On Fat Adaptation, Resistance Training and Paleo Dieting

I know these subjects have been beaten to death, but I am puzzled on some specifics about fat adaptation and resistance training and fat adaptation in a paleo perspective.

Research on energy systems seems to support carbs (and preferably glucose which starch is a good source of) as the favored energy for resistance training or anything requiring big enough power output (which relies on the anaerobic systems).

Yet, there are some claims by practical experience from extremely respected people suggesting that one can in fact perform equally well with fat, with added health benefits.

So which is it?

Could it just be that research didn't find out the real efficiency of fat because carbohydrates are now ubiquitous and measurements were never performed on really fat adapted subjects because there are simply none in our modern society?

I happen to agree with the paleo-diet fundamentals (we should eat what we evolved to eat and we didn't evolve to eat what has been available for only 10,000 years or so).

But does paleo imply fat adaptation? Or are vegetables and fruits enough too prevent it to the point it could be as efficient as carbs?

And do we really now about available starch 20,000 years ago? We didn't evolve since agriculure appeared, but we certainly evolved with fire as we weren't even the same specy when it was discovered (homo erectus). So technically our pre sapiens ancestors could have evolved with cooked tumbers; meaning potatoes could be paleo-OK.

Is that a sensible hypothesis or am I completly off track?

A lot of those research studies were done on subjects that had not fully adapted yet. Some also were done on sports where carbs would probably be a better fuel source but even then, they didn't use the principals we know now about supercompensation. (Train low carb and then before the competition load up so you have two full fuel tanks).

In terms of performance, Robb Wolf wrote something about how it is hard to imagine performing your best if your body is suffering. If becoming fat adapted is going to fix issues with your body then it could increase performance. (Lowering your bodyfat by ten percent would increase most peoples performance).

It is hard to find a good study on it. But I will give my personal experience (for what it's worth). I am fat adapted and I tend to train about 6 to 7 hours a day. Never have felt or looked better in my life.

Paleo doesn't automatically imply fat adaptation. You could definitely eat enough bananas to stay out of it. (I have seen it happen)

Hope that helped

Thank you for your answer.

Would you say that the usual mantra "carbs for high intensity and fats for low intensity" is oversimplified?

I would be inclined to agree somewhat. A lot of this is individual and as I tell everyone, I am the posterboy for carb intolerance. I lower my carbs and up my fat and perform better on just about everything. My short sprint times went down. I am faster without the bodyfat. But I doubt I would perform well past 100m. Of course, we could always just do the supercompensation thing and have carbs for when we need them on race day.

I would be interested to see how long-term fat adaptation impacts 200-400m race times. Your body is going to make glycogen out of just about anything you give it except free fatty acids, and if you consider that your liver can only hold around 100g of glycogen and same with the muscles, and then take into account that even an unadapted body is capable of making 100-120g of glycogen per day out of non-carb sources (glycerol or proteins or lactate or ketone bodies) then it should stand to reason that as long as you have the protein intake you will be plenty capable of anaerobic performances. Short stuff like 100m won't matter because that's almost entirely powered by the creatine phosphate system. No need for much glycolysis.

Fat is absolutely the preferred fuel for aerobic activities, there is no question about that, but it takes a LONG time to go into true aerobic-dominant metabolism. For the first 30 minutes of anything you slowly shift from around 90% anaerobic to around 50%. It takes at least 30 minutes to shift fully into aerobic dominance, so you still use quite a bit of non-fat energy sources in maximal performances.

Just so you know, there is at least one study that shows that after 6 weeks of fat adaptation the exact same level of exertion required less energy than when the subject(s) was/were eating a primarily carb-based diet. Performance DID suffer for the first 4 weeks but by the 6th week was above baseline AND consumed less energy. This was not an expected outcome.

When I hit six weeks of fat adaptation I will celebrate by running a couple 400s and then telling you how I feel.

Paleo doesn't necessarily imply fat as the dominant source of energy. It does imply fat as an important source of your diet though. I eat mostly paleo now (although I still use a decent bit of dairy since I dont have problems with it. Same with white rice) and eat mostly a balanced diet. I get plenty of fats in, almost certainly more than carbs, but I don't shy away carbs like starchy veggies and fruits especially around workout time.

I think low carb is great, especially for fat loss, but I just like the variety a more balanced diet affords me, since I get bored really easily.

I believe that mantra is over simplified though, since I ran my best mile and mile and half times while eating zero carbs.

I would also assume that since fat has been preached as evil for so long, and carbs and everything, that most studies are geared towards that. I know it isn't the case in every one, but certainly in the majority.

slizzardman said:

Your body is going to make glycogen out of just about anything you give it except free fatty acids, and if you consider that your liver can only hold around 100g of glycogen and same with the muscles, and then take into account that even an unadapted body is capable of making 100-120g of glycogen per day out of non-carb sources (glycerol or proteins or lactate or ketone bodies) then it should stand to reason that as long as you have the protein intake you will be plenty capable of anaerobic performances.

[...]

Just so you know, there is at least one study that shows that after 6 weeks of fat adaptation the exact same level of exertion required less energy than when the subject(s) was/were eating a primarily carb-based diet. Performance DID suffer for the first 4 weeks but by the 6th week was above baseline AND consumed less energy. This was not an expected outcome

THAT's the interesting stuff.

It is common belief among lifters and bodybuilders (other forums) that if you don't eat your carbs to reload you won't be able to do more than walking a quiet pace.

The real question is, from an evolutionary point of view, is neoglucogenesis just an emergency system or has it been the "normal" way to get your glucose for thousands of years before the neolithic revolution?

Nick_EOD said:

I still use a decent bit of dairy since I dont have problems with it. Same with white rice

I don't challenge this in particular.

But, as an intellectual process, one should be cautious about the "I don't have problem with" argument. I've heard it about smoking.

Thanks for your answers.

If you want to think from an evolutionary perspective, then consider how many carbs would be available in the winter or in an enviroment where vegetation isn't so common. (Alaska perhaps?) There are essential fats, amino acids, but not essential carbs.

A lot of people aren't able to make it past the first few weeks that Slizzardman mentioned. For some people these weeks suck more than others.