Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Study shows that Fat Based Diet Reduces Endurance 50 percent! page

  1. #1
    macroniche's Avatar
    macroniche is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27

    Study shows that Fat Based Diet Reduces Endurance 50 percent!

    Primal Fuel
    Hi, I searched for the link regarding this site and nothing came up so I thought I would post it. If it's already been discussed please show me where. If it hasn't then it's an excellent article to debate IMHO.

    I'm not really sure how to go about this: Should I just post the link or copy and paste the website?. I'll just post the link --- High-Fat Diet Reduces Endurance

    I was hoping, Mark that you and others could start Tommy gunning this study. (i.e. fill it with holes ) Quick note: the studies was done on those "not furry humans").

    David

  2. #2
    Mike Gager's Avatar
    Mike Gager is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Posts
    1,067
    well besides the fact they dont mention what kind of fat the rats were eating, 9 days is not enough time for the body to fully adapt to a "fat burning machine"

    its likely if they would have given the study another 9 days the article would be about the magical gains to be found in a high fat diet

  3. #3
    bryanccfshr's Avatar
    bryanccfshr is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Durango, Colorado
    Posts
    285
    them rats had the carb flu.
    And as Mark would say. Rats are not people!

  4. #4
    jsa23's Avatar
    jsa23 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Gager View Post
    well besides the fact they dont mention what kind of fat the rats were eating, 9 days is not enough time for the body to fully adapt to a "fat burning machine"

    its likely if they would have given the study another 9 days the article would be about the magical gains to be found in a high fat diet
    It's likely that the high-fat diet simply isn't as good for a pure endurance athlete when compared to a higher-carbohydrate diet.

    That said, a 50% reduction would mean you hit the wall somewhere around mile 8-12 instead of 16-23. Most people don't do strenuous exercise for an extended enough period for this to become an issue. Unless you're training for a marathon you should be fine(even training for a half you may be OK). Those that do have an issue, can eat a few more sweet potatoes, or other clean carbohydrates.

    As a side note, my n=1 experience is that I PR'ed a 5k back in September, after focusing on strength over endurance, and eating a higher-fat/lower-carb diet for most of the previous couple months. At 5-10k distances, you're not depleting your glycogen stores enough for this to be much of an issue.

    Also, the usual cautionary statements apply about how things that apply to rats may not work quite the same way in humans.
    Last edited by jsa23; 10-25-2011 at 07:21 PM.

  5. #5
    Dr. Bork Bork's Avatar
    Dr. Bork Bork is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Orem, UT
    Posts
    4,813
    Funny... I've noticed an IMPROVEMENT in my running endurance
    --Trish (Bork)
    TROPICAL TRADITIONS REFERRAL # 7625207
    http://pregnantdiabetic.blogspot.com
    FOOD PORN BLOG! http://theprimaljunkfoodie.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    macroniche's Avatar
    macroniche is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Gager View Post
    its likely if they would have given the study another 9 days the article would be about the magical gains to be found in a high fat diet
    i'd love to believe that. any studies that support what you are saying, that after around 18 days is when the rats body starts to be able to burn fat more efficiently? if it's well know for example that fat is "unlocked" more efficiently as an energy source at X days, why would the researchers not allow for this time? i'm not implying that you should know of course. i'm new to the forum so i'm not sure how detailed these chats go or if there are scientist in the forum but it does says "Primal research" so i thought it would be important study to look into. Has this study or others like it been discussed already and i'm late to the party?

  7. #7
    macroniche's Avatar
    macroniche is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    Carb flu means they had to acclimate to burning fat more efficiently? The obvious response is that rats aren't people, sure? But what good is that as far as disproving that fat hinders endurance? I guess where's the study on humans that counters this study? Not trying to be hard on you just trying to arm myself with as much information as possible. Dr. Bork Bork's improved performance is a good start I think.

  8. #8
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    I do think that there is such thing as too little carbohydrate for endurance, but I think the "fat-adaptation" point is valid in this context. There is a neat review of ketogenic diets for physical performance here Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Ketogenic diets and physical performance The first experiment listed doesn't really suit our needs but the second one looks pretty good. Indeed, fat-adaptation appears to be a real phenomenon.

    There might be such thing as too little carbohydrate for athletes long-term, though. It can elevate serum cortisol levels. But I don't think that fat is the bad guy here.
    Last edited by Stabby; 10-25-2011 at 09:30 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  9. #9
    Uncephalized's Avatar
    Uncephalized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,883
    1) Rats are not furry little people.

    2) They did not do a long-term study. 9 days is not anywhere near long enough to study long-term effects of diet. It's pretty much a joke actually.

    3) Rats are not furry little people.

    When they do this in humans, using whole foods (not lab chow, which is usually made of horrifying ingredients), and test for a period of several months, I will give a damn about what the study says. Until then, it's really not relevant. Not saying the conclusion is necessarily false, just that it can't be drawn with any confidence from this kind of crappy study.
    Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

    My Primal Journal

  10. #10
    macroniche's Avatar
    macroniche is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    27
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncephalized View Post
    When they do this in humans, using whole foods (not lab chow, which is usually made of horrifying ingredients), and test for a period of several months, I will give a damn about what the study says. Until then, it's really not relevant. Not saying the conclusion is necessarily false, just that it can't be drawn with any confidence from this kind of crappy study.
    I appreciate that people are taking the time to post to this however I guess I wasn't really asking about people opinions of how much they cared about the study so much as trying to disprove the conclusion with imperial data. As I posted this clearly to be disproved it can be assumed that the validity is questionable. I was hoping for more than catch phrases. The above quote implies that they have not done this in humans then. Strange. I find that difficult to believe. I'll need to research this some more since no one has sighted anything concrete other than to say that rats are not the same thing as humans about four separate times. Oddly enough in the same breath they say the rats need more time to adjust to diet- like humans - implying that in fact that metabolize similar to humans. Just looking for some studies that would validate the idea that this study is bunk.
    Last edited by macroniche; 10-26-2011 at 08:08 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •