Tebow is on this diet.
Why do you hate football, baseball and Christians?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Why do you hate football, baseball and Christians?
How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Ketogenic Diet. Not Good For Athletes [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Ketogenic Diet. Not Good For Athletes [robgray]
[ In reply to ]
robgray wrote:
First of all, let me say I'm a huge proponent of eating carbs for optimal performance, but I do have a decent amount of practical experience with KD. This study has a few areas where I would have done things very differently: "Compliance with the dietary regimen was monitored by measuring urinary ketones daily"
1. I would have thought that for a scientific study, they wouldn't choose the least reliable measurement method. Urine is least accurate. Blood and breath are significantly more accurate.
2. " limit their carbohydrate intake to a maximum of 20–40 g/day "
That's way too low for an athlete. There is an optimal range for athletes - under 4 mmol blood measurement of ketones. Which usually would be 150g per day. With my own testing, I could maintain 3-4 mmol levels on intake upwards of 200g per day.
If I were designing a test to fail, I would design it exactly like theirs. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Volek's faster study is also ridiculously flawed.
But at the end of the day, I agree, if you want to go fast, eat enough carbs!
interesting and I want to contribute with my sport nutritionist suggestion: on low carb days, she told me to never go below 2gr of carbs per kg of body weight.
I weigh 65kg so i never go below 130gr of carbs
does it make sense to you?
Re: Ketogenic Diet. Not Good For Athletes [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Rappstar wrote:
More data in the "eat more carbs" camp. https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/...86/s12986-017-0175-5 This is a relatively subjective study, as far as these things go, and I wouldn't say it's particularly revolutionary. But it does seem to be yet another data point in the increasingly obvious array of data that just doesn't back up KD for athletes.
6-weeks might not be enough for your body to fully switch, it's like 8-weeks HIT training... do you expect to win ironman after that?
Systemic changes are always longer than 6 weeks, nice study but doesn't really proof anything.
Re: Ketogenic Diet. Not Good For Athletes [Plissken74]
[ In reply to ]
Plissken74 wrote:
robgray wrote:
First of all, let me say I'm a huge proponent of eating carbs for optimal performance, but I do have a decent amount of practical experience with KD. This study has a few areas where I would have done things very differently: "Compliance with the dietary regimen was monitored by measuring urinary ketones daily"
1. I would have thought that for a scientific study, they wouldn't choose the least reliable measurement method. Urine is least accurate. Blood and breath are significantly more accurate.
2. " limit their carbohydrate intake to a maximum of 20–40 g/day "
That's way too low for an athlete. There is an optimal range for athletes - under 4 mmol blood measurement of ketones. Which usually would be 150g per day. With my own testing, I could maintain 3-4 mmol levels on intake upwards of 200g per day.
If I were designing a test to fail, I would design it exactly like theirs. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Volek's faster study is also ridiculously flawed.
But at the end of the day, I agree, if you want to go fast, eat enough carbs!
interesting and I want to contribute with my sport nutritionist suggestion: on low carb days, she told me to never go below 2gr of carbs per kg of body weight.
I weigh 65kg so i never go below 130gr of carbs
does it make sense to you?
Yes - I think for an athlete that sounds reasonable. For women maybe even 20% more to ensure regular hormonal function.
____________________________________
Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |
Re: Ketogenic Diet. Not Good For Athletes [Ai_1]
[ In reply to ]
I guess what some of my points were trying to get at is that we are trying to discuss a very complex subject, human nutrition and performance. It seems that we are all putting the original research study into many different contexts and arguing from different angles. Some are talking about obesity, some are talking about general health, some are talking ketosis and some are talking low carb. EACH is a highly complex problem. In order to break it down and make the problem a bit less complex (but still very complex) maybe the context should be discussed relating to triathlon performance in yourself. Also, information must have a hierarchy of "believeability". You simply cannot give all bits of information equal weight, that means that it all matters when that is not true. My personal hierarchy puts experienced opinions above unexperienced opinions most of the time. Your hierarchy sounds like it is different than mine and that is fine if it works for you. Who is more likely to have better information if you have a question (say) about Zwift?: Someone that has read the Zwift manual only, or someone who has read the manual and spent 10 hours riding on Zwift?
Of course personal experience is biased and anecdotal. As long as that is acknowledged and you know the shortcomings from thinking about your own experience and how you COULD be mislead, biased and anecdotal evidence is what you want for YOURSELF. This is not science. Science is generalized information. This is personal experimentation and observation which is SUPPOSED to take into account who you are, biases, idiosyncrasies and all. Afterall, if we are arguing the context above (triathlon performance in YOURSELF) then that is all that matters.
Yes, you are just arguing words and ideas if there is no experience behind them. I think you are taking this a bit too literal because of course we are using words to communicate on this forum. My point is that words have less meaning (to me) when they are just stemming from uninformed opinion.
Of course personal experience is biased and anecdotal. As long as that is acknowledged and you know the shortcomings from thinking about your own experience and how you COULD be mislead, biased and anecdotal evidence is what you want for YOURSELF. This is not science. Science is generalized information. This is personal experimentation and observation which is SUPPOSED to take into account who you are, biases, idiosyncrasies and all. Afterall, if we are arguing the context above (triathlon performance in YOURSELF) then that is all that matters.
Yes, you are just arguing words and ideas if there is no experience behind them. I think you are taking this a bit too literal because of course we are using words to communicate on this forum. My point is that words have less meaning (to me) when they are just stemming from uninformed opinion.
Last edited by:
Russ Brandt: Feb 28, 17 7:51
Russ Brandt wrote:
I guess what some of my points were trying to get at is that we are trying to discuss a very complex subject, human nutrition and performance. It seems that we are all putting the original research study into many different contexts and arguing from different angles. Some are talking about obesity, some are talking about general health, some are talking ketosis and some are talking low carb. EACH is a highly complex problem. In order to break it down and make the problem a bit less complex (but still very complex) maybe the context should be discussed relating to triathlon performance in yourself. Also, information must have a hierarchy of "believeability". You simply cannot give all bits of information equal weight, that means that it all matters when that is not true. My personal hierarchy puts experienced opinions above unexperienced opinions most of the time. Your hierarchy sounds like it is different than mine and that is fine if it works for you. Who is more likely to have better information if you have a question (say) about Zwift?: Someone that has read the Zwift manual only, or someone who has read the manual and spent 10 hours riding on Zwift? Of course personal experience is biased and anecdotal. As long as that is acknowledged and you know the shortcomings from thinking about your own experience and how you COULD be mislead, biased and anecdotal evidence is what you want for YOURSELF. This is not science. Science is generalized information. This is personal experimentation and observation which is SUPPOSED to take into account who you are, biases, idiosyncrasies and all. Afterall, if we are arguing the context above (triathlon performance in YOURSELF) then that is all that matters.
Yes, you are just arguing words and ideas if there is no experience behind them. I think you are taking this a bit too literal because of course we are using words to communicate on this forum. My point is that words have less meaning (to me) when they are just stemming from uninformed opinion.
I don't consider your Zwift analogy applicable. It's a simple, easily understood, man-made, rule based system with no real variability most elements of which can be easily quantified. Quite the opposite to what we're talking about here I would say.
I also disagree with you about the relevance of biased and/or anecdotal evidence but some of this may come down to what's meant by those terms. Small and uncontrolled data sets or biased interpretation of the resulting information is NOT what you want for YOURSELF. Or at least it shouldn't be unless you wish to deceive yourself. I don't think that's exactly what you are suggesting though. I think you mean you are only interested in how things effect you, not someone else? However, by using a single subject on a topic with so many different variables and outputs with significant psychological and subjective aspects, I'd argue it's very difficult to be sure the information you gather really means what you think it means.
I don't quite know what you mean by "This is not science. Science is generalized information."
I think that's a misunderstanding of the use of statistics in scientific testing.
Anyway, this ancillary discussion could continue ad infinitum to no benefit, so probably best to leave it at that!