Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite

Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite artistic gymnasts

http://www.jissn.com/content/9/1/34/abstract

Talk to me after a year or two. Three months s not really long enough to establish much.

The total amount of daily kilojoules was 8254.5 ± 1136. During the WD period the macronutrients were distributed in the following order: 46.8% carbohydrate, 38.5% lipids, 14.7% protein. The Western diet provided a total daily kJ 9520.7 ± 1080.7

Major issue: energy intake.

4.184 kJ per kcal.

8254.5/4.184= 1973 kcal per day during the ketogenic period.

9520.7/4.184 = 2275.5 kcal per day during Western Diet period.

Each was 30 days.

The average fat loss was 4.18 lbs... now watch this.

Caloric difference in raw calories was 302.5 kcal per day. JUST with the caloric difference that's 9075 kcal over 30 days. divided by the 3600-ish calories that fat actually delivers per pound that accounts for 2.52 lbs of the weight loss. That's 60.3% of the total fat loss. Most of the rest is going to come from the thermic effect of food, particularly protein, and the vastly accelerated gluconeogenesis, both of which is recognized in the study itself in the discussion.

Recently we have summarized the factors involved in the fat loss effect of VLCKD diets [12]:

1. Satiety effect of proteins leading to appetite reduction in which also ketone bodies may have a role, although the mechanism is not clear;

2. >Reduction in lipid synthesis and increased lipolysis mechanisms;

3. Reduction in at rest respiratory quotient and therefore an increase in fat metabolism for energy use;

(Nater-note: Much of the fat is used to generate ketone acids. In healthy individuals similar things happen when you become highly aerobically fit, but it's complete fatty acid oxidation and has nothing to do with ketone acids. Also notice the specific mention of AT REST only. That's because you still burn sugar when you work out and RQ goes up as a result.)

4. Increased metabolic expenditure caused by gluconeogenesis and the thermic effect of proteins.

In short, it is a caloric deficit combined with sufficient protein to sustain the muscle mass during reduced calorie diets. Understand that the thermic effect of protein is measured at between 25 and 40%, depending on the amino acid in question.

GNG is very expensive as well, spending 6 ATP for every 2 (in the form of glucose) re-formed. Might be per every 4 recovered, but that's still a 30% loss. Think about that.

It's absolutely true that lipolysis gets accelerated, but it is also incomplete which is where the ketone acids come from, and the process of forming ketone acids also costs energy, just like burning fat or anything else completely does.

The vast majority of the fat loss can be explained, with plenty of support, via the true caloric deficit which is going to be at least 50% larger than the food itself reports and will cover nearly all of the fat loss.

What I found interesting was the maintenance of muscle mass, but that is also somewhat well explained like this:

The gymnasts are chonically under-nourished. Come on:

1973 kcal per day ketogenic? 2275 kcal per day on a more normal diet? The gymnasts averaged 69.6 kilos. That's 153 lbs! You know what the BMR for them is? Lying in bed? 1690 or so kcal. That's lying in bed on their back, fasted for 12 hours, with eyes closed. If they were couch potatoes they'd need 2028 kcal. But they aren't, they are professional gymnasts. Their hourly practice per day is 3-4 hours, and gymnastics practice is known to be a ~5 MET activity. That means that just from practice they'd need 845 kcal in addition to that 2028 that covers being a total couch potato. According to the Harrison Benedict predictions they'd need 2873 kcal and by the more accurate exercise MET hours + sedentary calorie approach they would need the exact same number.

Holy crap batman. That's creepy. I've never seen exact matches like that before, there's usually a ~100 kcal difference.

Anyhow. They are adapted to being under-nourished. They are already getting enough protein. The caloric deficit from both the ketogenic diet food intake itself + the added energy deficit generated by GNG and thermic effect of protein and the slight cost of making ketone acids will essentially cover all of the fat loss. They are clearly, clearly consistently glycogen depleted on a regular basis. There was likely a very small difference in available glucose between the diets because of the constant calorie deficit they are running (which, by the way, is about 32% deficit while ketogenic and 21% deficit during western diet).

That kind of caloric deficit is going to leave you fairly constantly glycogen depleted either way, but the ketogenic diet should leave you a little more depleted. If you notice, despite the muscle gain and weight loss performance was identical. If you gain muscle and lose weight, your performance during bodyweight exercises of all kinds should improve. It did not. That is a problem that is glossed over.

With the 2.8 g/kg per day they were getting, which is the estimated safe limit for dietary protein, they should be able to maintain a slightly positive nitrogen balance and gain some lean mass which they did. It wasn't statistically significant, but it was there. I found the mention of electrolytes being related to protein balance during caloric restriction to be extremely interesting and will read more this weekend on the subject.

The main point I am trying to make here is that there are strong reasons to doubt that the ketogenic nature of the diet had much of anything to do with the fat loss. To demonstrate that it DID make the difference you'd have to compare isocalorically, more or less, with the same amount of protein and limiting fat to 20% of calories while using carbs to fill in the rest.

I don't know if anyone has the money to pull this off, but it would be a really good study.

All in all: Awesome post Mats!

Heh, yeah, I'm poking again, and I know you're probably sick of discussing it, Josh, but here goes

How long do you estimate it would take/what is your experience (if you have any) with people who've been restricting calories for a while (months in a row, on/off for years), to get back to a normal metabolism?

You see, I'm slowly trying to up my intake. Calculators say my BMR is around 1450, but I seem to be actually gaining weight on 1600 calories, spread out throughout the day. Makes no sense to me, so I'm just looking to see if you know how long I should be worried

Bissen said:

Heh, yeah, I'm poking again, and I know you're probably sick of discussing it, Josh, but here goes

How long do you estimate it would take/what is your experience (if you have any) with people who've been restricting calories for a while (months in a row, on/off for years), to get back to a normal metabolism?

You see, I'm slowly trying to up my intake. Calculators say my BMR is around 1450, but I seem to be actually gaining weight on 1600 calories, spread out throughout the day. Makes no sense to me, so I'm just looking to see if you know how long I should be worried

I don't know if that ever happens, but slowly ramping up the calories is the right way to go.

If you are super lean, your BMR will be higher than you think. BMR X 1.2 will tell you what you need for your sedentary hours, which is really a true baseline. I am finding that getting 20-30g of protein per meal, with 30-40% of total calories being carbs and the rest coming from fats is the best thing to do with your baseline calories, and that replacing around 70-80% of your calories burned during exercise with carbs is the best thing to do during that part of the day.

Do you feel like you are gaining fat or muscle?

Super lean, I am not. I am somewhat lean (relatively seen, at least), but not super.

I'm following all (most recent) recommendations you've posted with the ratios you mention. I also tested NutriTiming for a while, to get an idea of how to time things.

What I'm gaining, I'm not quite sure, really. It may be muscle, but I fear it's fat, but I guess it's natural when you're seeking the opposite.

Thanks for your inputs. I'll keep on going on, and see what happens

Bissen judging from your posts here you seem to be extremely neurotic about achieving some godlike shape. I would seriously advice you to make health a priority and try not to stress. If you stress out then get someone who can test your body composition so you're not relying on the scale and mirror daily fearing fat gain.

Well, I guess you got me I am trying to shift focus, but it takes time. Brains are not to F with.

Good observations.

Health should always be the #1 focus for everyone.

Besides, you'd be surprised at the typical female opinion of what % bf is sexiest. All of my girlfriends that I can remember preferred me at 10-11% versus 7%, as measured by calipers. I'm currently around 10% again due to extreme lack of effort towards applied nutrition from finals week in spring semester all the way through, well, today

Girlfriend vastly prefers me as i am now versus February. Strange, but true. It is good to not buy into the media's photo-shopped, profit-oriented ideal image of men and women.

I've been married for going on thirteen years now. My wife has seen me at 205 for strongman and now at 140ish. One low über stressed out 130's period which was really bad. All those changes and more of the middle is really her preference. 10-12 percent. Weight about 150-160. I was 6% for a bit and she hated that the most of anything. Our perspective gets shifted by the media as Josh said.

Learn to be happy with yourself.

Thanks for your support. I'm hanging in there; it's a slow process, but going pretty steady.

I will mention though, that all I've been asking about has given me a feeling of safety, leading to much improved (believe it or not) mentality regarding nutrition (and mood, social life etc.) I have learned a whole lot, surfing these boards!

That's great to hear! GB is about a lot more than just gymnastics.

Nic Branson said:

I've been married for going on thirteen years now. My wife has seen me at 205 for strongman and now at 140ish. One low über stressed out 130's period which was really bad. All those changes and more of the middle is really her preference. 10-12 percent. Weight about 150-160. I was 6% for a bit and she hated that the most of anything. Our perspective gets shifted by the media as Josh said.

Learn to be happy with yourself.

LOL... this got me wondering what you would think if your wife went through 40% BW variations in the span of a few years

I lost the first 40lbs in under 3 months. I was not even trying to.