You must be a Patrick OBryan fan

Interesting thread. Like Bobthbib, I am on a LCHF diet but I started out at a maintenance level ~50 grams carbs a day (probably never went into Ketosis) since I wasn't fighting significant overweight. Nevertheless I dropped 15 pounds (from 182 to 166 at 6'). My triglicerides dropped about 20 and my HDL went up about 20 -- they are now essentially 1:1. Overall cholesterol is still a little high so I may consider returning to a low dose of lipitor if the doc recommends it (I am not really worried about the cholesterol numbers but there is some evidence for anti-inflammatory benefits from 10mg of statins). I don't think what BtB is talking about is inconsistent with developing medical science.

Actually, I think he's terrible. If you want to read Royal Naval romances, C.S. Forester has no peer. Even Hemingway admired him. O'Brian is semi-literate by comparison.

Thanks for the affirmation.

I suspect you were indeed in ketosis. The plan I'm using (NOT atkins) starts at 50 gm carbs/day and I'm in ketosis after about 10 day. One sure sign is your breathing at a high heart rate. At 85% and higher HR on glucose, my a$$ would be sucking wind! In ketosis, you are breathing almost normally at 90% HR. The reason is fat metabolism requires only 70% of the O2 of glucose metabolism. So there is less oxydative stress on your body. And that's a good thing.

Regarding your overall cholesterol, Dr. Ronald Hoffman (WOR 710 in NY) would almost accuse a dr. of malpractice for proscribing a statin if your cholesterol was under 225, given what you have shared so far. Of course there are other factors to consider, and I aint no dr. However, from what I understand an important factor is the SIZE of your cholesterol particles, not just the LDL, HDL, and overall #.

In my case, my HDL was 70+, but LDL was over 100 AND the particles small. My cardiologist said my particles are like jelly beans (not good) instead of marshmallows (good) Also I had some level of inflammation.

I hope that on this diet all my numbers will come into line with out the need for meds. BP is already great, despite the need to use a lot of salt on this diet.

Do you take a baby aspirin daily? Ask you Dr if you should. It may help the inflammation and provide other benefits.

BTW, who is BtB?

I sometimes wonder how my grandfather lived to 87 and my mom to 96, in great health until the end. All they did was exercise moderately, eat a good balanced diet, whole grains and fruit, etc. and kept the sweets down.

Too bad they didn't know about ketosis and HDL, LDL and all of that.

They just kept breathing.

I plan to ask for a more detailed panel that addresses lipid size although some recent studies indicate that it is the total number or particles, not the size, that matters (i.e. a boatload of large particles is as bad as a similar number of small dense particles).


I have taken a daily aspirin but I get problems with nosebleeds in the winter and quit them (humidifiers, applied moisture, vaseline, et al didn't help and I didn't want to add aspirin's anti-clotting effects to the mix). BtB was my shorthand for Bobthbib.

If they kept the sweets down and largely avoided processed foods (particularly lots of white bread, pasta and rice) they were close to the money according to the low carb mantra. A number of studies support the argument that the switch to high carb diets (largely from sugars and processed starches) drove metabolic changes that led to the current obesity epidemic. The argument goes further to claim that the medical establishment's focus on low fat helped drive the move to high carb. Anecdotally my experience supports that view in that I adopted lots of low fat products and over a few decades grew from 170 to a high of 195, despite a continuing increase in exercise over those years. Simply stopping candies led me to drop from 195 to 182. When I recently moved to LCHF and started reading labels I saw that many of the low fat products I bought were very high carb -- the food industry delivering just what the doctor ordered and keeping me from further progress.

As others have said on this thread, we will see over time. I am only two months into this regimen so maybe I will backslide to 190+ in a year or two. But I am very satisfied with the food I am eating now and have lost my craving for sweets and carbs (which was substantial and growing) so I see no reason why I would fall back to my wicked ways.

Denver, thank God for your good genes. Mine, well, not so much. Some things we can have some control over, others, well not yet anyway.

Hope you out live your mom, and ride your age each bday!

OP - why don't you want to take a statin?

That said, I stopped taking my statin. When I took it, build-up of plaque in one of my arteries didn't stop, and I was exercising and eating well, too.

Odds, from what I can gather from the Web, are that staving off a heart attack, if I'm destined to have one, on a regular dose of statin is 20 to 1, over three years.

Exercise? Odds that exercise will help - not guarantee - to stave off a heart attack are apparently far better.

I'd love to know, although no such study will ever be conducted for ethical reasons, how well people who exercise and eat right and do not take statins do, compared to people who exercise and eat well and do take statins. Are statins truly an additive protection, like driving defensively and wearing a seatbelt? Or might exercise and healthy eating alone be as effective or more so than taking a statin? That is, what reduces heart attacks the most, what leads to a longer life?

One more thing: recent studies indicate that, in sufficient dosage, we can reverse plaque buildup in your coronary arteries with a statin This is a preliminary finding, funded by drug companies. It does give me some pause, though, about why I refuse to take a statin (my cholesterol numbers off of statins are fine, but I've had a heart attack).

Correct me if I'm wrong bobthib, but when you say you bonked, you don't mean you were collapsed at the side of the road, unable to pedal, only that you had a dramatic loss of power, or were cramping, or something of that sort, right? People get carried away when they hear the word bonk, even though "Bonk Training" has become widely accepted. But again, when you do it, you don't really bonk, you just force your body to use fat reserves by not eating before your ride. I routinely ride for a few hours with no caloric intake, or eating only fatty proteins, to train myself to burn fat.

Endurance athletes need a lot of fat. Carbs? Only for extreme efforts, and they should be complex. You have to focus on increasing protein and fat in order to avoid having your diet too much carb-centric, since carbs are everywhere. Calories are not all the same. Simple carbs and sugars go right to your liver in the form of fat, with disastrous results. IMO, if you want to get to ideal weight, and be healthy, you keep the protein and fat up, limit the carbs, and work your ass off.

Crestor was horrible. I was tired all the time, had no energy, and even after week of no riding due to rain, my legs felt like I just rode 100 mi at full effort! Worse yet was the "twinges" in my shoulders where I would suddenly loose strenght in my arm. That scared the S417 out of me. Then my cardiologist put me on Previstatin. Leg pain and weakness was better, but still got the "twinges" after a few weeks. Then he put me on what he uses, pharmasutical red yeast rice (Choleast). Much better overall, but still not the energy level and some leg pain under effort.

IF I have to do a statin, I'll go back the red yeast rice if it will work.

In the 70s, it was the Pritikan Diet which was low fat with no salt or sugar. Then there was Sugar Busters and the Zone. And of course, there was Atkins. Most of these diets make some claim to eating like ancient man and that our digestive systems cannot handle modern food. That may all be correct.

What I have found is that getting the right balance of fat, protein and carbs does make a difference but so does counting calories and having discipline to not eat. I like to ride in the morning without eating breakfast. First, there is more blood available for power production since one is not digesting anything. Second, it trains the body to burn a greater percentage of fat which is a good thing especially if you are a RAAM rider or Stage racer.

This morning I did flying kilos at above pursuit race pace and I did the first one on an empty stomach. I did a shot of PowerBar gel which is glucose and fructose. What I have learned from our nutritionist is that eating any sugar will cause an insulin reaction and inhibit fat burning. However, the kilos were going to be fueled predominantly by glycogen, hence the gel.

I have not been able to find any literature on fat burning using less oxygen. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. However, we all know that if one researches optimum cadence, one will find that 80 to 100 is optimum yet many pros and amateurs are doing time trials at over 100 rpm and think it is better.

For my breathing to become a limiter, I have to be going really hard. What happens to me is that my legs start to feel the pain and I have to tell them to STFU. At the point I go anaerobic and light the fuse, my breathing increases and gets gaspy and at some point I blow and have to reduce power to recover.

My question to OP is where is the supporting research that says that oxygen requirements are lower in Ketosis? Also, is it not feasible that better fitness and lower requirements for oxygen is due to training i.e. OP is getting stronger?

An example of bonking is a marathoner collapsing at mile 20 and cannot go on. He is disoriented and cannot stand. OP's bonk seems like fatigue. But I may be wrong.

You are correct. Your description of my condition was exactly as you describe.

I didn't bonk in the strictest sense, nor did I bonk in the sense that most of use use the word to describe running out of our glucose reserves. In reading more about the LCHF regimen (Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance), I realize that I had not taken my morning bouillon cube with a dash of potassium salt. My electrolytes were out of balance despite taking them during the ride. Perhaps it was also that I was still not fully keto adapted and not efficiently metabolizing fats properly. In any case, the 62 ride on Monday was totally the opposite. In any event, I'm now sure to take my bouillon cube in the am before rides.

From the Free Dictionary:

Bob,
After reading and following this thread I better understand what the "Low-carb" diets and ketosis actually mean and how they work. Everyone has given some really good information here and I appreciate everyone's time and efforts here. Very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all.

Bill

I've been type 1 and biking for the past 8yrs. It can be a challenge before the ride, during the ride and after the ride.

Then comes the day off after a strenuous ride and your body metab is going crazy because it's still cranked up but your insulin dose and diet remains the same. In short, (for me) it's like exercising when you are not. I've only had one 911 low and that was following a fast 30 last year and I didnt eat enough or quick enough to adjust, it was early in the season.

If you insist on following your present diet you're in for trouble every time on long bike rides. You need carbs to fuel your body on long rides not fat.

Not to worry mate. Some people need a 2 x 4 upside the head to hear your warning.

The Inuit can run 30 mi behind a dogsled in freezing cold and the don't eat ANY carbs to speak of.

'Splain the to me, Lucy.

I suggest you read The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance.

All I can say is I know what I felt.

Methinks thou should doest more research... read up on substrate utilization, and the metabolic equivalency point.

This might be true for the average person (even a highly conditioned athelete) who eats typical amounts of carbs - a long ride with no carbs = disaster. But someone like the OP who has adjusted to a low carb diet is not in the same situation. In other words, what would be bad for you would not necessarily be bad for him. If you believe you know something that disputes this please give us details so we can evaluate.

I had the same thoughts. Without a power meter, the number is meaningless in that it may be higher or lower. 200 watts is some cyclists z1/z2. It is not that much power. During a 500 meter time trial, I start greater than 1000 watts and decay to 500 watts as measured by a power tap wheel and I am breathing hard but not gasping. After the effort, I breathe really hard and gasp a little.

What is missing is the science vis a vis cycling performance. I get the low carb part and the benefits. What I do not understand is what happens when the muscle glycogen is very low and there is a max 30 seconds to 2 minute effort. As I understand muscle contraction, the ATP CP cycle fires first and lasts for 10 seconds. That is followed by glycogen conversion to ATP in the absence of oxygen. The result is the production of lactate. In a short period of time, lactate overloads the system and fatigue and lack of oxygen cause the rider to reduce power to recover and gasp for air.

In the ketosis example, what happens when there is no or little glycogen and the ATP CP cycle is over and full muscle contraction required? What is the mechanism and the byproduct? How does fat get converted to ATP in the absence of oxygen? I would like to see an energy balance and biochemical chart on this. Even though converting glycogen to ATP requires more oxygen, maybe more ATP is made per unit of O2 with glycogen than with fat. An energy balance will show that.

One thing I am sure of. Professional athletes with do anything legal and illegal to get an advantage and do not take into account long term damage to their body. So if this works, we will see pro athletes embracing it including hockey, basketball, football, soccer and cycling. The list is will be long.

I don't know the details, but all the studies I have seen indicate that, while sub-maximal performance can be OK on a ketogenic diet, your top-end (VO2Max and above) performance is significantly less. A ketogenic diet may be useful for something but it isn't something you would use if you were racing or were concerned with performance.

It may be a bit of a misconception that you have no glycogen in your muscles on a ketogenic diet. Studies have found that on a ketogenic diet one has roughly half the muscle glycogen stores at the beginning of an exercise session but the body also adapts and ends up burning proportionately more fat during exercise. Glycogen still gets produced on a ketogenic diet through a different mechanism than when you consume carbohydrates.