GhostRider62

The second study was a review of all published literature with the conclusion that the results are conflicting. It was titled, "

A review of the ketogenic diet for endurance athletes: performance enhancer or placebo effect?"

I have often read on forums that Keto will kill FTP and FRC. I am not sure but don't think so. What you wrote isn't convincing to me, either and frankly is ridiculous. It was a review of existing studies. So, you think all of the participants in all of the studies lacked protein? And, therefore the review is BS. I've done LCHF/keto diet for about 18 months and it was the best shape and overall fitness for me. So, I have that bias.

There is a lot of uninformed opinion such as the belief that if you are a LCHF or Keto type rider that you have no glycogen. Nothing is further from the truth. Glycogen can be converted from lipids, protein, and pyruvate and that is part of the adaptation. The FASTER study provided it.

I believe elite athletes like TdF racers ride so many miles that their mitochondrial and enzymes make them extremely adapted to burning fat whereas most weekend warriors drinking the Gatorade research marketing koolaid suck down sweets before rides, during rides and then there is the recovery drink leading to horrible insulin sensitivity and excessive weight. I also believe most keto athletes mistakenly believe that they cannot consume any or many carbs. The amount of carbs I used to eat and when I at them varied based upon my exercise level. For instance, when doing a very long ride, my hourly carb consumption (25-35 grams) exceeded the total daily amount most keto folks would eat, the key is not getting out of ketosis. I had a very good meter and read my levels from blood samples, so, I know that that amount during rides did not knock me out of ketosis. OTOH, I never ate on short rides (200K and shorter). I have no way of proving it but I have the belief that a higher level of fat utilization results in a much more muted fatigue curve after around 12 hours pm the bike, I have researched it and think I understand why but it is too much to think about. I also believe sugar burners do not eat enough protein during long rides and if we are going to use surmised protein consumption as a disqualifier of studies, then pretty much all athletic studies will be ****canned because most do not address intake.

Even though the first study showed a clear performance benefit to LCHF, I'll stick to the conclusion of the review.

RH Clark

My personal experience is that if you are a cyclist who needs to get rid of body fat then Keto while cycling is a good weight loss strategy. Your endurance will depend on a lot of factors. How fast your body can draw energy from it's own fat depends on a lot of factors.

If you are a cyclist who doesn't need to get rid of fat, there is no real reason to get into a state of ketosis. There are some studies that suggest enhanced performance during some states of ketosis. It is theorized that it is a survival mechanism from our ancestors that can enhance a starving human hunter for a short period of time enabling them to retain energy and focus enough to hunt down and kill wild game. I would only speculate that to enter that perfect state for a specific time would be so difficult as to make it nearly impossible to utilize for most humans to any degree of advantage.

Carbonfiberboy 

Oh wow, terribly sorry. I got confused - my review was of the first link which had an unequivocal finding that LC was better. Here's the money quote: That's what I'm calling BS on. What made me look into it was that the HC riders lost power and were slower on a TT after 12 weeks of hard training. That's not going to happen unless there's a serious screwup in the methodology. Note that the LC riders had 3% more protein in their diet, meaning that the LC group ingested about 20g more protein per day. They all would have gotten faster and more powerful if they'd had enough protein. The question is still there: what would have happened if both groups had had 25% protein calories in their diets?

One can quickly see why the second link has this summary: My comments must have seemed totally weird. You sir, are an exceptional rider!

PeteHski

This^
Which is why pros and weekend warriors like me ram down the carbs as and when required to perform. But I know it's not that simple for everyone.
I can see the attraction of keto for weight loss, but not as a performance enhancer for cycling.

greatbasin

There seems to be a few different viewpoints here. Some people see ketosis as:

• a means to weight loss, which would necessarily be employed for a short-term and ended once the weight loss goal was achieved.
• a diet fad.
• a loser with respect to obtaining maximum athletic performance. Presumably, performance is their goal.
• an alternative lifestyle that results in both immediate and long-term health benefits.

There's evidence to support all of these different views. Since they don't necessarily conflict with one another, they could all be true.

Personally, I don't have a weight loss goal. I'm about 50 years old, 5'8", 135 lbs with no health issues. I've been at this weight since I matured from a boy and so I've never dieted or sought a fad solution to a problem I didn't have. Especially at my age, I'm not looking for competitive athletic performance. I saw the recent thread on "Nutrition for Performance vs Long Term Health," and I'm definitely in the category of preferring "overall" health over short-term performance. I'm not just interested in "long-term" health. I don't even know how long I'll have. I am interested in my health right now as well as the longer term. Maybe that's implied in the term "long term," but I think it's important to focus on health here and now and not just performance.

I've not been unconcerned with performance. When I was younger, I raced road-racing motorcycles, and for a long time I've engaged in endurance activities like backpacking, trekking, and mountaineering. Racing taught me that a man will be competitive in his mind even when he can't be in his body. He'll spend his money and do things to try to improve his performance even though a podium will still be out of his reach, much more a win. It's not wrong to circle the track as an "also ran," but it's stupid to incur the same costs as the winner when you get paid nothing for losing.

Endurance taught me what happens when I use more energy than I can carry, consume and digest in carbohydrates. The body switches from glucose metabolism to ketosis. Ketosis is not a fad diet. It's been there all along from the very beginning.

When I wasn't starving somewhere high in the mountains, I was bothered by the swings in blood sugar levels that come from eating "normal" foods -- you know, burgers, fries, and soft drinks. Most of us learned when we were kids what happens when you consume mass quantities of sugar. It was plain to me that to get off the trampoline of sugar highs and lows I had to eat foods with a lower glycemic index. I had cut out the soft drinks because that stuff made me feel awful, but I also cut out juice and caffeine. I chose complex carbs like whole oats, muesli, protein and fat from meats, nuts and olive or avocado oil low in saturated fat. I also continued to eat lots of vegetables. I liked this better than consuming those really high sugar foods. Since I already had low weight and no sign of disease, it's hard to quantify the result, but I can say my LDL/HDL ratio improved from 4:1 to 2.5:1. The doc was stunned that I could make a 37% improvement. Notably, I did this without changing my activity level. It was all a result of changing what I ate.

I had no interest in weight loss or fad diets, but I became more interested in fat versus complex carbs as an energy source. I was interested in ketosis as a metabolic process versus gluconeogenesis. I'd been in ketosis before when fasting or doing endurance activities but I wanted to try staying in ketosis longer. I found that it works well for me, probably better than the best gluconeogenesis I was able to practice.

In the process, I became increasingly aware of just how insidious sugar is in our culture. It's disturbing to consider how sugar and carbs (food pyramid) have been promoted because they're economically cheap to produce in mass quantities, addictive, and profitable. The classic dilemma in economics is guns vs butter, but in the case of the US, it's been more like guns & grain. Central planning has promoted cheap carbs to allow greater investment in the military/industrial/tech complex. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. It's just basic economics. The result is the US has maintained security, the highest GDP, and leads the world in technology, but its people have suffered drastically increased obesity and major rises in metabolic diseases.

ZHVelo

Anyone who believes restricting carbohydrates is in any way a suitable diet for endurance athletics is bonkers.

If your gut bacteria are such that you do not tolerate certain carbs well (processed ones for example) then I can see why keto will help, as it will obviously restrict these carbs that harm you and thus you will feel better. But I dare say you can still eat other forms of carbs and get that effect. But that's something different. And we are still only learning about the impact of gut bacteria on diet and health.

On the other hand what we certainly know is how energy is created in our cells. And you won't be able to output significant energy over significant duration if you run out of sugars.

ZHVelo

This is entirely biased falsehoods, stemming from your need to find a conspiracy theory. Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, don't exercise and binge on junk food. Food that doesn't just have carbs but also copious amounts of fat and just too much calories in general.

Take all the pacific islands, when fast food was introduced to them they suddenly became some of the most obese countries on earth.

I mean by your logic, Japan couldn't be one of the healthiest countries on earth with very long life expectancies as they eat so much white rice, so much evil, bad, even processed carbs.

fooferdoggie 

yes I can't eat carbs of any type as they really cause a lot of health issues. now that I control them well and ride a lot my energy levels have risen. but at best I could average 200 watts on my 8 mile commute. but it has dropped and now I do 135 on a decent day. I have more ride endurance then anything else. I can do 220 miles a week every week if my wife can ride the tandem. if the calorie calculation is ride I tend to burn 250 calories or more per 10 miles. I can climb 1 to to block hills at 400 or so watts. it sucks but its what it is and I have gotten it down. But I dont think my body uses fat for fuel much either and that may be causing issues. it seems protein is my main energy source. I am never in ketosis even if I have eaten less then 10 grams of carbs a day (mostly from some nuts and fiber)

greatbasin

I'm supposing you're taking issue with only my last paragraph. I'm not sure why I would have a "need to find a conspiracy theory." If Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, that would be in agreement that as a culture and economy the US chose technology over health. People choose to spend more on their expensive and high-tech cars, and less on their health at the drive-thru.

If you're so determined to dismiss the obscene prevalence of cheap carbs and sugar in US culture, just try going fat-fueled for one week, just seven days. Try it just as an experiment. It won't take believing a conspiracy theory or converting to a new religion or anything -- just forsaking the carbs totally for a week to increase your awareness of them and experience an alternative. If you decide to switch to a high starch and sugar diet afterward, at least you can say you were open-minded about it.

There's this guy that ate low-sugar and he did the opposite: tried eating a sugary diet as an experiment and made a film documentary about it. He's Australian and one of the things he addresses is the affect on aboriginal peoples that is similar to what you describe for the Pacific Islanders. It's not pro-keto propaganda if you're worried about that. I don't think he mentions keto ever in the film. Be curious and check it out. It's hilarious if nothing else. Free if you have Prime

https://www.amazon.com/That-Sugar-Fi...s%2C138&sr=8-1

Here's the link for YT, same film:

ZHVelo

I didn't dismiss the prevalence of cheap carbs and sugars - I pointed out that you are the one dismissing the prevalence of fats. Fast food that I mentioned contains both carbs and fats. In copious amounts.

The only reason why a fat-only diet can work is because it satiates longer. Every diet that works is a diet that in the end restricts caloric intake. Zero issue with carbs if you do not overeat.

And as I mentioned, we are only now starting to learn the absolutely crucial role that gut bacteria play and that every individual has a unique flora. Which is why that video is entirely pointless as the results are dependent on that man's gut flora. Personally I can tell you I feel great on a carb heavy diet.

Apetimberlake

You must be fun at Parties.
I do agree keto isn't a viable option long-term It helped me drop 40lbs in 3 months but I ballooned up after.

Bearhawker

How many years qualifies as "long term?" I'm at least 4 into it now and will never go back.

terrymorse 

For some, the Keto diet is effective at weight loss and blood sugar maintenance, but it has potentially unhealthy effects.

From the practical, data-driven, lifelong athlete, Dr. Gabe Mirkin:

Iride01 

I'm not certain why the sub-forum title has Nutrition as part of it's wording.

What we are concerned with more on the bike is stuff that we need to do during the ride, for a short time after and maybe shortly before. While long term diet does affect overall health, that's not really what should be discussed in depth here, IMO.

The bigger concern here I'd think is something that one might consider as fueling for a ride. Not pushing ones dietary nutrition advice.

To me this diet or that diet are much like political discussions and belong in foo or some other sub-forum.

terrymorse 

Well, nutrition--on and off the bike--is an essential part of any training plan.

If a specific diet negatively (or positively) affects fitness gains, that seems worthy of discussion.

Bearhawker

wow

I'm sort-of new here... is that a record for the amount of complete and utter BS in one post?

terrymorse 

No, my post quoting Dr. Mirkin is the opposite of BS. It is based on published and peer-reviewed studies.

RH Clark

I don't doubt that at all. Do you think I can find a similar study to support that sugar is the cause of fatty liver disease, heart attack and strokes rather than healthy fats? I can also find one that will support the conclusion that it is neither high fat nor high sugar that is the problem but rather the combination of both at the same time.

The best you can do it to look at as much info as possible from both spectrums and come to your own best conclusions.

I can tell you for a fact as someone who went 2 years consuming very low carbs and no sugar that some of those conclusions you sited are true but only until your body adapts to your new fuel source. That low energy and hunger will go completely away after 3 months of adaptation. Your cell mitochondria actually change to burn fat rather than carbohydrates.

ZHVelo

Why would you not eat sugar? Do you not eat fruits?

What benefits do you gain from consuming almost no carbs?

3 months is highly individual, and also, how long until you were at the same level fitness wise, including intense efforts? Peter Attia said for him it took well over a year in ketogenic state. There are no pros doing it, so from a sport perspective, it is nonsense.

RH Clark

Personally, I did it to lose weight. I lost 170 lbs during those 2 years. There are however many good reasons to quit eating sugar other than weight loss. 3 months is not individual. It has to do with a time frame for cell change. There may or may not be any pros doing it. What a pro does to compete may not necessarily be what is best for long term health, so what pros do isn't a consideration for a 54-year-old man trying to get healthy. Since I lost weight the entire time, it's hard to say anything about performance before or after. For me, it was around a year before I stopped experiencing any low energy times that I couldn't explain as normal. I am 6'2 and went from about 360lbs to 170 lbs in 2 years. The second year I cycled 360 days of the year at somewhere between 100-200 miles a week. At 52 my physical performance -endurance was higher than when I played football in high school.

ZHVelo

That's funny. I did the exact opposite. I eat almost exclusively carbs and I went to under 10% body fat doing that. Of course that only works if you regularly deplete your glycogen stores and fill them back up. Personally, eating far less meat for example has helped my digestion, feel less bloated (not that it was a problem before, but something I definitely noticed, I am far less gassy overall and rarely feel bloated). I still eat it because I love it, but most weekday lunch and dinner plans are without.

But that's my point. Keto people often push it as a magical bullet. But it's not. It is highly individual, and often the benefits are from cutting down processed carbs, but not things like oats, wholewheat, fruits.

Bearhawker

1) There are three types of foods (energy sources): fat, protein & carbs. Insulin response to each: fat, essentially none; protein, very little; carbs, the most significant. Sugar (glucose) is the most biologically accessible carb (carbs being chains of sugars) so the insulin response is the highest/most significant. The chronic spiking of insulin is the cause of T2D... where the insulin receptors get overloaded and no longer have the sensitivity required for the "normal" function. Glucose & fructose are the two primary forms of sugar ("table sugar" is sucrose - a mix of the two). Fructose is processed exclusively by the liver so it doesn't produce the same insulin response which has caused some to believe that it is "safer" - and my well be but it is the number 1 cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The excess fructose processed by the liver becomes visceral fat as opposed to the subcutaneous fat under the skin from other stored energy. Fructose causes the liver to shut down all its other function while it processes fructose - the same way it does for alcohol, and fructose is second only to alcohol in this regard.

Since T2D is 100% voluntary I am doing everything I can to avoid it. This means I generally do not eat any carbs - especially sugars! - and this *generally* includes fruit. I do sometimes eat small amounts of some berries and grapefruit. You cannot get T2D without chronic spiking of insulin and there are many cases where T2D has been reversed (or put into remission which is effectively the same thing) by stopping the consumption of carbs.

2) benefits. Apart from avoiding T2D and all it's related metabolic syndrome issues like coronary & vision issues there is some research showing that the brain has its own sugar/insulin regulatory system and that some forms of dementia and Alzheimers are in fact Diabetes of the brain. This may not be the case but why would I take any chances? I've got senior family members that have died from these issues and MIL that is currently having a bad time with Alzhiemers. No thanks! If I can avoid it long term by changing my diet I will. If not, then the other immediate benefits - for me - are more than worth it.

I'm essentially *never* hungry. To the point of total fatigue I have an endless energy supply as I burn fat as my primary fuel source. I can - and have - gone days without food while doing fairly strenuous activity.

I've never once "bonked" since I stopped eating carbs. That alone is pure awesome. Case in point I've made here before: I rode around the Cabot Trail on an organized ride: everyone else ate a hug breakfast and stuffed their pockets with gels and stuff to make it to the 1st rest stop where they refilled their snack supplies to make it to lunch, and did teh same thing all day long. Me? I rode all three days fasted. I only ate a roughly 1000 calorie supper each night and had a few tea with HWC. It wasn't a race (I'm not a competitive athlete) but I do ride a 50 pound fatbike so that's not exactly easy

I will be riding my fatbike in a local GranFondo later this month. All three days I will be riding fasted - nothing but electrolytes in my water until after the rides. I will only stop at the "nutrition" stops to refill my water bottles.

I liken carbs to cigarettes in some ways... no one ever died from smoking 1. No one knows which one will be the one that causes problems due to chronic exposure. But chronic exposure is almost certainly going to cause problems.

Carbs provide me with absolutely ZERO benefits that I can't get from other sources and come with a substantial and unnecessary health risks so in my own personal experience the benefit/risk assessment is a hard no.

Fun fact - there are NO "essential carbohydrates". None. Not a single one. You can live a normal productive life without consuming a single carb. I do not believe that is the case for either fats or proteins. Can you consume carbs? Absolutely. Do you need to? Absolutely not.

RH Clark

I don't push Keto as an absolute solution either. I too feel that most people would benefit from less meat. I got to my lowest body weight when I went total Vegan for 6 months, but I was hungry all the time and I bonked really hard once about 35 miles into a ride. My philosophy of eating is only whole foods, healthy meats, and intermittent fasting. I feel this is where the greatest benefits are found.

Seattle Forrest

​​​​​​Foul smelling breath.

ZHVelo

Is that a benefit or did you mean no foul smelling breath? Or is it a joke? You lost me.