Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Ketogenic Athlete Study page 5

  1. #41
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Primal Fuel
    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

  2. #42
    iniQuity's Avatar
    iniQuity is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern NJ
    Posts
    5,683
    Quote 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.

  3. #43
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    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 at 11:59 AM.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  4. #44
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    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

  5. #45
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    4,045
    Quote 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…

  6. #46
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Someone pointed out above that the athletes' food intake was self-reported, which makes the data extremely unreliable.
    “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

  7. #47
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    So, you would think that all the athletes participating in a study, focusing on food intake had a real crappy food recording skill, while an average Joe and Jane does so much better & that explains the discrepancy in the results, not the flawed calculations?

    My feeling is that we a) don't burn nearly as much as the calculators say and b) don't need as much food as the calculators say.

    or human beings are incapable of recording food and the whole comparisons are then completely pointless?
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  8. #48
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Leida View Post
    So, you would think that all the athletes participating in a study, focusing on food intake had a real crappy food recording skill, while an average Joe and Jane does so much better & that explains the discrepancy in the results, not the flawed calculations?

    My feeling is that we a) don't burn nearly as much as the calculators say and b) don't need as much food as the calculators say.

    or human beings are incapable of recording food and the whole comparisons are then completely pointless?
    Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable in any study of food intake. People tend to underreport and report eating more "healthy" choices when they know someone is going to look at their food log (and often the reporting is based on recall rather than meticulous tracking, which is even more unreliable). I doubt athletes are particularly better at this than other people on average.

    I think calculators tend to overestimate the impact of exercise on caloric needs, and there's good research that bears this out. Exercise isn't a good way to lose weight. It's a good way to shift body composition, but it doesn't do a lot to make people thinner on average.

    I also think calculators are bad at measuring an individual's BMR because there's a lot of variation from person to person. Someone who's lost a lot of weight, for example, may need to eat significantly less food to maintain their weight than a person who is that same weight and has never been much fatter. A person with a metabolic condition might need to eat more or less than another person the same size with a normal metabolism. The calculator is an approximation based on a formula and may or may not be accurate for a given person.

    But the fact that YOU cannot get to 15% body fat without severe restriction does not mean that the Average Jane with a healthy metabolism needs to severely restrict calories or become fat--she might not get as lean as you're trying to be, but she can sustain a healthy body weight without having to starve herself.
    “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

  9. #49
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,783
    I was specifically talking about the 'last 10 lbs' group that seem to be a recipient of the "eat more because you exercise so much!" advice.

    For the record, I right now I would be happy just to stop gaining the f'ing weight, 15% be doomed.
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  10. #50
    MarissaLinnea's Avatar
    MarissaLinnea is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    770
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I don't necessarily think the calculators are wrong, but that people are using the wrong multiplier for their activity level. Just like folks tend to underestimate calories, they probably overestimate their daily activity, thinking they do more than they actually do.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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