Keto adaptation

Nigel said:

Hi Prometheus

 

It's not about looks or weight. I'm already pretty skinny/light (60kg @ 174cm) and around 6-8% bf. It's about being able to better utilise fat over carbs and avoid the bloated feeling from overeating, and also be able to run further. I think there's an ultra-runner in me trying to get out.

Just skimming through the above. But you will better utilize fat when you are more highly endurance trained as well regardless of diet.

Nigel said:

The only difference I noticed was that I was super thirsty, and went through 800ml of water. Usually I wouldn't have had more than a cup of coffee and a sip of water.

 

Increased protein catobolism would lead to an increased need for water, and thirst. Glucose is still going to be required for higher output activities, as well as used for brain function, and without carbs to rely on a higher percentage of that will come from protein eaten or worn!

~Atticus said:

Nigel, first off, hats off to you. I suspect your 2nd place finish is probably due to your nutrition.

 

I personally follow a high fat, moderate carb (but with almost zero refined wheat, minimal sugar, and mostly safe starches, reminiscent of the "Perfect Health Diet" of the Jaminets) and moderate protein diet. 

 

I subscribe to the Phinney/Volek approach of nutritional ketosis, and have come to the realization that carbs are needed to fuel the brain primarily, though not as much as most people say.  And I believe that "slow-release" starches taken in not more than 40% of daily caloric intake should not preclude the body from staying in a keto-adapted state.

 

Have not tested myself to see whether or not I'm keto adapted, but I've been following this diet for about 2 years now, and I feel as good as I've ever felt, and thank the heavens for having discovered Phinney and Volek's work.

You cannot be in a ketogenic state if you are taking in that much carbohydrate. And guess what: that's a good thing, you don't want to be ketogenic.

I don't know how many ways this has to be stated: Ketosis is an emergency system. It only takes a few grams (20-30) of carbs to bump you out of it, and it takes extreme restriction to stay in ketosis.

I hate to say this, but reading Phinney and Volek's blog articles just confirmed my suspicion that they are a nasty mix of good and bad. The article on the distance runner, in particular, shows a fundamental bias and complete lack of familiarity regarding the body of research studying distance runners and carbohydrate intake. 

They somehow make the overarching conclusion that getting 60% of your calories from carbs is bad, and justify this by vilifying refined carbs and sugars in the second-to-last sentence. You aren't going to get an argument from me if you say that getting 60% of your calories from refined carbs and sugars is a bad idea. At this point, I think we all know that much. However, this is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION than saying high carb is bad! This is classic marketing, complete with fancy credentials and logical flaws in argument presentation, with the right amount of persuasive language mixed in at the right points.

Read for yourself. http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/you-are-not-what-you-eat/

It is a startling mix of misdirection and good, solid facts. If anyone is unable to see this, I want to suggest that this is a very excellent place to start a discussion that will help us all learn how to recognize faulty logic and an attempt to sell a product using valid science to draw invalid conclusions.

I am not suggesting that these guys are idiots, or bad scientists. I am suggesting that they are salesmen. You should always be wary of salesmen.

What we will all see over time, and it's happening right now, is basically what I've been suggesting to our members for years: All flavors of nutrition are going to start converging on the fact that we simply need to be eating more vegetables, and getting a decent variety of veggies throughout the week. They are also going to start recognizing that we really do need a pretty good amount of carbohydrate, but that there is a substantial difference between eating Barilla pasta and eating a slow-cooked root vegetable stew (for example) even when both contain similar levels of carbohydrate and starch.

You're already seeing this happen in the Paleo and Primal spheres.

From personal experience, I tried a keto diet for roughly 3-4 months... It was miserable. I was eating roughly 22-2800 calories depending on work days, training, and hobbies. My break downs were always the same though, 25-30g carbs, 120-140g protein, and the rest from fats. I thought this diet would help me get through those rough areas I felt like I still needed to lose to get into the 7-9% range. Instead I ended up gaining a great deal of weight. I went from 160-194lbs during that time frame, and lost a great deal of muscle mass in the process.

Just my 2cents

Joshua Naterman said:

You cannot be in a ketogenic state if you are taking in that much carbohydrate. And guess what: that's a good thing, you don't want to be ketogenic.

 

I don't know how many ways this has to be stated: Ketosis is an emergency system. It only takes a few grams (20-30) of carbs to bump you out of it, and it takes extreme restriction to stay in ketosis.

 

I hate to say this, but reading Phinney and Volek's blog articles just confirmed my suspicion that they are a nasty mix of good and bad. The article on the distance runner, in particular, shows a fundamental bias and complete lack of familiarity regarding the body of research studying distance runners and carbohydrate intake. 

 

They somehow make the overarching conclusion that getting 60% of your calories from carbs is bad, and justify this by vilifying refined carbs and sugars in the second-to-last sentence. You aren't going to get an argument from me if you say that getting 60% of your calories from refined carbs and sugars is a bad idea. At this point, I think we all know that much. However, this is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION than saying high carb is bad! This is classic marketing, complete with fancy credentials and logical flaws in argument presentation, with the right amount of persuasive language mixed in at the right points.

 

Read for yourself. http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/you-are-not-what-you-eat/

 

It is a startling mix of misdirection and good, solid facts. If anyone is unable to see this, I want to suggest that this is a very excellent place to start a discussion that will help us all learn how to recognize faulty logic and an attempt to sell a product using valid science to draw invalid conclusions.

 

I am not suggesting that these guys are idiots, or bad scientists. I am suggesting that they are salesmen. You should always be wary of salesmen.

I have both of their books, art of science of low carb and the athletes version, and I agree. They typically use standard American diet of higher sugar, fructose, and other refined carbohydrates to dictate their 60% carbs.