Originally Posted by
GhostRider62
The second study was a review of all published literature with the conclusion that the results are conflicting. It was titled, "A review of the ketogenic diet for endurance athletes: performance enhancer or placebo effect?"<snip>.
Oh wow, terribly sorry. I got confused - my review was of the first link which had an unequivocal finding that LC was better. Here's the money quote:
(HC) group (n=11, %carbohydrate: protein: fat=65:14:20), or a LCKD group (n=9, 6:17:77)
That's what I'm calling BS on. What made me look into it was that the HC riders lost power and were slower on a TT after 12 weeks of hard training. That's not going to happen unless there's a serious screwup in the methodology. Note that the LC riders had 3% more protein in their diet, meaning that the LC group ingested about 20g more protein per day. They all would have gotten faster and more powerful if they'd had enough protein. The question is still there: what would have happened if both groups had had 25% protein calories in their diets?
One can quickly see why the second link has this summary:
When compared to a high carbohydrate diet, there are mixed findings for the effect of EAKD consumption on VO2 max and other performance outcomes.
My comments must have seemed totally weird. You sir, are an exceptional rider!