Ketogenic Athlete Study page 3

[Neckhammer]

AND..., I am not an expert by all means, but a quick glance on the paper tell me that there is also an energy difference between those two diets, converted from Joule to Kcal, on the ketonic diet KJ 8254.5 ± 1136 versus kJ 9520.7 ± 1080.71 on the WD! That gives around 302 calories lower per day for the Ketogenic diet = 9060 kcal in the 30 days that the study lasted. And guess what? 9060 calories is close to 3 lb. of bodyfat! So, that may explain the 3 lb. fat loss from the ketonic diet, very impressive study...

Actually as I said, what is impressive is 1.) ad libum eating RESULTED in a net reduced caloric intake on keto ...2.) Even in this "glycogen depleted" state they did not lose strength in what is considered a fairly glycolytic activity 3.) 3lb almost ALL fat loss.

As to the gluconeogenesis thing....I'm not arguing. The science is there. As I said it could be another mechanism, such as oxidizing the protein for fuel. Or could be keto stix suck. Or any other number of things.

I actually think Marks thing about too much protein comes to too much insulin....at extremes of course.

Oh, but I do agree that the researchers should have defined "ketosis" better. Obviously they were working from a ketogenic diet sort of definition rather than a well lab monitored one. Maybe they should have just called this a "low carb study" and left it at that since they didn't seem to measure.

And, no this is not all directed toward Gorbag's comment, but I kinda jumbled it all in here.

[Gorbag]

Not disagreeing there, but if the goal was to measure the effects of ketosis on overall strength of the athletes,

OK, but "strength" is not a problem on a Ketonic diet anyway, the real problem with ketosis is concerning anaerobic endurance work, so a gymnast or a olympic diver should not be too affected by that…

[Drumroll]

OK, but "strength" is not a problem on a Ketonic diet anyway, the real problem with ketosis is concerning anaerobic endurance work, so a gymnast or a olympic diver should not be too affected by that…

Indeed, I would think that too. But if it were such a commonly held opinion, then there wouldn't have been much need for a study like this now would there? People would have just assumed the results.

[Gorbag]

Actually as I said, what is impressive is 1.) ad libum eating RESULTED in a net reduced caloric intake on keto ...2.) Even in this "glycogen depleted" state they did not lose strength in what is considered a fairly glycolytic activity 3.) 3lb almost ALL fat loss.

Yes, Ketonic diets bluts hunger and we eat less, that's why we like them so much! But isn't gymnastic activies mostly ATP driven? Very short intence energy bursts should not be affected by glycogen depletion anyway...

[Neckhammer]

Yes, Ketonic diets bluts hunger and we eat less, that's why we like them so much! But isn't gymnastic activies mostly ATP driven? Very short intence energy bursts should not be affected by glycogen depletion anyway...

Well, my understanding is that many keto athletes perform as such because they are in endurance sports so they want to maximize their fat oxidation pathways (the low and slow ones). The question has always been about the shorter length activities or even up to like 5k distances. These are far more dependent on the glycolytic pathways.

Here Discovery Health "Exercise and the Phosphagen System".

So if the glycolytic pathway is measured in the 1-3 minute zone, I would say that quite nicely fits some of the gymnastic type routines and should be the sort of thing that suffers the most from glycogen depletion.

Of course you gotta look at the actual things they tested rather than the fact they are gymnast. But parallel dips and such are all up that alley I think.

[Gorbag]

Of course you gotta look at the actual things they tested rather than the fact they are gymnast. But parallel dips and such are all up that alley I think.

Exactly, but the problems is not about doing a isolated max set of dips when glycogen is depleted and perform well and thereafter plenty of time to recuperate before testing let's say pushup, or whatever. But try to do a higher number of work sets or intervals with short rest between the sets and see what happens! You need much more rest between the sets to recuperate and the workload goes down as well, and you feel very miserable by yourself, lack of breath. I have my own experience fresh in mind from friday, when I got very glycogen depleted in the gym. But yes, to a certain degree it should be possible to train those pathways to perform somehow better when glycogen depleted...

[iniQuity]

If you guys read the whole study (it's actually not very long) some of your questions are answered there. I read it this morning, this is what I remember:

- Athletes trained an average of 30 hours per week.
- two of the male gymnasts are part of Italy's national team, so you're talking high level athletes, used to VERY high volume and training intensity. Ie: not your average person, or even your average crossfiter/etc.
- Their training regimen was to stay identical, despite the strength testing.
- some athletes reported lack of energy and inability to complete training in the first week, after that all were fine (none of them ever said they were BETTER either)
- I'd have to read again, but it doesn't look like they were actually tested to see if they were in fact IN ketosis, as has been mentioned in this thread. That is a HUGE fail to me if it was overlooked, considering the athletes were self-reporting their food intake and who knows if their Italian asses were able to stay away from carbs. You want to trust that they did, but again, doesn't look like they had to do anything to prove they were in ketosis.
- Again, since food was self-reported, the protein issue is kind of null and void, we just don't know how much protein these athletes were actually consuming. Though it is safe to say they were eating quite a bit to support their activities. I have to imagine even with decreased appetite they were cramming food in.

My two cents: I know athletes on both ends of the spectrum that both perform very well on their chosen disciplines, so I don't think either a VLC or HC diet is superior for performance. Though, I should say that the VLC crowd DOES employ a single-day carb re-feed (to clarify, I'm talking about Ido Portal [find him on youtube] and those that train under him) so I can't readily say if he or they are permanently in ketosis. On the other end, but doing similar things (gymnastics style strength training) are dudes in the Ukraine and Russia that eat a higher carb/lower protein diet. They all stay at single-digit body fat and are ridiculously strong despite how they eat.

That leads me to believe that strength is much more correlated to how hard you train, how adapted you are to this training and how smart you go about it. It explains why the there are such strong vegan athletes (not talking marathoners here...) despite their supposed lower protein intake.

Personally, I'm trying to dabble in low carb eating again mostly because it's very effective at curbing my appetite so it makes eating less calories a lot easier. I would still do a once weekly carb-up though, but I'm attempting to go two-three weeks VLC which I'm not exactly looking forward too, I know i'm going to get some sort of carb-flu.

[JonnyH]

Good discussion, I've read Volek and Phinney's books, and have tried the VLC approach, and find it hard to sustain as I lose too much weight. I'm already skinny, but eating VLC, even when I have lots of fats, I tend to lose more weight!

What's the opinion on fat burning when your eating say 75-150g carbs a day?

V & P say that generally when your over 50g carbs a day you'll not be in ketosis, and would be better off eating more carbs(150g or more) as you'll not be getting enough glucose for the brain if your not producing ketones to fuel the brain.
From what I've read on this site, there seems to be lots who eat 50-150g carbs a day, so according to V & P, they aren't optimal.

I guess my question really is this, if your not in ketosis, but eating say 100g carbs a day, are you still primarily burning fat?

Any thougths on this?

[iniQuity]

I guess my question really is this, if your not in ketosis, but eating say 100g carbs a day, are you still primarily burning fat?

If you're in a calorie deficit I would say so, doesn't sound like there'd be a lot of glucose to be burned instead.

[pklopp]

So what would be a good way for the average PB'er to maintain their electrolytes while on a ketogenic diet--I'd never given that any thought.

Potassium Citrate.

Potassium citrate is a potassium salt of citric acid with the molecular formula C6H5K3O7. It is a white, slightly hygroscopic crystalline powder. It is odorless with a saline taste ... Potassium citrate is rapidly absorbed when given by mouth and is excreted in the urine.

So, it basically tastes salty, and it's difficult to overdose on it because it is readily excreted when in excess. As a food additive it is considered an acidity regulator. Medicinally, it is prescribed for folks with kidney stones and it seems to help with polycystic kidney disease.

If you have problems with ulcers, you might want to avoid it as it is slightly caustic. In that case, you may try potassium bicarbonate, which is basic, but also gives of C02, which is why it's used in baking, but expect to be gassy and burp a lot.

Alternatively, drink a lot of club soda. Potasium bicarbonate is added to it to blunt the carbonic acid used in the carbonation process.

-PK