No there aren't. There's a small small percentage of athletes doing keto. It's not the norm because professional trainers know better. Cyclists drink Coke during races. Michael Phelps lived in McDonald's and pancakes at the olympics. Just lol at keto rationale.

the required amount of carbohydrates to sustain human life is 0.

Nobody needs them.

Some people may prefer them for cheap calories.

fatasses don't need cheap calories

Which is kind of hard to do, if "cooking" involves reaching into your freezer and throwing a ready-made meal into your microwave. Most of that crap is doghit nutritionally, and I have a really strong feeling we collectively do that waaaaaaay more than we used to. And the fact that they add sugar to everything under the sun (including stuff that really doesn't need it) probably doesn't help either. I feel like that's a relatively recent phenomenon, too. But maybe not. 

I'm not sure you could even line 10 Americans up and get them to agree on what "balanced" even means. But I'm sure they'd intuitively suggest that sucking down 32oz sodas and eating a bunch of processed/prepared sugar laden food ain't it. 

Question - do you think we collectively cook less than we used to, and that maybe that's the problem? When I was a kid, TV dinners tasted like dogshit. We almost never ate them - mom and dad cooked from scratch most of the time. And I don't think any health nerds would say it was particularly "healthy", but it was pretty pedestrian fare nonetheless. Eggs and toast for breakfast with a little orange juice, ham sandwich and an apple for lunch, and dinner was often a cheap roast of some sort with potatoes and carrots. Once in a while (couple times a month?) mom would heat up a jar of spaghetti sauce and boil some noodles. Not really "cooking" and probably not the healthiest thing in the world, but whatever. 

I honestly don't remember things like microwave burritos, chicken nuggets, frozen pizzas, or all the other stuff you find in a modern frozen food section of the grocery store (seriously, the selection nowadays is astonishing). I feel like it wasn't until the 90's that manufacturers figured out a way to make that stuff taste halfway decent. Soda was something we had at birthday parties. We never had any on hand at the house. When we had cereal, it was Shredded Wheat, Cheerios or Corn Flakes. Mom wouldn't buy the "kid" cereal. For the most part, if we wanted dinner, we had to actually prepare and cook it. We were also borderline poor (definitely lower middle class) until I was a teenager, so it was way cheaper to buy raw food (nothing exotic) and cook it yourself. Mom and Dad could make ground beef do almost anything.

Even going to McDonalds or (if we were super lucky) a Pizza Hut was kind of a rare treat. It seems to me that you almost can't help but eat a pretty sensible, balanced diet if your default mode is to actually cook. 

Looking back, it was kind of carb heavy to someone like a keto/atkins/paleo/whatever dieter, but it seems like it was probably lower carb and a bit higher fat (as a percentage of total calories) than what's somehow become normal today. That's my take on it, anyway. Thoughts? 

Correct, don't need them for survival. Doesn't mean it's optimal.

http://trainright.com/should-endurance-athletes-go-keto-ketosis-ketogenic-diets-for-endurance-athletes/


"Exogenous ketones may have promise as an additional fuel source for endurance athletes, but dietary ketosis has limitations that make it difficult to recommend to most athletes. Athletes are better served by periodizing carbohydrate availability in order to maximize training quality and performance outcomes."

go ahead and regurgitate the same shit with out adding anything that helps anyone.

You might just learn some things if you had an open mind and looked in to it a bit.

Yes they do make you hungry, but for God's sake, nothing is 100 percent for everyone.

Lots of people have had that weird craving to eat more, just an hour after stuffing himself on Chinese food slathered in sugary sauces.  He's loosening his belt while going through the DQ drive thru on the way home.

That's what we are talking about.  If that doesn't happen to you, then you are fortunately blessed with a very healthy metabolism, which makes you an outlier today.

 and no they don't.  Antike infiltrates plenty I guess.

For a guy obsessed with studies, I'd think you'd know about keto adapted athletes.  In fact I know you do since you read the big keto thread.

I've been "looking in to shit for years." And minored in nutrition just for fun. Yea a minor whatever but the pros laugh at keto. It's answering a problem that doesn't exist. It was created in the 1930's for people that have epilepsy. Think about that...

Nutritionists only recommend keto for people with certain health issues and the morbidly obese.

Nutritionists trained on 1980's science.  Back to the Future!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are they driving DeLoreans?

depends on the carbs and/or fructose...


you can get fructose from an apple.

the thing with getting it from an apple is the fiber slows the absorption of the fructose.

fiber also slows down the absorption of carbs.

The Science of the Keto Adapted Athlete

it was not created in the 30s, yes that was the first times it was studied formally to treat something.

The "pros" are still basing a lot of their info off of the same flawed studies that led to our fucked up dietary guidelines that made everyone fat.

Funny that it's recommended for the morbidly obese as that's mostly who we are directing to use it.

If you aint fat do whatever works for you. If you are fat and nothing has worked it's certainly worth trying and there has been widespread success for a lot of people.

I just did.

I started on a 2000 calorie max (usually undershoot by 300-400) about a month ago. I've focused on veggies, protein, and dietary fiber. I've dropped 7 lbs in the last month, and my leather belt now has two new holes in it. I'm down almost 15 lbs for the summer. Pants are loose, and my energy level is decent. I work out twice a week and don't eat any extra on those days. Two eggs with a tiny bit of cheese for breakfast, a salad (sometimes with a bit of meat) for lunch, natural peanut butter (no bread) or veggies for snacks, and whatever the wife makes for dinner. Also cut the blended coffee drinks, now I go straight for a black cold brew.

Started the summer at 235. Been serious about the diet for 4.5 weeks. Weighed in at 220 even this morning. BP at the doctor's office last week was 108/63, compared to 135/88 two months ago. Goal is a lean (for me) 205-210.

Is that a bad sign or something?

Theoretically, Would a 300lb person running a marathon burn the same calories as a 135lb Kenyan?

The answer is no. One is forced to work harder to get to the same ends as the other.

I bet 175 calories of white bread have HFCS in it which keeps that ghrelin/leptin signal from reaching the brain....so the brain wants to keep eating.

I am betting that with that bread intake (and maybe a subsequent spike in blood glucose levels) that hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL) isn't released....which tells your body to free up stored fat (triglycerides).

I'll be nice.  

My very simple question is where is a link that says running a mile burns off 100 calories.

Because I have read elsewhere that walking a mile is also 100 calories.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=iBa7WaOHNKTTjwSfoYagBA&q=how+many+calories+does+walking+a+mile+burn&oq=how+many+calories+does+walking+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.1.0l5.272993.289702.0.291470.46.40.0.22.22.0.612.9156.0j16j19j3j1j1.40.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..14.32.2776.3..41j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i3k1.6mNFxtAlJwY

Wait so there is more to it than just the number of calories in the food?

I also wonder how different the tests we use to determine how many calories are in food are from the human digestive tract.

I am a big fan of cooking it your self from scratch. That way you know what goes in it. I know what I have to do to lose weight. You take it for a ride
and make sure you cross some water then open your door and push out the pounds. Wait that is what you do to get rid of a girlfriend or wife. Never mind.

Which would be a cyclical ketogenic diet...exactly what nearly every keto source suggests for anyone who isn't cutting after the adaptation phase.

The fact that you think you did reveals your depth of understanding.

Which variable accounts for insulin?  Ghrelin?

Replace the white bread with the same caloric content of Coke.  Or a piece of organic chocolate cake.  

It doesn't matter-- the healthiest bread or coke or sugary dessert will spike insulin, the olive oil won't.  That will change everything about the outcome.

So true.

The *quality* of energy is just....different. Carbs give you explosive power and frankly just more "go."

About 8 months ago I did a test of carbed up vs basically no carbs for over 24 hours. I never post this because it's not scientific.

I was timing myself carbed up vs no carb doing static holds. Sounds easy, I promise you it isn't. I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread can hold these movements for 1 second, so don't think this is easy.

Anyway, I timed a front lever and an L sit, just to compare. On both the front lever and L sit when I was carbed up I could static hold almost twice as long. On the L sit in particular it was 7 seconds no carb and 13 seconds carbed. Consistently. Front lever was just about the same.

I got to do this more than a few times just because my natural diet and the way I eat means I'm no carb *some* of the time each week.


All that to say, it was consistent and I can most certainly tell a difference in energy availability and most of all energy quality when I'm eating carbs. That alone is the reason I can never give up carbs. I need them too much. Do I believe there are athletes doing keto? Sure. I also believe they'd benefit from eating carbs. Sure it can be done, but I'd bet money it isn't optimal and they'd perform better if they are carbs.

So you went without carbs for an entire 24 HOURS??????? OMG

Of course it's been pointed out many times on this site how keto adaptation works-- it takes at least several weeks for a normal gym guy to get back to where he was, several months for a serious athlete, and nearly a year for an elite athlete.

But your 24 hour test is definitive.

Yes, glucose helps in certain endeavors.  NOT marathons, NOT Ironman.  And apparently not NBA basketball.

There was a study they did with cyclists. Basically just switched them to a keto diet. A lot of them saw decreases in performance and almost quit but then about a month in their performances all shot through the roof. So it's possible that a longer trial may be needed for you to see results.

Dr peter attia actually measured carbed vs no carbed in a metabolic chamber and saw increased performance at all but vo2max levels of exertion. So if you are sprinting maybe you want some carbs, ultra marathon you can skip the soda stops and just burn bodyfat.

First you overstate the position, then strike down the straw man.

Second, for those truly addicted to carbs, which is most people these days, their bodies made adjustments in order to compensate for what becomes a toxin at high doses.

Much like, say, heroin, alcohol, or the coffee addict who gets headaches when he misses his morning dose.

Duh.

Holy shit man, you need to calm the fuck down and stop taking this shit so personally. I even said that I never mentioned this because I knew someone like you would get their pussy all sandy over it.

But sure, I'm going to sacrifice a whole year of training like shit so I can get back to training *maybe* as well as I was on carbs, but now I have to cut out an entire calorie source? I'm sure many athletes will jump at that.

You have GOT to seriously stop being so defensive over keto. It's bordering on the bizarre at this point.

Likewise

Well, I suppose that would be all of them.

Likewise, what? Where do you see me getting defensive?


I'm posting an opinion that's different from yours, and you're right there like a self righteous shadow. It's getting so predictable as to be annoying.

It's like you can't rationalize the fact that people can be better, faster, stronger with carbs so you have this compulsive need to validate yourself with more keto bullshit.


Just have a discussion, like a normal human being. You defend keto like it's part of your family. Posts like yours is one of the main reasons the term "keto cult" is thrown around here.

You and your thermodynamics.

Don't you know the human body isn't subject to your fanciful ideas of enthalpy?

Nobody gets addicted to carbs. Do you understand how insane that sounds? That's not a real thing. It's a fucking macronutrient. One that gives your brain fuel, muscles glycogen, athletic performance, overall energy levels etc. crossfit adapting keto to make more money of people has gotten insane. It's worse than religion I swear.

edit...nevermind

Are you a flat earthed too? It's a scientific law. Do you know what it takes for something to become a law in science?

" In order for one to lose weight, and hence, body fat, one’s caloric expenditure must exceed their caloric intake and this requires energy intake control, and thus the quantity of food must be controlled (1)."

"It is certainly easier to achieve a caloric surplus eating twinkies all day than it is to achieve that same surplus though fruits, vegetables, and lean meats, however if the person eating only twinkies makes a conscious effort to limit their twinkie intake to a caloric level that is less than the amount of calories they expend per day, they will lose fat whereas a person who eats an unlimited amount of “good” foods will still gain weight if they consume more calories than they expend. "

Dr Layne Norton

Yeah, so I've learned. I guess I'm going to have to agree with V.I. Lenin when he said, "I am the walrus."

No. 2000 is just an "average." My daily caloric expenditure is around 2700. We all have different basal metabolic rates and different lifestyles.

You might want to re-think how that reward center in the brain works:



https://m.mic.com/articles/88015/what-happens-to-your-brain-on-sugar-explained-by-science#.rWTXFVaqP

Since he correctly identified that equation as the 1st Law of Thermo, and further identified the "h" variable to be enthalpy, and given that, uh, he has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering ... I'm going to guess that he chose not to point out that I had omitted heat transfer and work rates from the equation ... when making his sarcastic quip.

We need to quote a dr for the same thing everyone has said no shit to?

The twinkie thing is just absurd too.  Great you can lose weight by eating at a deficit of twinkies. Who does that help? No one is adopting the twinkie diet.

Is it so absurd to look past cico at how our bodies absorb utilize and store various macros and varieties thereof and the different effects on hormones and satiety?

You minored in nutrition, what is the metabolic pathway to convert a carbohydrate in to body fat? What is the metabolic pathway to convert dietary fat in to body fat? One of these happens much more readily.

I will absolutely agree that to lose weight you must burn more than you take in. But lets look at the opposite if you eat more than you burn will you always gain weight? In a system where we take in carbohydrates the excess will be stored in fat cells. With fat your body may not absorb it or it will make it in to ketones that you just piss and exhale out if you don't use them. It is very difficult for our bodies to turn dietary fat in to bodyfat.

Listen to the Joe Rogan podcast with Dom D'agostino.  He suggests you are wrong and he actually does scientific research in the field of ketosis.
I personally don't care for the keto diet bc I can't see myself not eating some carbs since I generally eat a Chinese style diet.  However, the scientific evidence he presents is very compelling.

Me? Personally?

I would be way more interested in the how or why the body becomes catabolic...that is to say feeding on its own muscle instead of burning fat for fuel when only restricting calories (and not working out)..

And you snipped out half of my quote. One where one of the top nutritionists in the world confirms it.

"It is certainly easier to achieve a caloric surplus eating twinkies all day than it is to achieve that same surplus though fruits, vegetables, and lean meats, however if the person eating only twinkies makes a conscious effort to limit their twinkie intake to a caloric level that is less than the amount of calories they expend per day, they will lose fat whereas a person who eats an unlimited amount of “good” foods will still gain weight if they consume more calories than they expend."

Lol you are wrong there too. There's a nutrition professor that got tired of keto retards and the like out there. He went on a diet eating twinkies every three hours but tracked total calories. He lost 27lbs, lowered blood pressure, lowered bad chilesterol, and raised good cholesterol.

"A 6 month study of 390 participants found that this is true for all simple carbs, like fructose (fruit sugar) and lactose (milk sugar): whether you consume simple or complex carbs does not affect your body composition [1]. Or, for that matter, your blood lipids, an important marker of your cardiovascular (heart) health.
While it is easy to classify simple carbs as bad and complex carbs as good, the distinction between simple and complex carbs is in fact completely arbitrary. It is merely a medical tradition that we call carbohydrates with 3 or more sugars ‘complex carbs’ and we call carbohydrates with 1 or 2 sugars ‘simple carbs’."

It is a myth that sugar causes a massive blood sugar spike followed by a complete crash. The effect on a food’s blood sugar is measured by the glycaemic index (GI). Sugar, due to its 50% fructose content, has a GI of ~68, which is a ‘medium’ effect on blood sugar. Sugar even has a lower GI than whole-wheat bread, which has a GI of ~71 [7]. The same applies to the insulin index [6]."

"And unless you have a food intolerance, you certainly shouldn’t avoid fruit or dairy because they contain sugar. That’s exactly the kind of broscience that drives bodybuilders into following obsessive and monotone diets that aren’t healthy in psychological or nutritional terms."

http://bretcontreras.com/sugar-the-sweet-truth/

Yes i know there is a guy who did it for academic purposes. Again who  cares one guy doing it for a brief time doesn't mean it makes sense for anyone. That is not a diet anyone is going to adopt. Well i guess america kind of has and it made them fat. Way to ignore everything else i said and focus on the thing i said is irrelevant.

Who is even talking about glycemic index. The ketards would certainly agree there is little difference between carbs from sugar and carbs from a potato. Although the potato has better micros

Have you not read the thread. Half the people here think sugar is comparable to cocaine apparently.

Yes and there is little difference between carbs from sugar and carbs from wheat. Probably better to limit both.