that long and still need carbs. Are you getting enough salt? You need a lot more salt when on a ketogenic diet. Are you sleeping between the hours of 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. at least? Do you get enough micronutrients?

If you find you don't need additional carbs to continue lifting on your SKD, then don't worry about it. But that doesn't mean people are "doing it wrong" they choose to work some carbs into their diet to enhance their athletic performance. All the body fat in the world won't help you avoid bonking if you deplete your muscle glycogen stores. If you ever get to the point where your exercise routine is running up against that wall, the solution is to work some carbs into your keto diet to keep your muscle glycogen replenished (CKD or TKD). If you want to continue training on a keto diet, you really need to update your research. Even the frequently mentioned champion keto marathon runners have a mild carb up before they race and authorities on the subject talk about cyclical and targeted keto diets for a reason.

JoRocka

I really shouldn't post before having my requisite 4 cups of coffee in the morning. I was trying to be silly and thinking of a uterus repping out 100 lbs/inch when I made that comment ... but after re-reading it, that's not quite how it came across, haha.

it's okay- I find my early morning pre coffee posts or late night fasted- pre-dinner posts are awful.... and run on- I type novels.

Sex workout jokes are always funny- no matter which way you look at them.

albertabeefy

That's incorrect. I've done HIIT sprinting while 60+ hour fasted, as in NO FOOD whatsoever, only water.

Edit: 60 hour fasted is a much harsher condition than ketosis, as the body has not yet manufactured enough ketone producing bodies to keep up with high intensity exercise.

You must be doing something wrong if you're in deep ketosis that long and still need carbs. Are you getting enough salt? You need a lot more salt when on a ketogenic diet. Are you sleeping between the hours of 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. at least? Do you get enough micronutrients?

No, it's not incorrect, and NO, I'm not doing something wrong. All experts agree you MUST have glucose available for anaerobic respiration, even those that do recommend low-carb such as Volek and Phinney, and more-recently Peter Attia. There is no getting away from it, it's a biochemical fact.

If you THINK you did HIIT, you likely don't understand that a true HIIT protocol, what Tabata created for his testing, is done at 170% of VO2 max.

Many people that claim to do HIIT are actually doing MIIT - moderate intensity interval training.

The reason I need carbs, is because I'm normally almost-entirely glycogen depleted. I eat very low carb considering my metabolic rate and the amount/type of exercise I do. And when I do HIIT I actually do TRUE high-intensity work, in the highest target zones I can, and I maintain anaerobic for considerably longer than most ketogenic dieters are able to.

chrisdavey

That's incorrect. I've done HIIT sprinting while 60+ hour fasted, as in NO FOOD whatsoever, only water.

May I ask what the objective of this workout was?

albertabeefy

Albert- if you are a research expert in the field, I have some questions.

Sorry Steve, I just saw this. (I've been online, but haven't revisited threads until today.)

FYI - I wouldn't consider myself an expert in either nutrition or exercise physiology. I have a vested interested in both due to changes I had to make in my own lifestyle, and my background as an amateur athlete from ... many moon ago. I also participate in research in my own field where both exercise and nutrition interventions are studied ... but neither is my specialty.

I'm happy to answer based on my understanding, however.

For the average person not exercising, at what levels must glycogen fall before glucose levels are effected enough to make the ketotic (fat-burning) metabolism predominate? 50% from maximal, 25%? 10%?

As far as glycogen levels go, liver-glycogen depletes quickly (most liver glycogen is removed in 12-24 hours, it is dependent on the initial levels), but without exercise, muscle-glycogen will never really deplete that much. In non-exercisers, muscle glycogen will deplete by 20-30%, and that's about it. The fact that muscle glycogen doesn't deplete doesn't prevent ketosis or the increase in fatty-acid oxidation, however.

In starvation studies I've seen (non-exercise studies), oxidation of fat becomes the primary fuel source after only an overnight fast, of 12+ hours. The percentage of energy derived from fat at that point is just over 65%. After 30 - 36 hours of fasting, all but the non-protein energy is derived from oxidation of fat. Other starvation studies confirm that.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2165890
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/68/1/12.abstract

-have the Inuit Alaskans been studied to any significant degree? They consume a mostly fat-protein diet and do fine, with their brains able to adapt and use 60-70 percent ketones in the place of glucose. Are their stores of glycogen similar to ours? Do they have similar anaerobic strength characteristics? Aerobic differences? Brain and memory function?

I've not spent a lot of time either researching or studying research on the Inuit. Any comments I would make would be speculation, sorry. One thing I will say, based on research I've read on Quebec Inuit is, if the Alaskan Inuit are anything like Canadian Inuit, they're not all eating their traditional diet in this day and age. I'm assuming by the "fat-protein" diet you mention, you're referring to the traditional diet rather than the one they're rapidly incorporating?

If you want I can spend some time researching and provide answers to your questions, but at this point in the evening I have nothing to offer in that regard, sorry.

What is the response curve of insulin to a "load" of amino acids in the blood compared to a "load" of glucose? Have equivalencies been established?

We've known for decades that both ingestion of a protein meal and the specific administration of amino-acids increases plasma levels of insulin. Yes, there have been comparison studies to glucose - those I've seen often compare to white bread. Depending on the item ingested/administered, the secretion from "load" of protein/amino-acid is between 30-120% of that of an isocaloric "load" of high-glycemic carbohydrate. (Typical protein items like meat/cheese/eggs are 40-60% of the insulin-secretion.)

The "Insulin Index of Foods" research paper by Susanne Holt is interesting but I take issue with it's index methodology being different that the glycemic index. GI (Glycemic Index) is based on 75 g of various foods, whereas the II (Insulin Index) is based on 240 kcal of foods, which can be vastly different in gram amounts. I wish they'd used the measure of weight vs. kcal.

Thoth8

When I said fasting, I meant 24-72 hours, lol. ESE style. No offense, but you are not me, you don't know what I am doing, so you cannot say what I am on or not, lol. Just because you can't, doesn't mean I can't.

1.) you need to stick to story, because it keeps changing.
2.) I only know what you tell me. (Thus far not impressed)
3.) I've been lifting my whole life- so I think I know a thing or two about this.
4.) you're right- I'm not you- but there is no way you think you can do something I cannot by sheer force of will.

I train for hours a week as a lifter and a dancer- I work 3 jobs. I am training a russian power lifting program (the russians- they know more than you- check their gold medal record in power lifting)-I'm training through one of the toughest dance programs in my field with significant outside work from outside world class artists.
I get less sleep than anyone I know- and I do more things than anyone I know.
You aren't doing something that I could not do.
I know my body- and I know what works. I can function on low calories. And I know I'm busier than you. But I am smart enough to know how it's impacting me and when I need more sleep or more food.

There is no conceivable way you training 1 or 2 times a week think you are achieving something insurmountable on too few calories or doing something bad *kitten*.

Either you are eating more than you think- or you training program is weak sauce. And either way- it's unwise to continue and it's unwise to continue to brag about it.

And I would suggest that you would do wise not imply you have some sort of greater internal strength to press through a fasted work out for days on end and know better than hundreds of years of experience.

Because I'll be honest with you- I highly doubt that you do.

I wonder how many other things in life we can do for 2 months via application and become experts.

Well there's always becoming a Beach Body coach.laugh

Okay back ON TOPIC.

sounds like a perfect fit for him!!!

While you were busy talking about your "credentials", you pretty much contradicted yourself. The explanation of why I can function like this when you claim you cannot is also in your own post in your own words.

"I train for hours a week as a lifter and a dancer- I work 3 jobs. I am training a russian power lifting program "

You are far too stressed, and I am sorry for that, but that is the reason you will not be able to function normally if underfed for even a short period of time. I make it a point to make sure I have enough time for myself with proper rest, relaxation and pursuit of hobbies and research and at least 7 hours of sleep a night.

Also, I did not change my story. Fasting is fasting. You simply thought I meant a different kind of fasting (under 16 hours, where I meant 24-72 hours). That was you misunderstanding me.

Thoth8

That's incorrect. I've done HIIT sprinting while 60+ hour fasted, as in NO FOOD whatsoever, only water.

Edit: 60 hour fasted is a much harsher condition than ketosis, as the body has not yet manufactured enough ketone producing bodies to keep up with high intensity exercise.

You must be doing something wrong if you're in deep ketosis that long and still need carbs. Are you getting enough salt? You need a lot more salt when on a ketogenic diet. Are you sleeping between the hours of 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. at least? Do you get enough micronutrients?

No, it's not incorrect, and NO, I'm not doing something wrong. All experts agree you MUST have glucose available for anaerobic respiration, even those that do recommend low-carb such as Volek and Phinney, and more-recently Peter Attia. There is no getting away from it, it's a biochemical fact.

If you THINK you did HIIT, you likely don't understand that a true HIIT protocol, what Tabata created for his testing, is done at 170% of VO2 max.

Many people that claim to do HIIT are actually doing MIIT - moderate intensity interval training.

The reason I need carbs, is because I'm normally almost-entirely glycogen depleted. I eat very low carb considering my metabolic rate and the amount/type of exercise I do. And when I do HIIT I actually do TRUE high-intensity work, in the highest target zones I can, and I maintain anaerobic for considerably longer than most ketogenic dieters are able to.

I am well aware of the difference between moderate and high intensity. I was running at full speed (95+%) at various points for a short interval, and that was MY maximum intensity. I am sure a professional sprinter will believe that my training is moderate, but that is because his body has trained longer, and his intensity threshold has increased.

If what you are saying is true, then when I begin sprinting again, I will not be able to do the same routine I once did without passing out. I suppose we will have to see, but I HIGHLY doubt that will be the case. In 2-3 weeks I will have the proof for myself. :-)

parkscs

I am well aware of the difference between moderate and high intensity. I was running at full speed (95+%) at various points for a short interval, and that was MY maximum intensity. I am sure a professional sprinter will believe that my training is moderate, but that is because his body has trained longer, and his intensity threshold has increased.

If what you are saying is true, then when I begin sprinting again, I will not be able to do the same routine I once did without passing out. I suppose we will have to see, but I HIGHLY doubt that will be the case. In 2-3 weeks I will have the proof for myself. :-)

Keep exercising and if you get to the point where your exercise is causing you to bonk due to glycogen depletion, look into a form of keto diet that incorporates some carbs to address the issue. If you're not bonking, you're not exhausting your glycogen stores with your current exercise routine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (or a good thing) - it's just the way it is. If you ever get to the point where you're bonking, you'll understand why people talk about strategically incorporated carbs in order to replenish their muscle glycogen stores.

grndzro

I am well aware of the difference between moderate and high intensity. I was running at full speed (95+%) at various points for a short interval, and that was MY maximum intensity. I am sure a professional sprinter will believe that my training is moderate, but that is because his body has trained longer, and his intensity threshold has increased.

If what you are saying is true, then when I begin sprinting again, I will not be able to do the same routine I once did without passing out. I suppose we will have to see, but I HIGHLY doubt that will be the case. In 2-3 weeks I will have the proof for myself. :-)

Keep exercising and if you get to the point where your exercise is causing you to bonk due to glycogen depletion, look into a form of keto diet that incorporates some carbs to address the issue. If you're not bonking, you're not exhausting your glycogen stores with your current exercise routine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (or a good thing) - it's just the way it is. If you ever get to the point where you're bonking, you'll understand why people talk about strategically incorporated carbs in order to replenish their muscle glycogen stores.

The longer and deeper you are in keto and the more you do aerobic excercise the more mitochondria your cells produce.
This increases your capacity for fat metabolism and the ATP generated. "Bonking" eventually goes away. This takes a lot of time to happen though.

SoreTodayStrongTomorrow222

I bran muffins

albertabeefy

I am well aware of the difference between moderate and high intensity. I was running at full speed (95+%) at various points for a short interval, and that was MY maximum intensity.

95% of WHAT?

95% of VO2 max is NOT high-intensity.
95% of TRUE maximum heart rate is considered high-intensity, *if* you [/b]maintain[/b] that heart rate for long enough (not just peak at it, then stop...)

You'll note I say TRUE maximum heart rate. You have to determine that first, not using a formula. If I trained at 95% of what formulas predict my maximum heart rate is, I'd never approach high-intensity. (My maximum is ~206 bpm. As such, 95% of my max heart rate is 196 bpm. Formulas predict my maximum at 172, and 95% of 172 is just over 160bpm. I can exercise at 160 bpm for about 6 - 7 hours continuously... That's NOT high-intensity, is it?)

albertabeefy

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

I think the shift over to fat-burning in the average person is about 7-8 hours after their last meal.

It well may be. Most of the studies I've read on non-exercises are starvation studies, and the protocols they use don't often test at short intervals. I think it will also depend on the individuals diet before they start to participate in studies, as we know that those eating a very high carbohydrate diet can have 150% more glycogen than those eating a more moderate amount.

Most studies that are moderately hypo-caloric looking at ketosis for weight-loss do incorporate exercise in at-least some of the participants, so we can't use those to make the determination.

Alaskan or Canadian, the point is to intensely study a population that is essentially "all-fat burning." Might be analgous studies in the animal world, I don't know. Big Cats (lions, tigers) all feed on meat almost exclusively.

The difficulty is we need to rely on decade(s)-old studies for this now. I wish we could fly equipment into some more-remote locations to do some in-depth metabolic testing on those still eating a more-traditional diet - especially those that have been eating it for decades. It might yield interesting results.

swaggityswagbag

I've been on a ketogenic diet for a little over 41 months now.

While I agree much of what you state may be true on a Standard Ketogenic Diet - it's not necessarily true of either a TKD (Targeted Ketogenic Diet) or CKD (Cyclical Ketogenic Diet).

BTW in ketogenesis the body isn't "desperate" for energy. That idea is laughable. One could possibly suggest desperation during a starvation experiment, but not on a ketogenic diet. That comment alone leads me to conclude your article is highly-biased.

Your references about mTOR activation do nothing to suggest that while on a hypercaloric ketogenic diet one cannot gain muscle, and in-fact loses mass. None of your reference support this. Nor does any science I've ever seen.

Once I started lifting (a little over a year into the diet) I did gain muscle - about 5 pounds in the first year - without having a clue what I was doing. But honestly, that was to be expected as I'd severely atrophied after 5 years of heavy bed-rest due to a spinal injury, and my results aren't common or replicable in the vast-majority of others.

There is no doubt that building muscle now is MUCH more difficult - but I'm certainly not losing mass. DEXA scans show a whopping 2 lb increase in lean mass over this time last year. It's not very much (barely 1% increase in lean mass), but I'm thrilled with it. It's roughly the same increase I had last year, FYI.

The ONLY way I've found to do this for myself is adopt a TKD - a targeted ketogenic diet. I time my highest carbohydrate intake to be just prior to exercise, and eat a moderate caloric surplus during my 2 bulking cycles each year. I only add about 10lbs of weight in total during each bulk as I can't afford the decreased insulin-sensitivity that comes with more added bodyfat. Doing this I *stay* ketogenic, but have the carb-intake required to push heavy (I do 5x5 three days per week) and the insulin and growth factors required to build some lean mass.

As a Type I diabetic I *have* to stay ketogenic unless I inject bolus insulin, which I prefer not to do (because I have all the insulin-resistance issues of a Type II as well.)

That's me - that's anecdotal. Now for your studies:

The studies in which ketogenic diets impaired growth in children were on epileptic children, and showed it was likely in those that ate < 80% of their recommended calories AND < 80% of their recommended daily protein intake, and was possible in those that ate protein based on the old recommendations of intake.

Further studies have shown an increase in dietary protein is warranted for epileptic children on a ketogenic diet, and most specialists recognize and prescribe that now.

The nail in the coffin on your ketogenic-diet/stunted grown argument is that epileptics that experience seizures prior to age 18 are universally statistically shorter than norm, REGARDLESS of diet. The statistics on stunted-growth are higher for those that took phenytoin prior to completing growth as well. It's not just the diet that matters, it's the disease.

There are no studies that show a ketogenic diet stunts / alters growth in non-epileptic children.

As for the references showing muscle loss:

#1 is an article, not a study, that states simply "On the other hand some less desirable immediate effects such as enhanced lean body mass loss ... have been reported. But it should be noted that this was on "low-carb" diets, not ketogenic per se, AND there are more studies show the ketogenic diet is lean-mass-sparing than show a loss.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129159/
http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34

#2 is informational only and reaches no conclusions

#3 states "which MAY have an impact on the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes and subsequently influence the effectiveness of training" ... but if you read[/u[ the study (even just the abstract) it showed clearly that:

"Neither the magnitude nor the pattern of the hormonal changes were affected by L-CHO diet except the NA (noradrenaline) threshold, which was lowered ... It is concluded that restriction of CHO intake (a) does not affect the pattern of changes in plasma A, hGH, and T concentrations during graded exercise but lowers NA threshold"

While opening up some discussion about the importance of noradrenaline in muscular development, this study does nothing to support your claims.

#4 and #5 are again, informational and again, neither is a study. Nor do they support the claim you can't build muscle while ketogenic.

#6 is a rat study about why seizures are suppressed by the ketogenic diet. They determined:

Because mTOR signaling has been implicated in epileptogenesis, these results suggest that the KD may have anticonvulsant or antiepileptogenic actions via mTOR pathway inhibition.

The extrapolation of this rodent study to mean ketogenic diets cause muscle loss in humans isn't warranted or even logical.

The last study again shows what we've known for a while, and again is on epileptic children. No scientist would automatically associate this with healthy bodybuilders, especially based on the information I provided on epilepsy and growth above.

While I appreciate that it can be difficult for some people to gain mass on a ketogenic diet - It's not impossible, nor does science reach the consensus that it promotes muscle loss. More studies show that even when hypocaloric, it is, by nature, muscle sparing. And experts like Lyle McDonald agree.

Also in counter to your claims is an excellent article with 15 scientific references here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/can-you-build-muscle-on-a-ketogenic-diet.html

This. I believe the original post just got thoroughly mythbusted.

Thank god. So many people here see links and think "IT MUST BE SUPPORTED". Read them yourself; OP totally misconstrued what the articles conclude.

tross0924

Bumping to read later

JoRocka

While you were busy talking about your "credentials", you pretty much contradicted yourself. The explanation of why I can function like this when you claim you cannot is also in your own post in your own words.

"I train for hours a week as a lifter and a dancer- I work 3 jobs. I am training a russian power lifting program "

You are far too stressed, and I am sorry for that, but that is the reason you will not be able to function normally if underfed for even a short period of time. I make it a point to make sure I have enough time for myself with proper rest, relaxation and pursuit of hobbies and research and at least 7 hours of sleep a night.

Also, I did not change my story. Fasting is fasting. You simply thought I meant a different kind of fasting (under 16 hours, where I meant 24-72 hours). That was you misunderstanding me.

heh.

no.

I'm not far to stressed- but thanks for the sympathy- I get 5-7 hours a sleep a night as well.- I eat properly and I train well- still hitting PR's even on my deficit. It's not credentials- it's a fact. I'm been training for much longer than you have.

I've run on bare bones diet of 1200 for about 5 weeks. I'ts not pretty.
You cannot do a competent lifting program with any success running on calories not fit for a 10 year old child. I'm really not sure what you don't get about this.

You aren't a special snowflake. Either you aren't training very hard- or you eating more than you claim- you CANNOT train on that diet for any significant time period. I've done completely fasted workouts- I've done workouts running on 4 oreo's and 2 hard boiled eggs. Big whoop. That's not special- but I go home and eat. because my body needs fuel and I finish out my day.

There is no way you are regularly eating only 500-1000 calories as an adult male and having an success strength training.

parkscs

I am well aware of the difference between moderate and high intensity. I was running at full speed (95+%) at various points for a short interval, and that was MY maximum intensity. I am sure a professional sprinter will believe that my training is moderate, but that is because his body has trained longer, and his intensity threshold has increased.

If what you are saying is true, then when I begin sprinting again, I will not be able to do the same routine I once did without passing out. I suppose we will have to see, but I HIGHLY doubt that will be the case. In 2-3 weeks I will have the proof for myself. :-)

Keep exercising and if you get to the point where your exercise is causing you to bonk due to glycogen depletion, look into a form of keto diet that incorporates some carbs to address the issue. If you're not bonking, you're not exhausting your glycogen stores with your current exercise routine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (or a good thing) - it's just the way it is. If you ever get to the point where you're bonking, you'll understand why people talk about strategically incorporated carbs in order to replenish their muscle glycogen stores.

The longer and deeper you are in keto and the more you do aerobic excercise the more mitochondria your cells produce.
This increases your capacity for fat metabolism and the ATP generated. "Bonking" eventually goes away. This takes a lot of time to happen though.

"Bonking" never goes away for high intensity work on a SKD, at least for most people. If you think it does, you aren't doing true high intensity work or enough of it - or I suppose there's the off chance that your body is special. SKD is fine for endurance work, but even then some carbs become necessary for optimal performance after a certain duration. If you look at the marathon winners who are often touted as successes in the keto community, they will freely admit to consume 100g+ of carbs on race day. Certainly not as many carbs as the non-keto runners, but some nonetheless, and these are people who have been on a ketogenic diet for years and are often lauded by the keto community. If their bodies still need some carbs for optimal performance (and we're even talking endurance exercise here, not even high intensity exercise) after years of keto and years of training, you must either be really special or misinformed.

Ordinarily I wouldn't bother arguing these points, but I think it's pretty poor advice to be telling people on a keto diet that they never need carbs for optimal performance in high intensity exercise and they just need "more time" and "deeper ketosis." You're basically feeding people misinformation and setting them up for failure when it comes to their workout routine, as there is a threshold at which some carbs become necessary for optimal athletic performance.