Keto Speed

Well.

I am no scientist, but I did read every article on the planet (I doth exaggerate a little) and watch every video: Ted X, interviews, seminars by Phinney, Volek, Noakes and others and have talked to a few exercise physiologists etc etc.

Reading about a guy running a 1:33 says nothing. "Dozens of miles per week," he wrote. So if two dozen is "dozens", then his evidence is not worth measuring. A 1:38 half-marathon runner going to 1:33 on dozens of miles per week likely has more to do with losing 10 pounds on the keto diet than anything.

This equation, I am not sure where I got it, but I think it is quite accurate:

For every pound over optimum weight, you lose two seconds, per mile, per pound.

So if he lost 10 pounds, which is REALLY easy to do on a keto diet, he can improve four minutes-plus a little. I lost 30 pounds in a few weeks at 5'9" on keto. So Woop-dee-doo (sp?).

Also according to his disposition in the image, it appears he hasn't trained the neuro-muscular system that well - so dozens may indeed be 24 or 36 miles....he is not pushing off at all, his heart rate can't be up because he looks like he is walking almost, which is not a criticism so much as an observation - NOT going into the realm where he needs glucose....he could probably run a marathon close to that pace....except for the lack of mileage = too much muscle damage = cramp city.

The article isn't worth the 10 minutes it took to write it.

Now for those that are not agreeing with the science of ketogenic diet 1.) for marathons (not super-elite) and longer keto is indeed likely much better than being glucose-dependent, but anything shorter than the marathon and the marathon too if you are fast - you probably need glucose. Even short ultra runners who swear by keto wil up their carbohydrate intake (healthy carbs, not refined) around race day.

I don't mind the shorts over tights-thing. Some men are modest and don't want to look like Barishnakov with his easter basket all front and centre.

Not sure why I put the 1.) in, as there is no "2.)".

Additionally, this sort of article is misinformation and that is bad for the lifestyle, regardless if you are for or against super-low-carb.

Add in those Vaporfly 4% he’s wearing in the article photo...

Keto is the successor to barefoot running as the next fad. Except it will never become as popular since changing your diet is hard.

I've been keto for over two years now, and it's fine with me if it's a fad, although having a few million people not as fat or sick would be nicer I suppose. No way in hell I'd ever go back to eating junk.

YMMV wrote:

I've been keto for over two years now, and it's fine with me if it's a fad, although having a few million people not as fat or sick would be nicer I suppose. No way in hell I'd ever go back to eating junk.

Surely you must realize it is possible to "not eat junk" and not be on the "keto diet." The benefit of eating properly while including some healthy carbs is it doesnt come with potential long term risks to your kidneys, liver, and heart believed to come with the keto diet.

The funny thing to me about the "keto" diet is that it has had so many different names in the past. Atkins was probably the most popular iteration. South beach was the next variation on it. Yet people seem to think it is new and improved.

List your "healthy carbs".

Whole grains.

YMMV wrote:

I've been keto for over two years now, and it's fine with me if it's a fad, although having a few million people not as fat or sick would be nicer I suppose. No way in hell I'd ever go back to eating junk.

What exactly has high-carb low-fat diet to do with junk food? And what has keto diet to do with "healthy" eating? Nothing, you can eat junk on both diets. The problem is not HCLF or HFLC diets, the problem is when you eat high-fat together with high-carb, that is when you wreck up your system. It's proven by multitude of researches that dietary fat drives whole-body insulin resistance and promotes intestinal inflammation independent of body weight gain. Also show me a true low-carb keto runner - I know a bunch who call them so but they actually I eat quite high carb diet without really acknowledging it.

When it comes to running performance just look what the best of the runners eat. They all are HCLF that is based on whole grains and vegetables and no crap food. It's not because they blindly believe some theory, it's because this is the only diet that can provide enough energy for the high demand without getting you wrecked. So what has 98 minute HM to do with elite performance? Nothing, 98 and 93 minute half is just ridiculously slow. It's barely out of a jogging zone. I run low 80 minute HM as part of my non-stop 17-18 mile Sunday long run and I do it on empty stomach with just a glass of water in the morning.

Fruit is also pretty healthy.

Last year I lost 15 pounds and dropped 7 minutes from my half marathon time by running more mileage and adding some uptempo work. And I could still eat strawberries and not wreck my kidneys. Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame...it's either that or your body starts metabolizing your muscles. No thanks.

Since I assume the guy lost well over ten pounds if he is hardcore into the keto diet, a five minute improvement is not that impressive.

The glycogen well they create in your body taps out at about 2,000 calories, so glucose gels or sports drinks are necessary to cross the finish line in any long-distance run.

13.1 mi @ 100-150 cal/mi = 1310-1965 calories. He shouldn't have been eating enough Gus to upset his stomach in a half marathon unless he was super carb dependent, in which case he could have just ate the same stuff and skipped breakfast before some runs.

But if your body is trained to fuel off your fat, you have a tank of about 40,000 calories to keep your engine humming — helping you to run faster and longer.

Longer, maybe. Faster, no. No matter how good you get at burning fat you won't be able to run faster on fat than on carbs. It's always less efficient.

Finally, his shoes in that picture look too big.

also wrote:

Fruit is also pretty healthy.

Yes, of course, whole grains, starchy vegetables and fruits are the key.

Japanese marathoners > American Marathoners

Americans eat pasta < Japanese eat fish

But if your body is trained to fuel off your fat, you have a tank of about 40,000 calories to keep your engine humming — helping you to run faster and longer.

Faster? The guy obviously does not understand basic biochemistry. Burning fat requires twice as much oxygen for the same energy output during aerobic metabolism. This is because all carbohydrate molecules come paired with oxygen atoms in equal measure, which means it takes less oxygen to aerobically metabolize them. Fats are not equipped with oxygen, so you need to provide more to get the same benefit. When you are racing your limit is the oxygen uptake. Once you run out of carbs you can metabolize only fats which means you can do only 50% of your aerobic capacity (or VO2max). That's when you hit the wall.

ScooterMcRD wrote:

Japanese marathoners > American Marathoners

Americans eat pasta < Japanese eat fish

Japanese eat rice, Americans eat steaks.

We can do this all day...

As you get older and more insulin-resistant (genetics affects this too), starches and in particular grans, become more deleterious. Believe me I clung to my "whole healthy grains" way past the point when they were seriously undermining my health. Now I keep carbs under 50-75g/day and enjoy freedom from infections, injuries, aches and pains, sleep apnea, gum inflammation, intestinal/gut issues, acne, blood-sugar swings, etc. all of which plagued me for nearly sixty years. YMMV but like I said, never going back. Effortless weight management is for me a plus (never had a problem with this despite the usual carb-cravings), but for many that is biggest benefit (my sister lost over 100lbs of fat in 1.5 years and is now free from many health issues.

Being low-carb here is like posting as an atheist on a Christian running board, but it works for me and all of my friends who have given it a legitimate effort. Our ancestors ate similar in terms of macros for millions of years so it is the oldest "diet fad" there is.

NYC wrote:

I don’t even know where to start with this, other than shorts over tights...

https://nypost.com/2018/03/19/heres-how-to-crush-a-race-by-running-on-a-keto-diet/

I beat him by 14 minutes and I ate Chipotle on Saturday night with all the carbs possible. Must have just been the fact that I didn't wear shorts over my tights, though.

If you are eating as many as 75 g of carbs per day, why are you defending the keto diet? Depending on the source, the keto diet requies you to stay under 50g per day, with some sources saying being under 20g per day is required. Your low estimate for yourself is already too high.

Anyway, when I said "healthy carbs," I was referring to carbs with associated high levels of fiber: beans, whole grains such as barley (not flour, not pearled barley), etc. These grains take 60+ minutes to cook. It is pretty much impossible to make an argument that 150 to 200g per day of carb sources like these have a negative impact on your body worse than an excess of protein and fat.

Everything is a compromise in your diet. Everything you eat has a negatige impact, it is about striking the best overall balance. The negative consequences of the keto diet are believed to be long term (decades plus), so it is easy for people to switch to it, lose some weight, feel better now that they arent fat, and become entrenched.

You know what else feels great in the short term? Smoking. There was even research to support the positive impacts of smoking on weight loss, as an anti-anxiety tool, etc. But the long term impacts are now irrefutable.