Seattle Forrest

It's a three hour video. I'm not going to watch it. If there's a point to it, somebody will be able to summarize that point, in their own words. It should take no more than five minutes, honestly it should take less time than finding a link to a specific video. I've asked people who follow very low carb diets why, without getting a straight answer, I've read some articles online and found them unconvincing; it's not a lack of trying on my part that leaves me confused. Why do you think no one can say in simple terms why this is beneficial for people who exercise regularly anyway? My hunch is that's because it's not.

Jarrett2

Here's a link:

Let me google that for you

Seattle Forrest

^ That's exactly the kind of non-answer I keep getting.

I ask a simple question and instead of an answer, it's "hey watch 3 hours of video" or "you're wrong" or "here's a basic and not useful Google search." If there was a benefit, you'd be able to tell us plainly what it is.

Jarrett2

Or... if you weren't trolling you'd have already done your own research by this point.

Carbonfiberboy 

Or if you'd done your own research, like I have, you'd have found that there's absolutely nothing in it. In fact, less than nothing, it's backward. Most folks have never heard of it, but there is such a thing as confirmation bias. You can find out what that is without watching a 3 hour video.

Jarrett2

k

AZSkeptic

Jarrett:

With all due respect, you're the one making the assertion, so the burden is on you to prove what you're saying. We don't have to accept anything without proof. If the evidence is overwhelming as you seem to contend, you should be able to summarize it in a paragraph or two with references to key studies. If you can't, you need to stop (condescendingly, I might add) acting like everyone else here is missing something. It's not our job to try and prove your point, and if you're not willing to do it, then don't raise the argument.

bikebreak

Maybe this will help:
[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR="bgcolor: #00ff80"]
[TD]Duration[/TD]
[TD]Classification[/TD]
[TD]Energy Supplied By[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 to 4 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Anaerobic[/TD]
[TD]ATP (in muscles)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4 to 10 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Anaerobic[/TD]
[TD]ATP + CP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10 to 45 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Anaerobic[/TD]
[TD]ATP + CP + Muscle glycogen[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]45 to 120 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Anaerobic, Lactic[/TD]
[TD]Muscle glycogen[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]120 to 240 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Aerobic + Anaerobic[/TD]
[TD]Muscle glycogen + lactic acid[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]240 to 600 seconds[/TD]
[TD]Aerobic[/TD]
[TD]Muscle glycogen + fatty acids[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

from https://www.brianmac.co.uk/energy.htm

With Low carb high fat you have abundant fuel for the long aerobic efforts. You already have enough fat calories on board to ride across the USA.Your body will also convert some fat and protein, and use what carbs you have, to make glycogen, and ATP. On LCHF your body will, per the Art and Science of Low Carb book linked above, also get good at making glucose out of fat, and running on ketones.



I would guess that on LCHF you will be fine for long moderate rides in the aerobic zone, with some efforts in anaerobic as your glycogen allows. During a two hour + road race with lots of max anaerobic efforts I think it would be a disadvantage after a LCHF athlete burns through his glycogen. Try it and see.