Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ketogenic Athlete Study

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    You know what's scary? They did hard-core training for 30 hours a week, they were presumably males, so they ate a tiny amount of calories compared to the 'normal' estimators, and they barely lost 3 lbs in a month (or was it 15 days?)

    Here goes to everyone who recommends the smaller pretty much sedentary (compared to 30 hours a week!!!) females that they need to eat MORE! to lose weight, and go 'omg, 1200 or 1300 is NOT ENOUGH! look at the calculator!) I mean, calculator return that many calories for someone who does an hour or so exercise a day at far less intensity.

    What follows is that the amount of calories we have to eat is much lower, not higher....
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

    Comment


    • #32
      Or, you could just mix a few table spoons of lemon juice in water and drink it. Another way to get some potassium.

      Comment


      • #33
        Sorry folks, but I haven't read through the entire thread, although I did download the paper and will have at it later.

        I've done ketogenic diets, I've peed on test strips, even did blood tests for ketones, since the test strips only measure aceto acetate, not beta hydroxy butyrate which is the predominant ketone produced by the body.

        Now, can someone please explain to me why I would seek to be in ketosis? I'm not particularly interested in hearing about the physiology of glucose vs. fat metabolism. I'm also not interested in hearing satiety arguments, because that implies that satiety is somehow predicated on ketosis, which it is clearly not.

        I'm more interested in knowing why or whether we would expect different results from nominally isocaloric diets where one was non-ketogenic, while the other was. I would also allow for ketotic adaptation to have occurred for the ketogenic diet.

        I'll kick things off with one pro of this diet : if I were a hyper-competitive athlete, the water weight that I would shed might be an advantage, unless my sport required mass ( e.g. football lineman ), assuming, of course, that muscular performance would be unaffected, as the study seems to suggest.

        -PK
        My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

        Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

        Comment


        • #34
          I read this last night. This guy had some really interesting results athletically after being in a ketonic state:

          My Personal Nutrition Journey « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Leida View Post
            You know what's scary? They did hard-core training for 30 hours a week, they were presumably males, so they ate a tiny amount of calories compared to the 'normal' estimators, and they barely lost 3 lbs in a month (or was it 15 days?)

            Here goes to everyone who recommends the smaller pretty much sedentary (compared to 30 hours a week!!!) females that they need to eat MORE! to lose weight, and go 'omg, 1200 or 1300 is NOT ENOUGH! look at the calculator!) I mean, calculator return that many calories for someone who does an hour or so exercise a day at far less intensity.

            What follows is that the amount of calories we have to eat is much lower, not higher....
            Yes these already lean elite athletes lost only 3 lbs of almost pure fat without lean tissue loss and without consciously restricting calories. I think thats pretty damn good actually.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Leida View Post
              You know what's scary? They did hard-core training for 30 hours a week, they were presumably males, so they ate a tiny amount of calories compared to the 'normal' estimators, and they barely lost 3 lbs in a month (or was it 15 days?)
              He,he, more than 4 hours intense training 7 days of week on a 2000 kcal diet and only 3 lbs lost in a month??? Something seem to be absurd in that study...
              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

              - Schopenhauer

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                He,he, more than 4 hours intense training 7 days of week on a 2000 kcal diet and only 3 lbs lost in a month??? Something seem to be absurd in that study...
                If you look closely, they ate 300kcal per day less for 30 days and lost 3lbs. So 9000kcal reduction resulted in 3lbs loss...whodathunkit?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MarissaLinnea View Post
                  I read this last night. This guy had some really interesting results athletically after being in a ketonic state:

                  My Personal Nutrition Journey « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
                  He did, but he engaged in predominantly oxidative metabolism activities ... i.e. he flexed his mitochondria hard. Mitochondria prefer to metabolize fatty acids hands down because the energy yield is several times that of glucose. So this is hardly a surprise. Because he was in ketosis and reliant upon FFA oxidation not glycolysis, I would also expect that his lactate production would decrease overall, as lactate is produced from excess pyruvate accumulation, pyruvate being the end product of glycolysis. So, nothing to see here, metabolism 101.

                  What would surprise me is if he were to engage in predominantly glycolytic activities and were to experience no degradation in performance. This would require activities that called upon fast twitch muscle fibers, which are predominantly glycolytic and white in color because they lack myoglobin, the muscular oxygen transporter. They lack myoglobin precisely because they are independent of oxygen for their function.

                  If you're in the wild and need to leap across a chasm to save your life, it should matter very little if you're sucking wind or not, because you simply cannot wait around to catch your breath while the predator that intends to make a nice snack of you bears down upon you. With that said, if he were an Olympic weightlifter, a highly explosive sport if ever there was one, and his performance were to be equivalent while in ketosis to his non-ketotic self, then you could truly colour me impressed!

                  -PK
                  My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                  Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    If you look closely, they ate 300kcal per day less for 30 days and lost 3lbs. So 9000kcal reduction resulted in 3lbs loss...whodathunkit?
                    But I still find it absurd that elite gymnasts that train hard for more than 4 hours per day, 7 days a week, (!) are doing this on more and less 2000 kcal/day, and still only loses 3 lbs in 30 days? Maybe they were Dwarf athletes then...

                    "The percentage distribution of total daily energy macronutrients was 54.8% fat, 40.7% protein and 4.5% carbohydrates. The total amount of daily kilojoules was 8254.5 ± 1136. During the WD period the macronutrients were distributed in the following order: 46.8% carbohydrate, 38.5% lipids, 14.7% protein. The Western diet provided a total daily kJ 9520.7 ± 1080.71."
                    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                    - Schopenhauer

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      They are gymnasts, so presumably they are smaller males to start with, and already very lean (we are talking under 10%). Still that experience closely mimics what a lot of females experienced trying to 'lose the last 10 lbs'. While most of us do not have the luxury of training 4 hours a day, and we will likely keel over and die at the peak intensities like that by day 4, the common-place advice of 'eat more' is incorrect in the view of this study. Basically, you gotta starve creating huge caloric deficits to lose weight when you are lean. OR the caloric estimators need to slim down and stop spitting out the numbers in the 1800-2000 cals range for an average Jane who works out 5-7 days a week.
                      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                      When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Or you need to take into account the reality that a lot of Average Janes have either unrealistic expectations or have messed up their metabolisms through extended caloric restriction/yoyo diets (or both!).

                        If you want to force the body well below what we've evolved as a healthy percentage of body fat, of course you're going to encounter resistance. That's only going to get harder as one ages and will additionally be impaired by the ongoing abuse of the body that many women undertake over the course of their lives. The reality is that the average female human body doesn't like being pushed much below 18-20% fat and will resist efforts to go beyond that, and likely for many women only extreme (and largely unhealthy) measures will get them there. Of course there are some women who seem to naturally sit lower on the body fat scale, but they're rare.

                        Even if you're done with having kids and you think you shouldn't need fertility any more, your body is evolved to hold onto that capacity as long as possible, and arguing with it is likely to leave you on the losing end (either by an absolute inability to reach the fat levels you think you should have or a concurrent loss of health as you use extreme measures to get there).
                        “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                        Owly's Journal

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                          Sorry folks, but I haven't read through the entire thread, although I did download the paper and will have at it later.

                          I've done ketogenic diets, I've peed on test strips, even did blood tests for ketones, since the test strips only measure aceto acetate, not beta hydroxy butyrate which is the predominant ketone produced by the body.

                          Now, can someone please explain to me why I would seek to be in ketosis? I'm not particularly interested in hearing about the physiology of glucose vs. fat metabolism. I'm also not interested in hearing satiety arguments, because that implies that satiety is somehow predicated on ketosis, which it is clearly not.

                          I'm more interested in knowing why or whether we would expect different results from nominally isocaloric diets where one was non-ketogenic, while the other was. I would also allow for ketotic adaptation to have occurred for the ketogenic diet.

                          I'll kick things off with one pro of this diet : if I were a hyper-competitive athlete, the water weight that I would shed might be an advantage, unless my sport required mass ( e.g. football lineman ), assuming, of course, that muscular performance would be unaffected, as the study seems to suggest.

                          -PK
                          I don't think such an argument can be made anymore, the metabolic advantage seems to have been debunked (for healthy individuals, at least - it does seem to hold true for people that are healing from SAD diets, etc) while CICO still holds true. I also did my fair share of ketogenic dieting, and now I'm probably in/out of it or "flirting" with it from time to time. Just because I don't eat a lot of carbs, but enough to keep me out of it. I eat the carbs primarily for taste, but I feel good eating them for their supposed benefits to athletic performance.

                          On the other hand, if I didn't care for starches, I'd be happy to know that a ketogenic lifestyle isn't going to hinder that performance. To each their own in the end.
                          I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The reality is that the average female human body doesn't like being pushed much below 18-20% fat and will resist efforts to go beyond that, and likely for many women only extreme (and largely unhealthy) measures will get them there.
                            Yes, but forgetting the whole 'healthy or not?' arbitrary stuff, those measures are not increasing calories, as some often quoted article suggests & the "OMG, you are working out! You are so totally undereating!" posts, it is decreasing the calories. And, yes, decreasing them below the 'calculated' values, that are ultra-conservative. If the people in this experiment strive on 30+ hour a week routines on that low calories AND on minimal carbs, an average person certainly does not need that much, and will gain weight on that kind of caloric intake.
                            Last edited by Leida; 11-20-2012, 12:59 PM.
                            My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                            When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I call bullshit. I don't exercise 30+ hours per week (more like 5-7) and comfortably eat 2000+ calories per day without gaining fat.
                              “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                              Owly's Journal

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Leida View Post
                                Yes, but forgetting the whole 'healthy or not?' arbitrary stuff, those measures are not increasing calories, as some often quoted article suggests & the "OMG, you are working out! You are so totally undereating!" posts, it is decreasing the calories. And, yes, decreasing them below the 'calculated' values, that are ultra-conservative. If the people in this experiment strive on 30+ hour a week routines on that low calories AND on minimal carbs, an average person certainly does not need that much, and will gain weight on that kind of caloric intake.
                                Maybe because something is seriously flawed in that study, did you consider that a possibility? Elite athletes, even lightweight males, working out 30 hours per week should lose far more weight than only 3lbs, on a 2000 kcal diet, that’s for sure! I guess none of those, if they really exercised as reported, would have a daily expenditure below 3500 kcal per day, so then the deficit should be around 1500 kcal per day which gives a weight loss of minimum 12.8 lbs. in 30 days, probably much more…
                                "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                                - Schopenhauer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X