ketosis and athletics

[Raw Kyle]

I knew practically nothing about ketosis until reading Lex's experiments here, and I have some questions.

Craig said that when your body is using ketones for fuel rather than glucose you have more cardiovascular endurance. Has anyone noticed this? I actually felt that when I first went raw vegan my cardio went up, I didn't get tired very easily. At the same time though I lost a ton of muscle, I just got very skinny.

Recently during my workouts I can get very tired. If you've ever seen mma fights when the two guys are so tired they can barely hold their hands up to protect their faces then you know what I'm talking about; I've been in that kind of fatigue. If switching to a completely ketogenic diet would help alleviate this then I would definitely go for it.

What kind of increase in stamina can you expect? It would be amazingly advantageous for me to have otherworldly stamina when fighting, something others couldn't get by training simply because their body is relying on glucose.

Maybe I can do an experiment on myself monitoring my blood during workouts while changing to a ketogenic diet and looking for signs of fatigue in the blood to subside. Speaking of experiments I'd like to organize a grand one and will post a topic about it shortly.

[xylothrill]

Kyle,

I'd like others to chime in as well. The added endurance comes from being able to remain aerobic. If a fat-adapted person remains aerobic, as in long distance running, they can sustain that speed until they either run out of fat reserves or become dehydrated. A person running on glucose will hit the wall when  their primary fuel of glucose has run out causing exhaustion. This only happens to fat-adapted people when they go anaerobic as glucose is the only fuel that can be burned without oxygen.

Fully fat-adapted people actually reserve glycogen stores during aerobic long-distance running. Carb eaters use their glycogen stores even during aerobic excercise. So, in the final sprint, the fat-adapted person would have more glycogen reserved for that final sprint while the aerobic carb-burner will have depleted their reserves - leaving not much for an anaerobic sprint.

It does take time though. Early on, when I was adapting, I'd feel very week carrying one end of a heavy object, such as a sofa, at work. My muscles would tire begining in my shoulders, then my upper arms. Eventually, I'd have it draining my forearms and fingers and have to take a break for fear of dropping it. 

Now, I believe that the fat takes a big part in carrying such heavy objects upstairs. Just my theory but I believe that fat contributes the aerobic energy and the glycogen contributes the anaerobic in coordination with each other. I can hold a heavy sleeper sofa without getting tired or weak while my partner has to set it down and take a break. It's as if I get an edge with being able to use fats aerobically and stored glucose anaerobically at the same time - delaying time to failure.

On the other hand, I can lift weights but when I reach my max and am totally anaerobic, I don't last as long.

I'd be great to see the outcome of your experiment. Satya has been very low carb for a while before she went totally raw and she kicks butt! Maybe Satya will stop by and add her experiences to this discussion.

Craig

[lex_rooker]

Kyle,
When your body has adapted to burning fat and ketones rather than glucose, and this includes both brain and muscle, you can expect that endurance will go up for low intensity long duration activities - you'll be like the energizer bunny and keep going and going and going.  You may also see a small increase in immediate muscle strength or it may stay the same depending on your current state of fitness.

The bad news is that you will sacrifice performance in short term very high intensity things like weight lifting.  Even though fat contains more energy, it takes the muscles longer to metabolize fat and convert it to energy in the form that the muscles can use, so muscles will exhaust sooner if the intensity of the work is using fuel at a faster rate than the body can replace it from fatty acids or ketones.  This is why weight lifters use a "Cycled Ketogenic Diet" or CKD.  They run on fat and stay in ketosis for 4 or 5 days and then eat high carbs for 1 or 2 days to replenish the glucose in the muscles to allow for an intense workout and then its back to ketosis for another 4-5 days.  They do this over and over.

I have no interest in weight lifting or racing or other highly intense sports.  I've always perferred jogging, hiking, climbing, bicycle touring, walking etc that may even require some intermentent use of strength, but are overall low to moderate intensity and very long duration activities.

Bottom line, your maximum performance window is shorter on a ketogenic diet vs a glucose based diet, but like the tortoise you're still going (albeit at a slower pace) long after the hare gave out.

Try to see if you can find a copy of The Ketogenic Diet: A Complete Guide for the Dieter and Practitioner by Lyle McDonald.  He's pretty much the Guru when it comes to the sports related aspects of the ketogenic diet and  how to implement a CKD so that you (in theory) have the best of both worlds.

In reality there are always trade-offs and you must make a decision as to what's most important to you - good performance at high intensity but relatively short term activities, or good performance at lower intensity activities over the long haul.

Lex

[Satya]

Yeah, I have no issues with endurance, or even when I go anaerobic.  And don't forget, training will increase your anaerobic threshhold so you will be aerobic for intensities that used to be anaerobic for you.

Also, I eat once or twice a day.  I have no need to "fuel up" before workouts.  Today I will jog/walk 4 miles on the trail, then this evening take a tkd class.  I might eat something light around 2, then not until after the class.  Don't carbo loaders always have to be munching on something?  That's been my experience around them.  And what do they munch on?  SUGAR!  So this entire feeling of having to eat is gone, especially once fat adapted.  We all have more fat than glycogen to burn.  I never hit the wall anymore.  My background in fitness is long: I ran the 2 mile in HS, taught group/personal fitness for 20 years and have otherwise stayed pretty darn active, so I do know the difference in how I feel.

I agree that energy is steady.  I believe that those people who train frequently and push intensity and/or duration are going to find that they can kick butt low carb.  I mean, you don't get into great shape sitting around.  So gor for it, Kyle.  For an athlete, you may be able to eat a few more carbs than someone sedentary anyway.  Fighting is pretty anaerobic for the most part (and anyone who questions this should try hopping around and kicking a heavy bag every 3 seconds or so for 90 second rounds).  And then, of course, there's a whole psychology to fighting - the confident, smart fighter is going to win the day every time.

[Raw Kyle]

Lex, if you do the cycling ketogenic diet will you ever truly become keto-adapted? From what you wrote before it seems like it's a long process, at least weeks long of eating very very low carb (practically zero) and even might include low protein to fat ratio (because of proteins abilities to be converted to glucose.

But if you're changing from low to moderate or hi carb every week back and forth, the adaptation period you wrote of would not have time to occur. Is the cycling something you do AFTER a lengthy adaptation period?

Satya, yes fighting is very anaerobic in my experience as well. At the beach with friends this week we were rolling and they were all huffing and puffing in about a minute and I never got out of breath because I was just using technique. Still they were holding me down well because I wasn't using any explosive energy.

So would it make sense to train eating low carb for a long time and really increase your insulin sensitivity and deplete glycogen stores, and then before a competition consume carbs? Usually fighting consists of 5 minute rounds, in my sport anywhere from 2 to 5 of them, which I consider short duration high intensity. And you have a minute break in between each round.

[lex_rooker]

Kyle,
No, I don't believe that if you do a CKD that you will ever fully adapt your body to burning fat and ketones as it's preferred fuel.  From what I understand, that is the whole point, you don't want to adapt or you will lose the ability to do intense workouts.

I also believe that it does take many weeks to fully adapt your body to using fat as it's primary fuel.  From what I understand, once you've adapted to fat, it takes equally as long to convert your body back to glucose.  This is why it is recommended that you choose carefully.  If I was a dedicated body builder and wanted the most control over my ability to control body fat and build muscle, I would stay with a glucose based metabolism and use a CKD.

I'm also of the understanding that running totally on fat for fuel is not a good strategy for longevity, but that a low carb ( 50g/day) or very low carb (less than 30g/day) diet that is high in fat but keeps the muscles and possibly the brain running on mostly glucose is more conducive to a longer life span.

Again, all of this is just speculation (possibly with a good bit of wishful thinking thrown it), but it is what the research and experience in such matters that's currently available, though minimal at best, point too.

Lex

[xylothrill]

I'm also of the understanding that running totally on fat for fuel is not a good strategy for longevity, but that a low carb ( 50g/day) or very low carb (less than 30g/day) diet that is high in fat but keeps the muscles and possibly the brain running on mostly glucose is more conducive to a longer life span.

Again, all of this is just speculation (possibly with a good bit of wishful thinking thrown it), but it is what the research and experience in such matters that's currently available, though minimal at best, point too.

Lex

Lex,

Why do you think that? I've read studies on centenarians that concluded the only common denominator they all had was low insulin and triglyceride levels for their ages. Diet varied among them as well as disposition, activity, ect. I believe that the belief that longevity is hereditary comes from the fact that people who have parents that live long have a higher chance of living longer themselves but it may be that they are able to handle the high-carb neolithic diet better than others. This ability is what's hereditary, not longevity itself. Just my opinion though.

In your carb count, are you including protein-derived carbs or just overt carbs?

Craig

[lex_rooker]

Craig,
Looking at the longevity of peoples like the Inuit, Masai and others that ate almost totally animal based diets, you find that for the most part they lived into their late 70's or mid 80's.  Of course this could have been due to the harsh environments as well.  Cultures who's diet was primarily animal based but consumed a few more carbs tend to average 5 to 10 years longer.  My guess is that the Inuit/Masai type cultures are totally fat adapted, but even small intake of 30-50g/day of carbs in the diets of other animal food based cultures can provide enough glucose when combined with gloconeogenis of dietary protein to keep the body's major systems running on glucose rather than fat.

I don't include glucose made made by the body from protein or fat.  I also exclude any carbs from the glycogen in meat tissue as there is no way to accurately measure this.  I only count carbs that are directly ingested in the diet from plant sources or readily recognized animal sources such as dairy.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Lex,

Could it be that the small amount of carbs give the liver a break from gluconeogenesis (if that is hard on the liver at all)? My liver enzymes improved greatly on zero carb.
Could the antioxidants in the berries be responsible rather than the carbs themselves? Also, berries mostly contain fructose, which is sent directly to the liver needing no insulin to enter cells as sucrose does.

What do you think?

Craig

[Raw Kyle]

Very interesting stuff. I guess I just have to figure out with the sport I'm most involved with (mixed martial arts) whether it would be better to sacrifice some explosive endurance for greater non-explosive endurance.

[Satya]

So would it make sense to train eating low carb for a long time and really increase your insulin sensitivity and deplete glycogen stores, and then before a competition consume carbs? Usually fighting consists of 5 minute rounds, in my sport anywhere from 2 to 5 of them, which I consider short duration high intensity. And you have a minute break in between each round.

Five minute rounds, OMG!  Now Kyle, could you please recommend a youtube video for me to watch to get an idea of the fighting style in which you engage yourself?  Is this wrestling style fighting or what?  As you probably guessed, I do Olympic style Taekwondo sparring, but I mainly get into the self defense stuff and forms.  I think that that kind of sparring is very artificial and sporty, which is fine, of course.  It's fun and a great workout.  Anyhoo, if you could send a link to something that might be up your alley, I'd be much obliged.

I really don't know if you'd have problems with it on a ketogenic diet, especially if you got enough protein and calories.  The only time I suffered fatigue was on day 5 of a juice fast a couple years ago - lightheadedness, heart palpitations, you know.  Not good to do a heavy workout in such a state.  For you, I would think that you could do some fruit before competition, but I would not go down the slippery slope towards starches.  Besides, Lex is pumping out any glucose he needs from his meat, especially at the higher protein ratio.  It will take you a few months to adapt at most, methinks.  Only one way for you to find out.

You can always be a ketogenic omnivore; I would think there would be no benefit for you to give up plants altogether.  But I could be wrong.  It has been known to happen from time to time.  Any carnivores doing explosive exercise regularly who care to share?

[Raw Kyle]

Thanks for the advice Satya, it's always nice to see what others have to write for me about stuff. I hate making diet decisions with little to no input from others.

All the fights you could ever want to see you can stream or sometime download (for free) from this site:

http://www.mmalinker.com/

You don't even have to sign up, you'll see a white background list with fighters names in alphabetical order on the left side of the home page and you just click their name and hit search and it gives you everything they have on them. Most organizations these guys fight in have 3 x 5 minute rounds, and championship bouts are sometimes 5 x 5 minute rounds.

Fighters that I like, that you might want to check out, are BJ Penn, Georges St. Pierre, Nick Diaz, Anderson Silva, Fedor Emelienenko and Wanderlei Silva. There's plenty more I like but those will give you a look at diverse styles, BJ Penn is primarily Brazilian jiu jit su and boxing, Georges St. Pierre is a good wrestler and uses a muay Thai mixed up with kyokushin karate striking style, Anderson Silva is one of the best Muay Thai practitioners in the sport, Fedor Emelienenko uses a grappling style called sambo from Russia, and Wanderlei Silva is just brutal in there.

Although most fighters have one or perhaps two primary styles, these days everyone trains at least a little bit in everything. Back in the older fights (which you can watch on there as well) you will see guys who only train one discipline. That is virtually unheard of these days.

As it's my current favorite hobby I could go on and on about the sport but I'll spare you and save you more time to watch the fights. Also if you don't like the mmalinker site there are many fights you can see on youtube, dailymotion, googlevideo etc but some American companies take those videos down. So those sites have a lot of Japanese promotions on there; they are good for fighter highlights though, if you want to see the best of a certain fighter people make highlight videos with music. Enjoy!

[TheWayCreatesTheWarrior]

Also, berries mostly contain fructose, which is sent directly to the liver needing no insulin to enter cells as sucrose does.


Craig

really, i didnt know that?

[xylothrill]

Yep! There's better info out there but this will have to do for now.  No need for insulin to metabolize fructose but don't go overboard because the liver turns fructose directly into triglycerides.

What are the differences in the way glucose and fructose are metabolized by the body?

Even though commonly consumed sugars provide basically the same number of calories, they are metabolized and used by the body in different ways. For instance, glucose from dietary sources is digested, absorbed, transported to the liver, and released into the general blood stream. Many tissues take up glucose from the blood to use for energy; this process requires insulin. Fructose is predominantly metabolized in the liver, but unlike glucose it does not require insulin to be used by the body.

Does fructose cause diabetes?

Diabetes is a disorder affecting the way the body produces and uses insulin and how it handles blood glucose. Insulin is essential for aiding glucose transport into cells. People with type I diabetes do not produce insulin, whereas those with type II diabetes either do not produce enough insulin or cannot efficiently use the insulin their bodies make. Factors such as overweight and obesity, lack of physical activity, and genetic predisposition all increase the risk for type II diabetes.
People with diabetes must pay attention to the amount of all carbohydrates—sugars and starches—they consume.

Because fructose does not increase blood glucose and does not require insulin, individuals with diabetes can often tolerate it better than other sugars. In fact, studies show that small amounts of oral fructose may actually improve glycemic control in people with diabetes.

http://www.ific.org/publications/qa/fructoseqa.cfm

[Satya]

I can't find ketostix locally anymore.  Does anyone have a good, cheap online source they can recommend?  TIA.

[Satya]

http://www.mmalinker.com/

Thank you, Kyle.  I will check out these guys (what, no girls allowed?) hopefully tomorrow.  I have been training at the dojang every day this week.  And I too love to talk shop!  Ugh, but I am so busy right now preparing to go down south, then have my sister stay at my house.  So please don't think I am not going to get back with you, cuz I am.

I agree that it is really vital to train in many systems.  However, I also believe that at least 1st Dan ranking should be achieved before moving on, if possible.  I suppose it depends on the art and how useful it is to you overall.  But point blank, understanding the intricacies of any martial art takes years.  You can't get the details without time and a really wise instructor.  If you just mix different styles without mastering any one of them, you will probably suck in the ring.  Am I right?

[Raw Kyle]

There is female mma but it's nowhere near as big as male.

As for training, I think that styles are an abstraction tbh. I think when the Asians brought over martial arts and started teaching it for the most part it was a racket. Pay for your belt, pay for your testing, you can't learn a new technique until you have a belt which you have to pay for.

I think the big difference is situations to train for, mainly standing and then on the ground. My school is a Brazilian jiu jit su school, so everything we do in mma class is still mostly rooted in that art. We box or kick box in class, but at least half of our mma training takes place on the ground starting in various positions. Most fights are decided on the ground in mma anyway, and also in real life.

What I'd like to find is a good boxing or kickboxing (muay Thai preferably) training partner and also wrestling training partners, because I have the bjj training taken care of at my school. I think to train in mma you should train individually in bjj, wrestling and striking (while standing) and then begin to mix it all together in training once you have basic techniques in those areas down. My wrestling is almost non-existent and my striking is rudimentary so I should like to improve those the most. I don't want to be paying for another gym/club/school though so what I'm looking for is a good training partner that can show me basics and we can drill together.

[Raw Kyle]

This anaerobic vs. aerobic dilemma has me thinking about the difference between cats and dogs. Cats usually run down their prey with a quick burst, they overtake it with speed. Dogs tend to run their prey into exhaustion or use an ambush; sometimes they nip at the preys heels for miles while chasing it until it becomes to tired to give chase anymore.

Those two hunting strategies represent the dichotomy of anaerobic vs. aerobic; the cats are participating in an anaerobic hunting strategy and the dogs an aerobic one.

It would be very interesting to see if a cat has more glycogen stores in it's muscles than a dog, whereas a dog perhaps is more keto-adapted and has more readily available fat stores to use for long term energy.

[Satya]

As for training, I think that styles are an abstraction tbh. I think when the Asians brought over martial arts and started teaching it for the most part it was a racket. Pay for your belt, pay for your testing, you can't learn a new technique until you have a belt which you have to pay for.

I think it can be a racket, but it is not necessarily so.  And besides, these arts are ultimately military arts, and as a former military member, I can say that my school upholds this kind of militaristic training.  It's not a game, nor a sport.  It has that side to it, but the traditional martial art and the sport are two separate things.  Defending yourself on the street is much different than defending yourself in the ring.  Styles are what they are, and some people are suited to certain styles than others due to their anatomy or other factors.  I think it's great to learn as much as you can and find what works for you.  Oh, and finally, the Asian masters can teach the Asian culture, and that in itself is worth SO much to me.  You can't learn that in school, it has to be experienced.  So many Americans try to copy the rituals without any understanding of the deeper meanings behind them.  So I am super happy to be taught by a 9th Dan Korean and a 4th Dan Korean.  It's almost as good as living in a foreign country (which is a very worthwhile pursuit that I highly recommend, as well)!

[mors01]

Satya: for buying ketostix online, try ebay.com. I recently bought some blood glucose test strips on ebay,
it was much cheaper than at a local pharmacy.

[lex_rooker]

Kyle,
Here's an article (PDF attached below) by Stephen Phinney on this subject.  I've read it in the past but just reread it and can see now why I'm losing muscle mass - protein is below 1.1g/kg.  I'll need to up my protein.  Also good info on potassium and sodium deficiency on a ketogenic diet.

Lex

[Satya]

Thanks for the tip on ketostix, mors01.

Lex, I don't see any attachment.  Perhaps you can paste in the link to the pdf file?  I like Dr. Phinney's work, and I am so pleased that you plan to increase the protein in your diet again.  Muscle is hard to build, and you certainly don't want to lose any.

Your efforts are admirable on this experimentational front.  Do you know what I have concluded from your recent higher fat, lower protein experiment?  The take home message for me is that there is no need to go total carnivore.  (I am now ducking to avoid the rotten tomatoes that will inevitably be tossed my way by such a remark.)  My reasons are:
1. The body has to have some glucose to run on, so why not consume some plants directly for the carbs that will otherwise be made from the protein?
2. Name me one traditional society that has completely shunned plant matter.  Survival means eating whatever is available for non-modern peoples.
3. Plant foods offer nutrients, antioxidants and variety to the diet.

All that said, I thrive on a ketogenic diet and will probably remain low carb for the rest of my life. 

[Kristelle]

I personally don't see any reason to go higher fat and lower protein, nor to count how many grams one should eat. Eating fatty meats alone is so simple and provides all the energy you need. If endurance is really what you're striving for, then I understand you wanting your muscles to run on ketones. But I personally don't mind having my brain run on ketones and muscles run on glucose. Fine by me!

As for potassium and sodium, I mostly have a problem with sodium, lack of. I recently realized that my hormones weren't helping. Progesterone reduces sodium levels even more and it is high during the second part of our menstrual cycle. I don't have cycles anymore but was taking progesterone with estrogen. Now, I'm just taking estrogen which actually increases sodium levels so that's good. I also salt my meat a little.

Potassium is only needed if you cook your meat, it seems so not a concern of mine.

Lex, best of luck and take care.

[lex_rooker]

Satya,
The attachment is at the very bottom of the post.  The font is very small, light green in color,and there is a paper clip next to it.

I must agree with your basic assessment on carbs.  When people ask, I tell them that carbs are not evil and that our paleo ancestors certainly ate some carbs, probably on a seasonal basis.  I doubt that they were more than about 5-10% of their total diet, but I'm convinced that they did eat some carbs none the less.  I also tell people that my choice to go all-meat-all-the-time was an experiment just to see if it was feasible.  For the most part it has worked out well so I've stuck with it.

My best guess is that if you follow Lutz's advice in his book "Life Without Bread", and keep total carb intake below 75g/day, you'll have the best of both worlds.  You'll have the benefit of a high fat diet with the flexibility of being able to enjoy a piece of fruit or a small salad when the mood strikes.  I'd also make sure my carbs were Paleo friendly and avoid dairy, grains, and beans etc.

Lex

[lex_rooker]

I personally don't see any reason to go higher fat and lower protein, nor to count how many grams one should eat. Eating fatty meats alone is so simple and provides all the energy you need. If endurance is really what you're striving for, then I understand you wanting your muscles to run on ketones. But I personally don't mind having my brain run on ketones and muscles run on glucose. Fine by me!

Kristelle, I agree with you 100%.  Just eating fatty meats was pretty much what I was doing before I expanded my experiment to see what would happen if I raised the fat level and reduced the protein.  My original diet worked out to right around 70/30 or so and it was easy to maintain.  Adding that extra 10% fat has been tough.  You have to add extra fat to everything as there just isn't 80% fat by calories available in most meat sources - including organs.  I also felt great all the time.

As for potassium and sodium, I mostly have a problem with sodium, lack of. I recently realized that my hormones weren't helping. Progesterone reduces sodium levels even more and it is high during the second part of our menstrual cycle. I don't have cycles anymore but was taking progesterone with estrogen. Now, I'm just taking estrogen which actually increases sodium levels so that's good. I also salt my meat a little. Potassium is only needed if you cook your meat, it seems so not a concern of mine.

We tend to think of adding salt and other minerals as supplements, but it is clear in Phinney's article that all cultures need sodium, potassium, and magnesium and did what it took to get it - be it consume the animal's blood or drink brackish water.  You even see animals licking the soil around salt and mineral deposits.

Lex