Ketosis and Endurance article

Of course, if you're hoping to improve your endurance instead of accelerate weight loss, rather than trying to force your body into ketosis, you could just train it to preferentially burn fat:

outsideonline.com/2125031/w…

After the trip, I was, as my test administrator at Real Rehab in Seattle put it, “a fat-burning machine.” At 110 bpm, I was burning 91 percent fat and 9 percent carbohydrates. At 145 bpm, I was burning 70 percent fat and 30 percent carbohydrates. My crossover point had moved to 168 bpm, which I reached at a fairly fast running pace. And even at my maximum heart rate (184 bpm), I was still getting a quarter of my energy from fat.

uphillathlete.com/burn-fat-…

With modification to either, or both, the training and/or dietary fronts you can shift your muscles’ preference for, and ability to use, fat as a fuel at an increased intensity.

uphillathlete.com/train-to-…

JNE wrote:Serious question for anti-keto people, especially anyone with a solid medical/nutrition background who has a in the real world proven track record of giving sound nutrition advice: While I agree that any low-calorie diet is bullshit for anyone without a slow metabolism, and so bullshit for a growing (due to the metabolism of the earth increasing under global warming) number of the earths population, what diet advice do you suggest for people whose ancestors relied on a survival strategy of building up fat and other food reserves during the summer months and then fasting through the winter (who knows when the snow will melt this year...)? The advice which pushes against these people exploring ketogenic/keto-inspired diets seems to have its foundation in what I would consider an invalid assumption: that all humans, regardless of environment, are not just similar, but nearly identical. If this assumption is present, why do you believe it? I think all one has to do is look around at the world with ones eyes a bit more than halfway open to see this assumption is bullshit.

This assumption is based upon a basic understanding of evolutionary biology. Variations exist within a population, and these variations will often lead to natural selection as they result in favorable traits for a given environment. Your assertion that "my ancestors relied on building up fat and therefore it's hard for me to lose weight" belies the many confounding factors that contribute to metabolism, of which genetics are but one of a myriad. We are a relatively young species from an evolutionary standpoint, and are therefore more alike than not. While it is possible that certain isolated populations may develop radically different metabolic systems, I'm guessing you're not Inuit.

Evolutionarily speaking, we are all essentially African, with the one exception of a really annoying skin mutation. ;)

Ted Pinson wrote: This assumption is based upon a basic [mis]understanding of evolutionary biology. Your assertion that "my ancestors relied on building up fat and therefore it's hard for me to lose weight" belies the many confounding factors that contribute to metabolism, of which genetics are but one of a myriad. We are a relatively young species from an evolutionary standpoint, and are therefore more alike than not. While it is possible that certain isolated populations may develop radically different metabolic systems, I'm guessing you're not Inuit. Evolutionarily speaking, we are all essentially African, with the one exception of a really annoying skin mutation. ;

As far as I am aware, we now believe there were two waves of hominids leaving Africa. The first wave evolved into neanderthal and denisovan outside of Africa, and sapien within Africa. Sapiens then spread out of Africa, and what is now present is a mix of all three, which is essentially the same species having split once and then rejoined. So while, yes, we are all the same species, one would be wrong to think that we are not fairly specialized environmentally, specifically with reference to diet and metabolism. Also, it's not for my sake that I stick up for the slow metabolism people as I am 135 max, and eat 3,500-4,500 cal or so a day.

No, that was right the first time. Your description is partially correct, but you are misinterpreting the implications. First of all, the interbreeding between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis was relatively minor, and Neanderthal DNA constitutes a very small portion of the genome of modern Europeans (to my knowledge, there have been no phenotypical correlations found, and certainly not in something as complex or important as metabolism). To my knowledge, there has been no evidence of a third human species contributing DNA, and it's definitely not accurate to treat modern humans as 1/3 sapiens, 1/3 neanderthalis, 1/3 denisovanis (?). Again, you're still thinking on too short of terms for evolution. The metabolic pathways were most likely nearly identical in all of the Homo species and evolved over the course of millions of years, not a few thousand.

There is no evidence that ancestral diets play a direct role on modern metabolism. While being able to store extra fat may be advantageous if you happen to be born during a fast, it is not as make/break a trait as say...lungs when all of the water dries up.

Also, I was not interpreting your example as personal and using the royal "you," not you specifically.

As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of different factors besides genetics which influence metabolism, and a lot of exciting research being conducted, particularly in the area of epigenetics. See:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl…

This is a long way from saying that certain principles of metabolism do not apply to certain individuals or that you should eat a "Genetic diet" based on what your ancestors ate, however (the one thing all evolutionary biologists agree on: Paleo diets are dumb).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl…
Studies on genetics and metabolism tend to focus on the origin of genetic metabolic diseases, e.g diabetes. It is possible that the mechanism that causes insulin resistance may have been selected during a period when carbohydrates were not a major part of hominin diets following the emergence of agriculture, however it's important to note that these studies always focus on ancestral human species (Australopithicines, H Erectus), NOT ancestral H. Sapiens groups. If you note the above article, the scale is MILLIONS of years, and all of these adaptations would have contributed to a single gene pool from which modern humans sprang.

i just want to know why they smell like they are doing the dying.

Ted Pinson wrote:No, that was right the first time. Your description is partially correct, but you are misinterpreting the implications. First of all, the interbreeding between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis was relatively minor, and Neanderthal DNA constitutes a very small portion of the genome of modern Europeans

First of all, the three species (neanderthal, denisovan, and sapien, not likely distributed in 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 proportions, and your assumption that I think that tells me a LOT about your mentality) are just variations of the same original species, so how is one particular gene or set of genes attributed to any given species (serious question)? This is unanswered in any literature I have read, so if you have the statistical analysis on this please link it up.

The most I have ever seen published about this is this statement, or a similar one "Since 2010 scientists have known that people of Eurasian origin have inherited anywhere from 1 to 4 percent of their DNA from Neanderthals." I might point out this means that, on average, any given Eurasian is 1-4% neanderthal, meaning every single one of them is part neanderthal, they just have various degrees of that genetic expression. Thus the interbreeding was quite a bit more than you think, lol, and you are the one misrepresenting information.

As far as I can tell, there are currently at least two scientifically motivated interpretations of the available data, the stuff is very political, and as a result one needs to pick the scientific narrative which they feel fits the data best. We seem to have picked different interpretations ;).

First of all, the three species (neanderthal, denisovan, and sapien, not likely distributed in 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 proportions, and your assumption that I think that tells me a LOT about your mentality)

It was implied by A) your phrasing and B) the conclusions you drew from it. A lot of DNA does not directly express or affect phenotype, so the likelihood that even 4% would have a noticeable effect on say...the appropriate diet of an individual is questionable.

"are just variations of the same original species, so how is one particular gene or set of genes attributed to any given species (serious question)? This is unanswered in any literature I have read, so if you have the statistical analysis on this please link it up."

Good question. Comparative genomics and ancestral studies are the most common. As far as determine whether a particular gene sequence that is identical in sapiens and neanderthals came from one or the other...not sure why it would matter.

phys.org/news/2016-03-world…

It seems you were right about the Denisovans

"The most I have ever seen published about this is this statement, or a similar one "Since 2010 scientists have known that people of Eurasian origin have inherited anywhere from 1 to 4 percent of their DNA from Neanderthals." I might point out this means that, on average, any given Eurasian is 1-4% neanderthal, meaning every single one of them is part neanderthal, they just have various degrees of that genetic expression. Thus the interbreeding was quite a bit more than you think, lol, and you are the one misrepresenting information."

Well, again, you implied that they made up a significant portion (1/3 ;) ) so my statement that it was not THAT extensive does not imply it didn't happen it all. In fact, I've gotten into this same argument before and am usually on the other side. Anyways, you seem to be overestimating the number of common descendants modern Europeans have as well as underestimating the age that this occurred. If our one common ancestor happened to get freaky, all modern Europeans would end up with a portion of the genes.

"As far as I can tell, there are currently at least two scientifically motivated interpretations of the available data, the stuff is very political, and as a result one needs to pick the scientific narrative which they feel fits the data best. We seem to have picked different interpretations ;). "

How is this political? I also don't know what you mean by "scientifically
motivated interpretations," as that appears to be contradictory.

Cool Ted, it sounds like we agree about pretty much everything, and certainly the important parts. I meant "scientifically motivated" to specifically mean an approach which strictly followed the western scientific method, so sorry for the confusion.

To be clear, my read on the whole thing is it is basically one species which has environmentally adapted to a diverse globe, so the original distinction between sapiens, neanderthals, and denisovans is murky in my opinion, and made all the more murkier by the fact that under the interpretation I prefer sapiens spread out of Africa a second time, thus resulting in distinct but extremely (nearly entirely) overlapping gene pools. Thus while certain traits may correlate more strongly with certain populations, I make no claim that these traits either wholly define those populations nor that these traits are not present in other populations in significant numbers.

As far as neanderthals being associated with slower metabolisms, I believe this to be the case solely due to the correlation with Europe and due to the fact that through much of the recent past Europe has been in and out of ice ages.

Lastly, by political I meant that this stuff seems to pet some people backwards. The narrative I grew up with was that Europeans were sapiens who had originated in Africa as a different species (neanderthal), and had then spread to and then from Europe (where neanderthal linearly evolved into sapien) to the rest of the world. As a result, I argue any non-sapien hominids have been inadvertently stigmatized by this, so I argue some people don't want to be associated with nor more descended from these groups than from others. I gather the resistance to this is mixed throughout the world. Sometimes, I poke fun at the really resistant people, though I should be more respectful as it is a touchy subject.

Nothing against your incredibly informative origins of humanity argument, but unless either of you have information regarding the specific genetics of either of the three sub-types of early hominids and any of there genetic makeup, or any tie therein to metabolism, diet, training or activity levels (not even to mentions it affects/effects on their body habitus), how does any of that (pedantry) go on to weigh in on the relevance of a paleo/atkins, ketogenetic diets? It is well known that none of them ate pizza (it wasn't invented until around the 16th century en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo… and yea... I know I just quoted Wikipedia) regardless of which subtype predominated or makes up 1-4% of European population.
Further. the study at hand (the basis for this forum) was a specific study that used an edible based keto supplement as a nutrition source (where one ingests an exogenous ketone based food source), which in itself is ENTIRELY different from the ketogenic diet, which uses a lack of glucose energy input to shift the the bodies breakdown of endogenous fats and proteins within it to make a usable energy source.

Just the same, I do (honestly) appreciate the anthropological factoids.

Yeah...I pointed that out on the last page but nobody seemed to care, lol.

goingUp wrote: It is well known that none of them ate pizza (it wasn't invented until around the 16th century en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo… and yea... I know I just quoted Wikipedia)

If you are going to quote something, perhaps read it?

Foods similar to pizza have been made since the neolithic age. Records of people adding other ingredients to bread to make it more flavorful can be found throughout ancient history.

Speaking purely from the personal experiences of me and my wife, not research: Stable long term results with a keto diet take years, not weeks or months. In those shorter time frames you are still adjusting and various hormone and other things are still fluctuating.
Rather than worry about the details, just try eliminating all sugars and simple carbs. You might add more protein or more fat, and each have their proponents, but in the long run you might experience what we have, which is much better health overall. Less inflammation, less joint pain, better sustainable energy overall, etc.. We can both wake up and do a long day of climbing or biking without sugars. We are both over 50 and after a long time being deliberate about what we eat and trying different things, there is no way we would go back to eating carbs as anything other than a very small portion of our diet or any simple sugars.

There is a very important tool for endurance that hasn't been mentioned yet:
'Intermittent Fasting'. There are a few permutations of this, but a basic one is only eating within an 8 hour window each day, especially just two meals.

After getting used to doing this, then skip an occasional meal or just have a fast day. It only works if you have adjusted your diet to avoid refined carbs, and replace the refined carbs with healthy fats such as raw nuts, organic extra virgin coconut oil, avocados, and butter from grass fed cows.

At first, it may be difficult, but after 3-4 weeks, your body is trained to burn fat for energy. You have to get used to the hungry feeling knowing that instead of crashing, your secondary energy stores are tapped. After a while, this happens relatively quickly.

Furthermore, intermittent fasting has the same effect on mitochondria (the 'engines' inside every cell) as exercise.

KevinCO wrote:There is a very important tool for endurance that hasn't been mentioned yet: 'Intermittent Fasting'. There are a few permutations of this, but a basic one is only eating within an 8 hour window each day, especially just two meals. After getting used to doing this, then skip an occasional meal or just have a fast day. It only works if you have adjusted your diet to avoid refined carbs, and replace the refined carbs with healthy fats such as raw nuts, organic extra virgin coconut oil, avocados, and butter from grass fed cows. At first, it may be difficult, but after 3-4 weeks, your body is trained to burn fat for energy. You have to get used to the hungry feeling knowing that instead of crashing, your secondary energy stores are tapped. After a while, this happens relatively quickly. Furthermore, intermittent fasting has the same effect on mitochondria (the 'engines' inside every cell) as exercise.

climbing friend,

ho ho!

ha ha!

yes!

it is likening to the ketosis, except not miserable every single day of you life for-EV-arrr!!! and you shall become ripped on the abs and develop your power of the wills to mighty levels, in combination with your morning power animal meditation practice, something to behold, ho ho ha, ha ha hyah!!!

do not eat the butter, especially in your coffee. it is coming from a cows breast.

Aleks Zebastian wrote: climbing friend, ho ho! ha ha! yes! it is likening to the ketosis, except not miserable every single day of you life for-EV-arrr!!! and you shall become ripped on the abs and develop your power of the wills to mighty levels, in combination with your morning power animal meditation practice, something to behold, ho ho ha, ha ha hyah!!! do not eat the butter, especially in your coffee. it is coming from a cows breast.

I thought they smelled like death though? Due to their metabolizing fats instead of carbs? Also, something about hormone levels, metabolism, body composition, and phytoestrogen...

KevinCO wrote:There is a very important tool for endurance that hasn't been mentioned yet: 'Intermittent Fasting'. There are a few permutations of this, but a basic one is only eating within an 8 hour window each day, especially just two meals. After getting used to doing this, then skip an occasional meal or just have a fast day. It only works if you have adjusted your diet to avoid refined carbs, and replace the refined carbs with healthy fats such as raw nuts, organic extra virgin coconut oil, avocados, and butter from grass fed cows. At first, it may be difficult, but after 3-4 weeks, your body is trained to burn fat for energy. You have to get used to the hungry feeling knowing that instead of crashing, your secondary energy stores are tapped. After a while, this happens relatively quickly. Furthermore, intermittent fasting has the same effect on mitochondria (the 'engines' inside every cell) as exercise.

+1
Plus there's the added benefit of the post-coffee (no butter) morning poop to make you light as possible for the send.

I do 16 hour fasts but I always lose weight if I go lo carb and I'm trying to gain ATM. I do all my bold flashes on an empty stomach :)

JNE wrote: I thought they smelled like death though? Due to their metabolizing fats instead of carbs?

Might be protein that causes the smell. When we use it for energy it has Ammonia as a byproduct. I think if that happens you're not doing ketosis but don't quote me on that.

:
> Intermittent Fasting.
> ... after 3-4 weeks, your body is trained to burn fat for energy.
> You have > to get used to the hungry feeling knowing that instead of
> crashing, your secondary energy stores are tapped.

This seems to assume that
(a) your body needs to choose between either a mode of burning carbs or a mode of burning fat; and
(b) that it's kind of tricky to convince your body to burn fat.

What if the truth is that, for endurance performance of say an hour or more, your body normally uses a "blended" mode of burning both carbs and fats?
And that tilting your body more toward fats is fairly straightforward.

I saw an article in NYTimes a few years ago that said to promote fat-burning, just do intense exercise first thing in the morning before eating anything.

I tried that, and for the first three weeks it felt terrible, so I was carefully to record two different sets of speed timings, whether with or without eating beforehand -- since "no breakfast" mode was obviously slower.

Then after three weeks I found there was no difference in my speed timings, and it didn't bother me at all to exercise hard on an empty stomach.

Got that result with no avoidance of carbs, and no need to switch to "healthy" high-fat food.

Ken

KevinCO wrote:Furthermore, intermittent fasting has the same effect on mitochondria (the 'engines' inside every cell) as exercise.

Well human and animal biochemistry and stress adaptation are pretty complicated. So how about modify that claim to:
"Fasting has at least one major effect on mitochondria which is similar to benefits of exercise."

Anyway if I can get that beneficial effect from exercise (plus lots more benefits), and I just like my forms of exercising way better than Not Eating, why wouldn't I want to get it from exercise?

Ken

KevinCO wrote:There is a very important tool for endurance that hasn't been mentioned yet: 'Intermittent Fasting'. There are a few permutations of this, but a basic one is only eating within an 8 hour window each day, especially just two meals. After getting used to doing this, then skip an occasional meal or just have a fast day. It only works if you have adjusted your diet to avoid refined carbs, and replace the refined carbs with healthy fats such as raw nuts, organic extra virgin coconut oil, avocados, and butter from grass fed cows. At first, it may be difficult, but after 3-4 weeks, your body is trained to burn fat for energy. You have to get used to the hungry feeling knowing that instead of crashing, your secondary energy stores are tapped. After a while, this happens relatively quickly. Furthermore, intermittent fasting has the same effect on mitochondria (the 'engines' inside every cell) as exercise.

No it doesn't. Why do people feel the need to throw silly science terms in if their diets are not actually based on science?

Jeebus F-Christ....

The top endurance athletes on earth *STRUGGLE* to get enough calories on board (ie Tour de France riders, Pro Football (soccer) players and Marathoners) when training or competing they are burning so many.

G-D Boulder Posers with white people problems worrying about what they eat....

If you want to lose weight, get on the bike and eat less. If you want low body fat get on the bike and eat less. Just don't eat complete crap.

There is not one single world class endurance athlete (pro or Olympic level) that gives a crap about a ketosis diet BECAUSE THEY ARE IN KETOSIS EVERY TIME THEY BUST OUT A 100 Mile ride 5 times a week etc. Then struggle literally having to force feed themselves to not break down and lose muscle.

Kenyan Marathoners don't worry about carbs, FFS, they love carbs.

If you want better endurance on the rock, do mileage at the gym and don't eat complete crap. Your diet is not a short cut to TRAINING ENDURANCE.