Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Keto and cycling

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Keto and cycling

Old 01-26-22, 05:38 AM
  #101  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 2,207
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1303 Post(s)
Liked 1,120 Times in 684 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
That last link - you find what you're looking for. Pretty sure both groups were protein-starved with the HC worse off.

Let's say the the average athlete in the study weighed 150 lbs. We're told about body weight changes, but nothing about calories consumed, I'll guess 2500/day for a 150 lb. average rider. Using the published percentages, 4 kCal/g for carbs and protein and 9 kCal/g for fat, I get 70g of protein per day. Thus I calculate grams per pound of bodyweight = .47. Most nutritionists use .83 g/lb for mostly sedentary and up to 2.3 g/lb for hard-training athletes. I'll make a conservative estimate for protein requirements of 1 g/lb. of bodyweight. Balancing that out, I get a calorie breakdown of 64:24:12, which is my approximate breakdown. I weigh about 150 these days and consume about 150g of protein/day. I've seen 65:25:10 in the literature.

So basically the study is BS, which is really common with LC studies. They assume no one will look at the details.

Were the study true every serious rider would eat LC. In fact, none of them do except for short periods during training, and most don't even do that. It's like the guy who rode the TdF vegan one year and his performance didn't match what he did when he'd eaten with the team. What works right now is the best we know, right now. They cram the carbs down.

That took enough time, didn't look at the first link.
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?"


I have often read on forums that Keto will kill FTP and FRC. I am not sure but don't think so. What you wrote isn't convincing to me, either and frankly is ridiculous. It was a review of existing studies. So, you think all of the participants in all of the studies lacked protein? And, therefore the review is BS. I've done LCHF/keto diet for about 18 months and it was the best shape and overall fitness for me. So, I have that bias.

There is a lot of uninformed opinion such as the belief that if you are a LCHF or Keto type rider that you have no glycogen. Nothing is further from the truth. Glycogen can be converted from lipids, protein, and pyruvate and that is part of the adaptation. The FASTER study provided it.

I believe elite athletes like TdF racers ride so many miles that their mitochondrial and enzymes make them extremely adapted to burning fat whereas most weekend warriors drinking the Gatorade research marketing koolaid suck down sweets before rides, during rides and then there is the recovery drink leading to horrible insulin sensitivity and excessive weight. I also believe most keto athletes mistakenly believe that they cannot consume any or many carbs. The amount of carbs I used to eat and when I at them varied based upon my exercise level. For instance, when doing a very long ride, my hourly carb consumption (25-35 grams) exceeded the total daily amount most keto folks would eat, the key is not getting out of ketosis. I had a very good meter and read my levels from blood samples, so, I know that that amount during rides did not knock me out of ketosis. OTOH, I never ate on short rides (200K and shorter). I have no way of proving it but I have the belief that a higher level of fat utilization results in a much more muted fatigue curve after around 12 hours pm the bike, I have researched it and think I understand why but it is too much to think about. I also believe sugar burners do not eat enough protein during long rides and if we are going to use surmised protein consumption as a disqualifier of studies, then pretty much all athletic studies will be ****canned because most do not address intake.

Even though the first study showed a clear performance benefit to LCHF, I'll stick to the conclusion of the review.

Conclusion: Limited and heterogeneous findings prohibit definitive conclusions regarding efficacy of the EAKD for performance benefit. When compared to a high carbohydrate diet, there are mixed findings for the effect of EAKD consumption on VO2 max and other performance outcomes. More randomized trials are needed to better understand the potentially nuanced effects of EAKD consumption on endurance performance
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 01-26-22, 10:47 AM
  #102  
RH Clark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Liked 228 Times in 117 Posts
My personal experience is that if you are a cyclist who needs to get rid of body fat then Keto while cycling is a good weight loss strategy. Your endurance will depend on a lot of factors. How fast your body can draw energy from it's own fat depends on a lot of factors.

If you are a cyclist who doesn't need to get rid of fat, there is no real reason to get into a state of ketosis. There are some studies that suggest enhanced performance during some states of ketosis. It is theorized that it is a survival mechanism from our ancestors that can enhance a starving human hunter for a short period of time enabling them to retain energy and focus enough to hunt down and kill wild game. I would only speculate that to enter that perfect state for a specific time would be so difficult as to make it nearly impossible to utilize for most humans to any degree of advantage.
RH Clark is offline  
Old 01-26-22, 11:23 AM
  #103  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 18,276

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3299 Post(s)
Liked 1,240 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62 View Post
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!
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 01-26-22, 06:12 PM
  #104  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 3,232
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1524 Post(s)
Liked 1,636 Times in 1,041 Posts
Originally Posted by RH Clark View Post

If you are a cyclist who doesn't need to get rid of fat, there is no real reason to get into a state of ketosis.
This^
Which is why pros and weekend warriors like me ram down the carbs as and when required to perform. But I know it's not that simple for everyone.
I can see the attraction of keto for weight loss, but not as a performance enhancer for cycling.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 04-05-22, 11:59 AM
  #105  
greatbasin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times in 12 Posts
There seems to be a few different viewpoints here. Some people see ketosis as:
  • a means to weight loss, which would necessarily be employed for a short-term and ended once the weight loss goal was achieved.
  • a diet fad.
  • a loser with respect to obtaining maximum athletic performance. Presumably, performance is their goal.
  • an alternative lifestyle that results in both immediate and long-term health benefits.

There's evidence to support all of these different views. Since they don't necessarily conflict with one another, they could all be true.

Personally, I don't have a weight loss goal. I'm about 50 years old, 5'8", 135 lbs with no health issues. I've been at this weight since I matured from a boy and so I've never dieted or sought a fad solution to a problem I didn't have. Especially at my age, I'm not looking for competitive athletic performance. I saw the recent thread on "Nutrition for Performance vs Long Term Health," and I'm definitely in the category of preferring "overall" health over short-term performance. I'm not just interested in "long-term" health. I don't even know how long I'll have. I am interested in my health right now as well as the longer term. Maybe that's implied in the term "long term," but I think it's important to focus on health here and now and not just performance.

I've not been unconcerned with performance. When I was younger, I raced road-racing motorcycles, and for a long time I've engaged in endurance activities like backpacking, trekking, and mountaineering. Racing taught me that a man will be competitive in his mind even when he can't be in his body. He'll spend his money and do things to try to improve his performance even though a podium will still be out of his reach, much more a win. It's not wrong to circle the track as an "also ran," but it's stupid to incur the same costs as the winner when you get paid nothing for losing.

Endurance taught me what happens when I use more energy than I can carry, consume and digest in carbohydrates. The body switches from glucose metabolism to ketosis. Ketosis is not a fad diet. It's been there all along from the very beginning.

When I wasn't starving somewhere high in the mountains, I was bothered by the swings in blood sugar levels that come from eating "normal" foods -- you know, burgers, fries, and soft drinks. Most of us learned when we were kids what happens when you consume mass quantities of sugar. It was plain to me that to get off the trampoline of sugar highs and lows I had to eat foods with a lower glycemic index. I had cut out the soft drinks because that stuff made me feel awful, but I also cut out juice and caffeine. I chose complex carbs like whole oats, muesli, protein and fat from meats, nuts and olive or avocado oil low in saturated fat. I also continued to eat lots of vegetables. I liked this better than consuming those really high sugar foods. Since I already had low weight and no sign of disease, it's hard to quantify the result, but I can say my LDL/HDL ratio improved from 4:1 to 2.5:1. The doc was stunned that I could make a 37% improvement. Notably, I did this without changing my activity level. It was all a result of changing what I ate.

I had no interest in weight loss or fad diets, but I became more interested in fat versus complex carbs as an energy source. I was interested in ketosis as a metabolic process versus gluconeogenesis. I'd been in ketosis before when fasting or doing endurance activities but I wanted to try staying in ketosis longer. I found that it works well for me, probably better than the best gluconeogenesis I was able to practice.

In the process, I became increasingly aware of just how insidious sugar is in our culture. It's disturbing to consider how sugar and carbs (food pyramid) have been promoted because they're economically cheap to produce in mass quantities, addictive, and profitable. The classic dilemma in economics is guns vs butter, but in the case of the US, it's been more like guns & grain. Central planning has promoted cheap carbs to allow greater investment in the military/industrial/tech complex. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. It's just basic economics. The result is the US has maintained security, the highest GDP, and leads the world in technology, but its people have suffered drastically increased obesity and major rises in metabolic diseases.
greatbasin is offline  
Likes For greatbasin:
Old 04-06-22, 03:16 AM
  #106  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 130 Posts
Anyone who believes restricting carbohydrates is in any way a suitable diet for endurance athletics is bonkers.

If your gut bacteria are such that you do not tolerate certain carbs well (processed ones for example) then I can see why keto will help, as it will obviously restrict these carbs that harm you and thus you will feel better. But I dare say you can still eat other forms of carbs and get that effect. But that's something different. And we are still only learning about the impact of gut bacteria on diet and health.

On the other hand what we certainly know is how energy is created in our cells. And you won't be able to output significant energy over significant duration if you run out of sugars.
ZHVelo is offline  
Old 04-06-22, 03:27 AM
  #107  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by greatbasin View Post
There seems to be a few different viewpoints here. Some people see ketosis as:
  • a means to weight loss, which would necessarily be employed for a short-term and ended once the weight loss goal was achieved.
  • a diet fad.
  • a loser with respect to obtaining maximum athletic performance. Presumably, performance is their goal.
  • an alternative lifestyle that results in both immediate and long-term health benefits.

There's evidence to support all of these different views. Since they don't necessarily conflict with one another, they could all be true.

Personally, I don't have a weight loss goal. I'm about 50 years old, 5'8", 135 lbs with no health issues. I've been at this weight since I matured from a boy and so I've never dieted or sought a fad solution to a problem I didn't have. Especially at my age, I'm not looking for competitive athletic performance. I saw the recent thread on "Nutrition for Performance vs Long Term Health," and I'm definitely in the category of preferring "overall" health over short-term performance. I'm not just interested in "long-term" health. I don't even know how long I'll have. I am interested in my health right now as well as the longer term. Maybe that's implied in the term "long term," but I think it's important to focus on health here and now and not just performance.

I've not been unconcerned with performance. When I was younger, I raced road-racing motorcycles, and for a long time I've engaged in endurance activities like backpacking, trekking, and mountaineering. Racing taught me that a man will be competitive in his mind even when he can't be in his body. He'll spend his money and do things to try to improve his performance even though a podium will still be out of his reach, much more a win. It's not wrong to circle the track as an "also ran," but it's stupid to incur the same costs as the winner when you get paid nothing for losing.

Endurance taught me what happens when I use more energy than I can carry, consume and digest in carbohydrates. The body switches from glucose metabolism to ketosis. Ketosis is not a fad diet. It's been there all along from the very beginning.

When I wasn't starving somewhere high in the mountains, I was bothered by the swings in blood sugar levels that come from eating "normal" foods -- you know, burgers, fries, and soft drinks. Most of us learned when we were kids what happens when you consume mass quantities of sugar. It was plain to me that to get off the trampoline of sugar highs and lows I had to eat foods with a lower glycemic index. I had cut out the soft drinks because that stuff made me feel awful, but I also cut out juice and caffeine. I chose complex carbs like whole oats, muesli, protein and fat from meats, nuts and olive or avocado oil low in saturated fat. I also continued to eat lots of vegetables. I liked this better than consuming those really high sugar foods. Since I already had low weight and no sign of disease, it's hard to quantify the result, but I can say my LDL/HDL ratio improved from 4:1 to 2.5:1. The doc was stunned that I could make a 37% improvement. Notably, I did this without changing my activity level. It was all a result of changing what I ate.

I had no interest in weight loss or fad diets, but I became more interested in fat versus complex carbs as an energy source. I was interested in ketosis as a metabolic process versus gluconeogenesis. I'd been in ketosis before when fasting or doing endurance activities but I wanted to try staying in ketosis longer. I found that it works well for me, probably better than the best gluconeogenesis I was able to practice.

In the process, I became increasingly aware of just how insidious sugar is in our culture. It's disturbing to consider how sugar and carbs (food pyramid) have been promoted because they're economically cheap to produce in mass quantities, addictive, and profitable. The classic dilemma in economics is guns vs butter, but in the case of the US, it's been more like guns & grain. Central planning has promoted cheap carbs to allow greater investment in the military/industrial/tech complex. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory. It's just basic economics. The result is the US has maintained security, the highest GDP, and leads the world in technology, but its people have suffered drastically increased obesity and major rises in metabolic diseases.
This is entirely biased falsehoods, stemming from your need to find a conspiracy theory. Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, don't exercise and binge on junk food. Food that doesn't just have carbs but also copious amounts of fat and just too much calories in general.

Take all the pacific islands, when fast food was introduced to them they suddenly became some of the most obese countries on earth.

I mean by your logic, Japan couldn't be one of the healthiest countries on earth with very long life expectancies as they eat so much white rice, so much evil, bad, even processed carbs.
ZHVelo is offline  
Likes For ZHVelo:
Old 04-06-22, 08:01 AM
  #108  
fooferdoggie 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 1,516
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked 510 Times in 309 Posts
Originally Posted by ZHVelo View Post
Anyone who believes restricting carbohydrates is in any way a suitable diet for endurance athletics is bonkers.

If your gut bacteria are such that you do not tolerate certain carbs well (processed ones for example) then I can see why keto will help, as it will obviously restrict these carbs that harm you and thus you will feel better. But I dare say you can still eat other forms of carbs and get that effect. But that's something different. And we are still only learning about the impact of gut bacteria on diet and health.

On the other hand what we certainly know is how energy is created in our cells. And you won't be able to output significant energy over significant duration if you run out of sugars.
yes I can't eat carbs of any type as they really cause a lot of health issues. now that I control them well and ride a lot my energy levels have risen. but at best I could average 200 watts on my 8 mile commute. but it has dropped and now I do 135 on a decent day. I have more ride endurance then anything else. I can do 220 miles a week every week if my wife can ride the tandem. if the calorie calculation is ride I tend to burn 250 calories or more per 10 miles. I can climb 1 to to block hills at 400 or so watts. it sucks but its what it is and I have gotten it down. But I dont think my body uses fat for fuel much either and that may be causing issues. it seems protein is my main energy source. I am never in ketosis even if I have eaten less then 10 grams of carbs a day (mostly from some nuts and fiber)
fooferdoggie is offline  
Likes For fooferdoggie:
Old 04-06-22, 10:49 AM
  #109  
greatbasin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by ZHVelo View Post
This is entirely biased falsehoods, stemming from your need to find a conspiracy theory. Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, don't exercise and binge on junk food. Food that doesn't just have carbs but also copious amounts of fat and just too much calories in general.

Take all the pacific islands, when fast food was introduced to them they suddenly became some of the most obese countries on earth.

I mean by your logic, Japan couldn't be one of the healthiest countries on earth with very long life expectancies as they eat so much white rice, so much evil, bad, even processed carbs.
I'm supposing you're taking issue with only my last paragraph. I'm not sure why I would have a "need to find a conspiracy theory." If Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, that would be in agreement that as a culture and economy the US chose technology over health. People choose to spend more on their expensive and high-tech cars, and less on their health at the drive-thru.

If you're so determined to dismiss the obscene prevalence of cheap carbs and sugar in US culture, just try going fat-fueled for one week, just seven days. Try it just as an experiment. It won't take believing a conspiracy theory or converting to a new religion or anything -- just forsaking the carbs totally for a week to increase your awareness of them and experience an alternative. If you decide to switch to a high starch and sugar diet afterward, at least you can say you were open-minded about it.

There's this guy that ate low-sugar and he did the opposite: tried eating a sugary diet as an experiment and made a film documentary about it. He's Australian and one of the things he addresses is the affect on aboriginal peoples that is similar to what you describe for the Pacific Islanders. It's not pro-keto propaganda if you're worried about that. I don't think he mentions keto ever in the film. Be curious and check it out. It's hilarious if nothing else. Free if you have Prime

https://www.amazon.com/That-Sugar-Fi...s%2C138&sr=8-1

Here's the link for YT, same film:

Last edited by greatbasin; 04-06-22 at 11:02 AM.
greatbasin is offline  
Old 04-07-22, 02:06 AM
  #110  
ZHVelo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 130 Posts
Originally Posted by greatbasin View Post
I'm supposing you're taking issue with only my last paragraph. I'm not sure why I would have a "need to find a conspiracy theory." If Americans are fat because they drive everywhere, that would be in agreement that as a culture and economy the US chose technology over health. People choose to spend more on their expensive and high-tech cars, and less on their health at the drive-thru.

If you're so determined to dismiss the obscene prevalence of cheap carbs and sugar in US culture, just try going fat-fueled for one week, just seven days. Try it just as an experiment. It won't take believing a conspiracy theory or converting to a new religion or anything -- just forsaking the carbs totally for a week to increase your awareness of them and experience an alternative. If you decide to switch to a high starch and sugar diet afterward, at least you can say you were open-minded about it.

There's this guy that ate low-sugar and he did the opposite: tried eating a sugary diet as an experiment and made a film documentary about it. He's Australian and one of the things he addresses is the affect on aboriginal peoples that is similar to what you describe for the Pacific Islanders. It's not pro-keto propaganda if you're worried about that. I don't think he mentions keto ever in the film. Be curious and check it out. It's hilarious if nothing else. Free if you have Prime

https://www.amazon.com/That-Sugar-Fi...s%2C138&sr=8-1

Here's the link for YT, same film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhwlyop7fKs
I didn't dismiss the prevalence of cheap carbs and sugars - I pointed out that you are the one dismissing the prevalence of fats. Fast food that I mentioned contains both carbs and fats. In copious amounts.

The only reason why a fat-only diet can work is because it satiates longer. Every diet that works is a diet that in the end restricts caloric intake. Zero issue with carbs if you do not overeat.

And as I mentioned, we are only now starting to learn the absolutely crucial role that gut bacteria play and that every individual has a unique flora. Which is why that video is entirely pointless as the results are dependent on that man's gut flora. Personally I can tell you I feel great on a carb heavy diet.
ZHVelo is offline  
Likes For ZHVelo:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.