Ketogenic diet vs standard high carb diet for runners

Are you sure? wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Jeff is keto part/most of the time, but more specifically is OFM (optimal fat metabolism) which is being metabolically flexible so that on a base of fat-burning you target carbs for workouts and/or races. He attributes a huge part of his recent success to his change of diet. He is eloquent in his story which very much mirrors mine, but at a higher level of performance (unless maybe you account for age difference).

https://www.gobroncobilly.com/category/nutrition/

Ok, thanks for confirming. I had not followed that closely enough I guess. Well, just lost a lot of respect for him, definitely takes it down a notch as far as I am concerned. Kudos to him for finding his niche to sell that snake oil.

I suppose you prefer your "snake oil" in the form of durianrider raw-steroid vegan?

Honestly, it seems that diet has taken on the role religion used to play in generating hate and misinformation. I arrived at my diet (and yes, fruit is allowed in reasonable quantities) after decades of experience (including 15 years as a high-carb vegetarian in my youth) and years of personal research (I am a biologist by training). Low-carb is the only health modification that not only delivered on every promise, but still is giving improvements I hadn't anticipated.

If your diet is working for you, stick with it. Otherwise no need to dump on others for succeeding on their journey as Jeff clearly has.

You are funny and ironic dude. Talking about hate and misinformation yet you started out in this thread bashing vegans while comparing your vegetarian diet to veganism. All the while conflating low carb with keto when they are definitely not the same thing.

Sure, its great that Jeff is succeeding but I don't buy for one second that eating a keto diet rich in all the things science has proven are terrible for your health in large quantities has anything to do with his success. The fact that even in ultra running where the 'promise' of low carb would make the most sense theres still very few examples of anyone do well on such a diet.

As someone with an auto immune disease I've tried just about every kind of diet there is, keto being pretty much the last thing I would ever recommend to anyone. Definitely not good for auto immune or inflammation though this is oddly something that is touted for. Yet, any Dr will recommend removing dairy first, eggs next, and processed meats and red meat. What diet does that sound like to you? Certainly not keto.

nutritional biochemistry is real wrote:

I have nominated you for the fad diet hall of fame and the nutritional biochemistry comedy hall of fame. Well done.

Oh, much too late. This clown has been in those halls of fame/shame for years on LetsRun.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The ketogenic diet is an old treatment for seizures. But the high-carb diet is just poison. You turn nearly all of it to fat anyhow.

LOL!!! The TRUE king of "fad diet" / nutrition BS / nutrition troll hall of famer, ladies and gentleman, Mr Bad Wigins!

[/quote]

elephino wrote:

YMMV wrote:

If you understood physiology, you would know why they do this, albeit they use carbs at a much lower rate than their not-as-fat-adapted competition (see the excellent FASTER study by Volek and Phinney).

That study is p!$$ poor

1) too small a sample size

2) All Ultra runners while having the length of the study at 3 hrs at sub maximal race pace (in around 64% Vo2max)

Its a bit like deriving data for a Marathon based on Usain Bolt running a 400

When you actually look at it the study is saying you burn fat in the fat burning zone, Revolutionary!

The FASTER study was good, but it only showed that people's systems adapt to what they eat. Duh. So you burn more fat when you eat more fat. Congratulations? It may have applications for ultrarunners like YMMV said where you can eat fewer carbs and have less GI probs, but it has no other performance advantages.[/quote]

Yes, the study was way overhyped. It did NOT shown performances benefits over a higher carb diet. It didn't even measure performance. (unless they did a follow-up).

Total hype. I am fine with accepting that some ultra runners do well on a high fat diet. Big deal. It's all the BS that the fad followers extrapolate from that apparent fact that is so damn annoying, such as then absurdly proclaiming from that simple fact (that *some* endurance athletes do well on a high fat diet) that CLEARLY this diet is MUCH better than a high carb diet for performance and health for the average person. Huge leap of logic and faith much? Yes, 99% of all TdF cyclists, and world class X-C skiers, and distance runners (at least through the marathon) etc are just too dumb to figure out what YMMV (or whatever his name is) or Bad Wigins have figured out. Man, if they just LISTENED to random internet guys, they would soooo much faster. Sad. Really, really sad. (but funny)

Oh God, you nailed it. You really, really nailed it. Yes, I've written something similar on here before, but I think you did it much more succinctly than I.

Still waiting for a list of elite runners that are on keto... and lets not pretend ultra runners are elite.

No one fast is on keto.

Ketogenic diet is an Eating Disorder. And keto warriors have Eating Disordered thinking. And people with Eating Disordered thinking go to great extremes to deny they have an Eating Disorder.

Ketogenesis is a survival mechanism we all have, partly as a natural way to metabolize fats in the liver when we are hungry and carb depleted and also as a way to avoid starvation in times of severe carbohydrate unavailability.

Ultra runners need carbs just as much as any other type of runner.

Beware of fad diets and people promoting them. If you need to lose weight, eat slightly less calories or do more exercise or a bit of both. If you do this and you are gaining weight it is probably water, glycogen and sodium, all of which are essential for more endurance.

If, as a runner, I were to run only the same mileage and workouts for decades that I learned in my first year of high school, in the same shoes that I happened to use as a high school sophomore, I probably would have had the same results over and over again, which included plenty of injuries and lack of progression . Fortunately, I evolved my approach over the years as an athlete and a coach, and went from low mileage with tons of intervals to Lydiard, to Daniels and incorporated other elements along the way. Maybe that is too "extreme" for many here who have never run a 100 mile week or run races outside of their comfort zone. Fine by me.

I, and my athletes, have had success on higher mileage as well as lower mileage, in different footwear, and I don't cookie-cutter the training of my athletes, but while keeping basic principles I can adapt the program depending on the needs of their event, their lifestyle and their physiology.

If someone is adamant against a diet, a shoe (or no shoe), a training approach yet has NO personal experience with said program, the term for that is ignorance. If you want to proceed from ignorance, never experiment and just do what you have always done and see how far that gets you. No need to evolve or progress, just keep slogging out your same races and wondering why your waistline is expanding despite the same training effort and diet.

When Ed Whitlock found that he couldn't train without injury using conventional methods, he started running laps in the same graveyard, slowly, up to three hours a day. He was extreme. A man in his 70s running over 100 miles/week. Yet he had found what worked for him. He didn't claim that his was the only way and that everyone else should do it. He admitted that it was difficult and not for everyone. I would say the same for eating keto. For those that try it successfully, like Bitter and Browning, it is life- and career-changing stuff. Should you try it? How bad do you want a change in your life right now? Are you complacent in your current health and injury status? Then don't change. But don't expound on techniques that you have NO personal experience with.

In my case, I needed change and wouldn't trade my experiences in experimentation for anything. I have been able to l succeed and progress and EVOLVE where others my age gave up decades ago. I would not comment on vegetarianism if I had not given it a decent shot back in the day. I wouldn't comment on barefoot/minimalism if I hadn't tried it as well.

The upshot is the success I have found is earned by working harder and working SMARTER. Success comes from experience, and experience comes frm failure. Don't risk failure and you will never be a success; you will remain in your little murky pond of coamplacency.

For me, being able to run all I want without fear of injury and enjoying perfect health in my 60s by eating simple whole foods with no supplements and without hunger cravings is all the evidence I need; the fact that it is backed by recent research and biology is only a plus. The fact that I can share what I have learned with others and help them succeed and reach levels they could never dream of is an even bigger plus.

You may be the only "not the only way" keto person and we're overreacting because of the keto krazies out there. Today Maria Sboros, Tim Noakes coauthor, said there should be a class action lawsuit against all universities who have taught nutritional approaches other than keto because they've killed so many people. She and Noakes have called promoting non-keto diets "genocide". Zoe Harcombe has said that she wants high carb people to die and get out of the gene pool.

You may be getting flack from guilt-by-association.

Well stated. I've never needed to diet, but I have tried many diets over the years to help maintain my weight. I like the high fat/low carb diet because 1) it prevents my inherited tendency towards hypoglycemia, 2) it reduces food cravings, and 3) the doctors I trust say it has antiaging properties if you do the fat-adaptation process and stick to healthy fats.

As we age, the mitochondria become less efficient in producing energy and produce more toxic byproducts that, again, the body has more difficulty in removing with advancing age. For more information, read Fat for Fuel by Mercola, The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance by Volek and Phinney, or the articles by Dr. Russell Blaylock.

After you read the information, you can make an informed decision on whether you want to try the diet. Some diets work for some people and not for others. We are all an experiment of one.

elephino wrote:

Zoe Harcombe has said that she wants high carb people to die and get out of the gene pool.

citation?

I have actually found the keto community as generally undogmatic and open to new information. Many are academics and not given to activism, so their voices may not be heard in the debates. Here is an excellent resource for those interested in the research and diving deeper:

I actually agree with Noakes as far as the human cost of government recommendations and skewed "research" that has only fueled the obesity crisis worldwide. The comparable move would be if in 1977 the government condemned exercise as dangerous and wasteful and that people need to be as sedentary as possible in order to have health and extend life. Runners lie us would be seen as even more "extreme" than we already are.

YMMV wrote:

I would not comment on vegetarianism if I had not given it a decent shot back in the day. I wouldn't comment on barefoot/minimalism if I hadn't tried it as well.

So you did try vegan/whole food plant based? It doesn't like you did as vegetarian is not even close to the same thing. Yet here is your statement suggesting anyone who hasn't tried keto is just ignorant and doesn't have a right to comment on it.

Personally, I have tried it all. I did the low carb, intermittent fasting, extended fasting and keto thing for the better part of a year. Eventually found my way to whole food plant based and my performance and recovery skyrocketed. I improved all of my times significantly and can run more, harder miles with less recovery between hard efforts. My blood lab's improved and my auto immune disease is under much better control. I have no cravings, yet on low carb constantly craved sugary foods.

The fact you are a coach explains a lot. Simple fact is cutting processed carbs and eating whole foods is all anyone really needs to do to improve their health over a normal diet. It is disingenuous to suggest anything else. But hey, pick a niche trending diet and latch on, sell your services because all that is required is watching a few youtube videos and listening to some podcast, wala you are now an expert in diet and nutrition. I honestly feel sad for anyone paying for advice from someone touting such an obvious scam diet.

Would someone help me find the extremist on this thread?

lol.

YMMV wrote:

Would someone help me find the extremist on this thread?

The one who cited Mercola.

Eat somewhere in the middle. I think both of diets have been proven to be unhealthy at some point.

YMMV wrote:

Would someone help me find the extremist on this thread?

lol.

I have an auto immune disease so have tried just about every type of diet there is in my experiment to keep it under control without medication. I guess that makes me an extremist even though I am the one being honest here, that you don't need a special diet for good health. Simply cut processed foods, eat whole foods. Thats it. But hey, you can't package that up and sell it can you keto coach dude?

elephino wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Would someone help me find the extremist on this thread?

The one who cited Mercola.

And if you actually believe the govt advice to eat less sugar and less fat caused the obesity epidemic, you're an extremist. Nobody followed the advice anyway. High-fat, high-sugar junk food and fast food is doing just fine. By population, obesity correlates strongly with more %fat and less %carbs. Not that the %carb or %fat is the dominant factor. It has more to do with prosperity, which leads to eating more meat, more fat, and most importantly, more calories overall.

elephino wrote:

elephino wrote:

The one who cited Mercola.

And if you actually believe the govt advice to eat less sugar and less fat caused the obesity epidemic, you're an extremist. Nobody followed the advice anyway. High-fat, high-sugar junk food and fast food is doing just fine. By population, obesity correlates strongly with more %fat and less %carbs. Not that the %carb or %fat is the dominant factor. It has more to do with prosperity, which leads to eating more meat, more fat, and most importantly, more calories overall.

Meat consumption per capita overall is the same now as in 1970. Red meat consumption is significantly lower. Poultry (lower fat) consumption has doubled.

And yet meat is part of the obesity crisis?

The government recommendations did not limit sugar, and recommended replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats. The populace followed this, reduced red meat, lard and butter consumption, while corn and soy oil consumption in particular skyrocketed from negligible in our grandparent's day to 25lbs/year today just for soy oil:

Fruit and vegetable consumption have increased:

The processed food explosion has been based on sugar, processed grain flour (yes even "whole grain" flour is processed), and toxic vegetable oils.