Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Health & Fitness => Topic started by: TPMB12 on 08 November, 2019, 09:37:17 am
-
There's already posts on here but simply put they're very long and too late to get into. Besides they're more reporting threads now so I thought I'd start a new thread for my questions.
Who is a keto diet good for?
Reading about it the emphasis seems to be weight loss. I'm my ideal weight and don't need diets. I'm interested in benefits for migraines. Also wonder if they're good for IBS symptoms.
What about low energy? If I miss out on carbs for one meal such as breakfast, I'm shaky with low energy before lunch. I know because I often have 4 eggs for weekend breakfasts. If I don't eat 2 slices of buttered toast with them I'll not last to lunch.
So many questions and that's before I get to cost over normal, balanced diet and recipes.
-
A keto diet can be good for almost EVERYONE.
It might reduce likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes, reduce visceral fat and other metabolic woes.
Energy swings are reduced because the blood sugar does not swing wildly with eating, as fat is the principal source of energy.
As few carbohydrate food are eaten, the fermentable type that might worsen an irritable bowel are spurned.
That's some of the theory.
My take is some people eat more carbs than might be advisable and should reduce their intake. For myself, I like my carbs but consume far less than previously.
I like them too much and have too few actual/potential health issues (weight OK, ancient antecedents, little family history of diabetes) to give them up.
-
But you can say the same of a balanced diet, and there's no real counters to that, because we know a balanced diet is healthy. There's no good-quality evidence that 'keto' has many of the benefits claimed, and the downside is that you're consuming lots of proteins, fats etc. that are may well come with long-term adverse effects. Fair enough, if you like it, go ahead.
Tbh, if I were shaky after not eating for a few hours, I'd probably get myself to a doctor pretty sharpish.
-
I used to eat a balanced diet but unfortunately was always fat and hungry. The balanced diet including carbs was not working for me. I now eat a very healthy Keto diet with few carbs (almost all from vegetables and berries), no refined food or sugar.
Since going on Keto 10 months ago I have noticed these benefits:
Not constantly thinking about food, eat only two meals per day and almost no snacking
Clearer head the whole time - no sleepy afternoon dip
Excellent sleep at night. I go out like a light and wake up full of energy.
Less bloated feeling a lot of the time, comes back as soon as I eat carbs
Can cycle/walk long distances without fuelling. 100km cycle ride easy with no stops/snacks as energy is constant. Previously had to have cake after 40km.
Farts have zero smell
Some spots on the skin around my face cleared up (milia?)
Disadvantages:
My hair has become less fluffy. It seemed to be thinning in the first few months (this is normal for Keto) but that stopped, it just doesn’t have as much bounce
Heart rate lower - average when cycling around 110 whereas before it was 130. Burning fewer calories?
Blood pressure lower, sometimes I have postural hypotension
If I eat some fruits I get terrible gut gurgles as it seems I don’t have the microbes to deal with them now (very fibrous melon is a problem)
I had to buy a complete new wardrobe as I am now 2-3 dress sizes smaller
It’s been a real change for me as I was always fat because I was always hungry. And I really was hungry. Now I am on Keto and I am no longer hungry I have this amazing sense of freedom - and have lost 20kg this year without calorie counting. Our food is actually tastier and healthier now.
My partner is clearly less carb-sensitive. He doesn’t have the ‘Heißhunger’ that I have when eating carbs again (I am ravenous and have to eat again after 2 hours) so he is much more relaxed about cheating with carbs. He didn’t need to lose weight and hasn’t really done so (he does eat a lot of Haribo!) but his skin seems better and his high blood pressure reduced enough that he was able to stop taking his tablets.
-
TBM, re needing food again after your toast-free breakfast, that’s because your body hasn’t learned to burn the alternative fuel source ketones yet. The first 3 days on Keto are hard as your body is used to burning glycogen. After 2-3 days you suddenly realise your hunger pangs have gone away.
I have 3 eggs for breakfast at the weekend - with butter, bacon and Creme fraiche - and wouldn’t need anything until the evening. I have no breakfast during the week, I have lunch at 1 and dinner at 7. When eating carbs I need breakfast by 8 at the latest.
-
I used to eat a balanced diet but unfortunately was always fat and hungry.
I'd suggest then, that it wasn't truly a healthy balanced diet. But if Keto works for you, fine.
-
I used to eat 150g+ dry weight of basmati or long grain white rice with a meat based sauce every evening. No breakfast and 4 slices of bread with cheese and pickle for lunch
I'd eat crisps and chocolate bars at breaks between them. Overall I'd say 4500 to 5000 kcals per day, every day. My base metabolic requirement was 3500 to 5500 kcals depending on my activity that day. That's according to online calculators
That happened after getting my own place and no longer living at my parents sharing family meals made for my parent's needs. I went from BMI 16 to 17 and rose to 23. I decided that was too high for my preference so decided to lose weight. I dropped a few bags of crisps and chocolate them switched my gym workouts to more cv than weights. I dropped 2 stone to achieve about 86kg and been like that for 15 years.
I have a consistent weight and my personal habit is such that my intake goes up and down according to activity levels and needs.
I say this because weight control is completely individual. Not everyone can work with every diet system. Keto worked fot you. I don't think three diet itself is the real reason more that the approach suits you if that makes sense.
For example, 5:2 diet system. I know people who shed weight and then maintained the target weight by following it religiously. I know others who simply cannot operate on the fast days so gave up. They could have made it work and given time they would get used to the fast days, but they decided to give up on it.
My view on keto is that it's really just another form if controlling calories and quality of intake. Eat well and the right calories and I believe you'll get to and maintain an ideal weight for you. Just pick your system.
-
It’s been a real change for me as I was always fat because I was always hungry. And I really was hungry. Now I am on Keto and I am no longer hungry I have this amazing sense of freedom - and have lost 20kg this year without calorie counting. Our food is actually tastier and healthier now.
I don't do keto (except before it was cool, when I was a borderline-anorexic teenager), but I certainly get the eating-causes-hunger effect. If I eat breakfast, I'll want to eat all day, where otherwise I can go until the evening without really being interested in food. After an evening meal, I'll want to nibble things until bedtime.
Low energy only if I'm doing something physical - if I'm going to spend all day on the bike, I'll probably need some fuel, which I tend to do by numbers because cycling suppresses my appetite.
Postcholecystectomy syndrome complicates things - if I go too long (awake) without eating small amounts of fat, I tend to get diarrhoea.
I reckon a keto diet would work well for me, but I don't need to lose weight, and I'm wary of going off food entirely again.
-
As the OP seems to have irritable bowels (I suspect many do, to some degree) a low FODMAP diet might be more helpful than strict keto, though there is some overlap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FODMAP)
-
isn't a keto state a state of emergency, a backup energy system for our survival in the times of scarcity? looking at the healthiest and highest life expectancy nations (e.g. spanish, french, japanese) - how popular and widespread are these diets over there?
i've been in keto state before, after illness, and best i could describe it was a state of hibernation - gentle, calculated moves and no desire for anything intense, which would leave me out of (keto)breath.
carbs are the main and key energy source for anyone into sports or vigorous activities - fats simply cannot release energy fast enough. this is not to say that keto diet suits no one. for some it works ok, but balanced diet (based on whole, not junk, foods) will always be richer in nutrients, vitamins, minerals and provide more energy and vitality.
-
In my experience, the Japanese don't tend to diet. The French are getting lardier with a swing towards the Quickie burger, but they seem to offset it with a stubborn resistance to 'stop smoking' campaigns.
Americans are massively lardy simply because they eat vast quantities of everything, not because they ate a carb. They ate all the carbs. Then worked through the rest of the food groups.
Ketosis is generally a starvation response. I wouldn't say it's normal to be in such a state for long periods (but I doubt anyone knows, and in reality, I expect few people who claim to be 'keto' are actually in ketosis, in the studies were people have looked at the effect on things like epilepsy, the diets are very restrictive).
Hunger is a normal state and I think we need to accept it – it's normal after a few hours to be hungry. Yeah, it takes will-power not to snarfle a pavement slab of Dairy Milk the moment hunger gives you a gentle poke. But it's hunger that makes you appreciate food. I'm hungry now, it's been five hours since I ate a modest lunch (salad and fruit). I'll be hungrier after I've cycled 20 miles home. But I'll appreciate my dinner when I get it (about 10pm).
Farting is also normal. Some foods being fartier is normal (I can't eat celeriac, Jerusalem artichoke, spelt flour, and most beans without unleashing a fragrantly terrifying zephyr of extraordinary proportions). Sometimes, in the words of the song, you have to let it go. Frankly, who doesn't enjoy a good fart, provided of course, it's your own.
-
I always wonder what people mean by a "balanced diet". Balanced for whom and when in history?
We used to be scavengers eating whatever we could gather or kill, then we became mainly agrarian farmers with a few cousins still hunting. Some of us lived in warm countries and some in cold. Some of existed for a winter on walrus fat and rotten cod, others on olive oil and calamari (the lucky ones)
But remember that white rice, unlimited pasta and white bread cannot be part of a "balanced diet" as they are essentially a product of the last 150 years or not part of western food. Even the potato has only been around for 400 years which is a mere blip in evolutionary terms.
Are there at least two energy pathways - yes.
Does one primarily work through carbohydrate metabolism and muscle glycogen and the other through free fatty acids? Yes
May one be more associated with easier satiety than the other? Possibly
Does the keto diet include all food groups? Yes
Does it essentially reduce the proportion of refined carbohydrate? Yes
Do most of us lose weight easily on this diet and have more sustained energy production? Yes
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I am not going to reccommend it to you. You are intelligent enough to read the books by noakes and others, decide if the biochemistry is true and then decide if the advantages outweigh the downsides of the eating plan for your lifestyle and needs.
-
I can't compete with Chris' logic but from my personal experience I didn't last more than a couple of weeks on Keto because I felt lethargic, it felt like my digestive system ground to a halt and I and struggled with sustained exercise (rowing and cycling). It's also bloody expensive.
We watched 'gamechangers' a couple of weeks ago on netflix and we had a bet to see who could last longest as a vegan and I'm absolutely loving it - I feel better, it's much easier to cook (variations of rice / beans / chickpeas / lots of veggies and fruit smoothies) and my cycling has suddenly got quicker so we're almost the same pace - I also got some new wheels which are probably most of the difference, but the engine has to count for something...
-
I forgot to add as the corollary of my first couple of paragraphs that actually it probably is not ideal for everybody. The variation in muscle fibre type, response to training, etc probably mean that some can make use of such a diet and some cannot. Not good, not bad just individual genetic variation.
-
Migraines issue aside, this is my experiences from 6 weeks on keto:
- Much easier to skip meals. I don't get the 'must...eat..now!!!", once I was 30 mins past dinner time.
- No post meal slumber!. Productive meetings after lunch are actually possible!.
- Better focus. Especially later in the day
- weight loss.
- broken the sugar addiction.
Cons:
- limited lunch options when I didn't bring my own.
- requires more planning.
- lower endurance during exercise. This, some say, may recover as you adapt. (can take months).
Even without the migraine improvements, it's been well worthwhile. I eat better meals, where as previous 'diets', as always felt like a compromise. Here, you'll have a meal and you don't think you missed out.
I've lost weight easier than ever before.
It's also easier as keto is fairly black and white when it comes to carbs/sugar.
If you're interested, I want pass on Auntie Helens recommendation and check out dietdoctor.com. It's a terrible name, but their 2 week (free if you give them your email) guide takes you by the hand and guides you through it.
Do I miss stuff? Sure...do I crave it? No!.
-
It's pretty much the only way you can lose weight whilst feeling like you're stuffing your face. (Other mileages may vary).
My diet is MUCH healthier when carb-limiting; much more veg/whole food - despite the meat-a-thon.
I found my "top end" (such as it is) disappeared for a while. I could chug along well enough, but hill climbing? Ugh!
That does improve if you stick with it, though as Jakob says - it could take a while.
-
It's pretty much the only way you can lose weight whilst feeling like you're stuffing your face. (Other mileages may vary).
My diet is MUCH healthier when carb-limiting; much more veg/whole food - despite the meat-a-thon.
I found my "top end" (such as it is) disappeared for a while. I could chug along well enough, but hill climbing? Ugh!
That does improve if you stick with it, though as Jakob says - it could take a while.
You sure about that? That's quite an assertion you are making there, unless it is of course your opinion and thus anecdotal.
-
If it helps, I'll second Chris opinion
I'm back on the keto wagon, and look and feel much better for it 😎
-
Ref the original post, I'm one of those people who like to eat breakfast every day, so its mostly egg an bacon or Greek yoghurt. But on the bike my appetite disappears and can go most of the day without eating.
-
It's pretty much the only way you can lose weight whilst feeling like you're stuffing your face. (Other mileages may vary).
My diet is MUCH healthier when carb-limiting; much more veg/whole food - despite the meat-a-thon.
I found my "top end" (such as it is) disappeared for a while. I could chug along well enough, but hill climbing? Ugh!
That does improve if you stick with it, though as Jakob says - it could take a while.
You sure about that? That's quite an assertion you are making there, unless it is of course your opinion and thus anecdotal.
Of course it's my opinion and anecdotal - I thought the "other mileages may vary" implied that.
OK, let's try this then: In my experience, if I have a bowl of cereal in the morning, I'm hungry again by lunchtime, but if I have some sausage bacon and fried mushrooms, I'm good 'til evening. Fat and protein takes longer to digest and is more energy dense - I'm quite prepared to believe I have a lot more calories in the fry-up, so it's hardly a surprise it lasts longer, but equally - I bet my insulin level is much more stable, and to my mind, that's an appetite leveller.
-
It has become very clear to me in the last year or so that people are all different (who knew!!)
Some people don't suffer from hunger when they eat the standard western diet. These are the people who might be so busy at work they forget to eat. That always sounded completely unrealistic to me, I would NEVER forget to eat. In fact, during the day I would always be planning where to eat, and when visiting friends overnight I always took some supplies with me in case they didn't feed me enough. As a child I always had 'midnight Frosties' (supper, in other words, just before bed) as I was hungry.
I may have felt hungry but my body wasn't really hungry, but that isn't something you can do much about.
So for me, the miracle of my hunger pangs disappearing is what makes Keto so suitable for me. And the poster above is right, I doubt I am in ketosis now (eating too many carbs), but I am eating low carb enough that the hunger doesn't come back.
And yet for other people, who aren't hungry two hours after eating a big meal, this benefit of Keto eating choices means nothing.
The OP asks who benefits from Keto? I think one clear group are the 'labradors' like me who are always hungry. We are usually fat because we are eating when it isn't necessary, and even if we are eating the right things (I used to often snack on fruit), too much of that means too many calories and getting fat. People used to say that a bowl of porridge would fill you up till lunch - no chance for me, I was hungry again an hour later.
Other groups who might benefit are the epilepsy/headache/diabetes people, or people who need sustained energy all day without troughs and spikes. For those who need explosive power in their fitness plans then it's not going to be good for quite a while.
The upside of this way of eating for me is that the food we eat is very unprocessed - and we don't have to look for the Low Fat versions of everything in the supermarket. I have been a lifelong teetotaller so don't miss the beer which I think could be an issue for lots of people. I just drink water and tea (I have had to cut out the orange juice).
There is no harm in the Keto diet, it works really well for certain groups of people, and isn't necessary for others. Choose if you want to do it. But please DON'T tell me that the hunger/not hunger thing is in my head, as it certainly isn't. I and many other fat people who do Keto can show you that there really is a difference, and for us this is the key.
-
i just want to reiterate that having carbs in one's diet does not equal to eating the worst and super-processed foodstuffs (sugar laden cereals, biscuits, fizzy drinks, long shelf life cakes, cardboard bread etc. - no one should consume these, really). it's all well and good if keto diet consists of unprocessed whole foods. adding good quality carbs can only enrich it, both in terms of energy and variety of nutrients.
"standard western/american diet" should not be taken as a reference - i assume most of us here are enlightened to accept that it is good for no one's health.
-
You’re right, you can choose high quality carbs to eat, it doesn’t have to be processed rubbish. But good quality carbs still give an insulin response.
The good quality carbs I eat (in leafy vegetables) are few enough that this isn’t usually the case for me, I stay under 50g net carbs (ignoring the fibre content) per day. If I eat too many ‘good’ carbs then I get hungry again.
-
Insulin response is being talked of as if it's bad thing. It happens naturally in the body and it's happening whether you have a lot or little in the way of carbs surely. Keto diet doesn't completely exclude carbs so sugars get into the blood. The body manages it if not through insulin response then how? That bit confused me the way keto dieters talk about it as if their diet stopped it.
Auntie Helen describes a pattern of food related behaviour I've never had and I don't really know anyone in my family who does. We don't forget to eat, we aren't always planning when we're going to eat our next meal. Simply put we tend to eat at regular times, we eat regular meals and don't take emergency supplies when visiting friends. Imho there's an unhealthy relationship to food going on. If keto resets that for you then great.
I think that's possibly the biggest part of any successful diet. It resets your food habits to a healthier place. Whether that's through a healthier intake, healthier quantity or healthier mindset about foods.
-
OK, let's try this then: In my experience, if I have a bowl of cereal in the morning, I'm hungry again by lunchtime, but if I have some sausage bacon and fried mushrooms, I'm good 'til evening. Fat and protein takes longer to digest and is more energy dense - I'm quite prepared to believe I have a lot more calories in the fry-up, so it's hardly a surprise it lasts longer, but equally - I bet my insulin level is much more stable, and to my mind, that's an appetite leveller.
OOI, what happens if you don't have any breakfast?
I tend to find any breakfast means I'm hungry by lunch time, though I haven't thoroughly tested what happens if it's protein and fat. (Usually if I'm eating breakfast at all, it's because I need fuel for some impending physical activity, which means carbs, or eating whatever I have easily to hand to alleviate some digestive/medication issue, which means carbs.)
(I'll be the first to admit to an unhealthy relationship to food. There's so much social baggage attached to it, and thanks to my parents I'll never be rid of the idea that I'm a fundamentally bad person for not eating the things people want me to. But I also have a weird relationship to hunger, as I went for so long without feeling it.)
-
I still get hungry, but it's nowhere near as over-powering before.
It used to be impossible for me to comprehend how people could fast for extended periods of time. I would pretty much stop functioning if I didn't get lunch or dinner (I've been able to skip breakfast).
Now it's entirely manageable. I still wouldn't want to fast, but I can now see how it's possible :)
-
You’re right, you can choose high quality carbs to eat, it doesn’t have to be processed rubbish. But good quality carbs still give an insulin response.
The good quality carbs I eat (in leafy vegetables) are few enough that this isn’t usually the case for me, I stay under 50g net carbs (ignoring the fibre content) per day. If I eat too many ‘good’ carbs then I get hungry again.
Meh
-
Good quality carbs do give an insulin response but it's not as sharp as that stimulated by poor carbs.
It's also much easier to overeat poor carbs than good ones.
Protein gets deaminated to carbohydrate and this also stimulates insulin secretion.
-
You’re right, you can choose high quality carbs to eat, it doesn’t have to be processed rubbish. But good quality carbs still give an insulin response.
The good quality carbs I eat (in leafy vegetables) are few enough that this isn’t usually the case for me, I stay under 50g net carbs (ignoring the fibre content) per day. If I eat too many ‘good’ carbs then I get hungry again.
Meh
Part of the problem with poor quality carbs is not only the incredibly fast insulin spike but the corresponding relative hypoglycaemia which drives lethargy, and hunger.
If you do not get the massive insulin spike then you do not get the relative hypoglycaemia. However you clearly have no need for any form of diet as you eat sensibly, have a perfect psychological relationship with food and a perfect BMI. I do not see keto offering you anything.
-
<much good stuff snipped>
...
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
-
<much good stuff snipped>
...
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
You sure about that?
Might want to check their running speeds.
-
If I was an elite athlete I might worry about losing a per cent or two of top-end power but as a red lantern AUK such losses are more than made up for by, for example, spending less time in co-ops and cafes. :)
-
You’re right, you can choose high quality carbs to eat, it doesn’t have to be processed rubbish. But good quality carbs still give an insulin response.
The good quality carbs I eat (in leafy vegetables) are few enough that this isn’t usually the case for me, I stay under 50g net carbs (ignoring the fibre content) per day. If I eat too many ‘good’ carbs then I get hungry again.
Meh
Part of the problem with poor quality carbs is not only the incredibly fast insulin spike but the corresponding relative hypoglycaemia which drives lethargy, and hunger.
If you do not get the massive insulin spike then you do not get the relative hypoglycaemia. However you clearly have no need for any form of diet as you eat sensibly, have a perfect psychological relationship with food and a perfect BMI. I do not see keto offering you anything.
You know so much - about so little. :)
-
I've tried the protein and fats rich breakfast. 4 eggs for breakfast only works because I'm often eating it later in the morning and I'm free to snack pretty much straight away if needed. It's my weekend breakfast. What works for me is no breakfast other than coffee. That's the only start that gets me through to lunch.
Other breakfasts I've tried have been bacon, bacon and eggs, bacon and sausage or various combinations of breakfast meats with eggs. Same effect for me. Sometimes if I can't snack through the morning it triggers a migraine for me.
Other breakfasts have been large bowls of wholegrain cereals, porridge and muesli. Still not a good option but a small bowl of muesli eaten mid morning will get me to lunch. It's often only by then I'm feeling hungry anyway.
For me the best solution is to eat often. It's the only way I can stop quantity of food intake becoming a trigger for migraines.
-
My gripe isn't really with keto, whatever floats your boat really, but it's with diets in general. Dieting is a symptom that something is fundamentally wrong with our relationship with food. And keto, in that, follows a familiar pattern. People fall off the wagon, eat a cake or whatever, there's a period of self-flagellation and guilt, and around it goes.
Phrases like 'insulin response' have become totemic, but in context, of course, these are perfectly normal physiological responses. Yes, a balanced diet such strip out most of the refined and manufactured food, it's not necessary and frankly, the other stuff tastes better, I'm not sure the benefits of bland white rice over nutty brown rice. But then we live in a world where people want microwave rice because twenty minutes is too long. Supermarkets, of course, take a lot of the blame – what fresh food they offer is expensive, whereas manufactured stuff is cheap (and of course, given the choice between low margin perishables and high margin boxes with shelf-lives of months, well, that's where we are) – compounded of course, what fresh they do have, it's selected for transportability and persistence, not taste, hence the surfeit of bland fruit and veg.
I'm not sure anyone 'suffers' from hunger. It's normal to be hungry. The thing is, we live in a society where we don't have to be hungry, so the response to eat whenever. One of the best things anyone can do is to stop snacking between meals. It's hundreds of useless calories and when you come to your meal, you won't enjoy it, and instead it becomes another case of stuffing yourself full of calories you no longer need. Combine with a lifestyle that is increasingly sedentary, well, we're not going to get any smaller. The only thing is to start cooking food properly – preparing an actual meal from ingredients rather than shoving something the microwave or oven, or calling up Deliveroo.
-
I'm not sure anyone 'suffers' from hunger. It's normal to be hungry.
You've never had 'the bonk'? Never been so hungry that your stomach hurts, that it is difficult to eat because food makes you physically sick, so you have to restrict yourself to small amounts and wait until your blood sugar gets high enough that you can cope with eating more?
-
Scale of hunger:
1)BORED ->2) Peckish -> 3) Ready for Food -> 4) Hungry -> 5) Ravenous -> 6) Bonk/'Black fantin'
Points 1 & 2 are NOT hungry. Point 3 isn't really hungry. Points 5 & 6 are best avoided, either by eating a diet that avoids wild sugar/insulin swings or getting food in on time.
-
I'm not sure anyone 'suffers' from hunger. It's normal to be hungry.
You've never had 'the bonk'? Never been so hungry that your stomach hurts, that it is difficult to eat because food makes you physically sick, so you have to restrict yourself to small amounts and wait until your blood sugar gets high enough that you can cope with eating more?
Yeah, but this is the sort of 'you wouldn't say that if you were climbing Mt Everest' argument unless you genuinely believe the average office worker forced to stuff another Twix down their throat is suffering from serious hunger because they've not eaten anything since the triple-portion of Coca Pops they had for breakfast two entire hours ago. Which is a more realistic modern peril and encapsulates the problem we have. People are perpetually grazing. They're not waiting for lunch.
If your blood sugar is fluctuating so wildly at normal activity levels and with a standard two or three meals a day, then I think it's more a metabolic problem and medical issue than hunger per se.
-
Eating at points 1 & 2 on my scale above will cause a rise in sugar and surge in insulin, which can perpetuate a cycle of overeating.
Best to eat at point 4, which should be at least 4 hours since the last meal for a sedentary person.
-
Ian, you seem not to understand that some people's hunger response is in some way broken, that they feel genuinely hungry although they shouldn't be. We aren't all like you, you are lucky enough not to have this, and can say "just don't snack between meals". But if you are ravenous that is almost impossible!
There have been interesting studies done in people who have had a specific type of gastric bypass operation and their food cravings disappeared immediately, although with other types of operation this did not happen. There have also been occasions where thin people given a fecal transplant from fat people end up fat. So maybe something in the gut microbiome has an effect, as does something in the stomach, and maybe many other things. We just don't know enough about it yet.
I can tell you that I have been fat my entire life because I have been eating when I am hungry. It is the hunger feelings that are not reflecting reality (my body doesn't need fuel, it has plenty) and for me, magically, the Keto diet takes this away. This morning I didn't have breakfast and did a non-stop 85km ride in temperatures about zero. Came home and had my salad lunch because it was lunchtime. I just had my salad and a few peanuts and that was it. I am not hungry now. This would NEVER have been the case before.
The Keto diet isn't for everyone at all. But the question the OP gave is who would benefit? I, and a number of others, have said those who have these strong hunger cravings (I compare myself to a Labrador), which is NOT YOU but is lots of other people. So please don't dismiss our lived experiences just because it isn't your experience. If someone else who has these hunger pangs regularly is reading this, then perhaps, just perhaps Keto might help them. Or maybe not. But you only know when you try it.
-
Ian, you seem not to understand that some people's hunger response is in some way broken, that they feel genuinely hungry although they shouldn't be. We aren't all like you, you are lucky enough not to have this, and can say "just don't snack between meals". But if you are ravenous that is almost impossible!
Yes, it is possible. It takes willpower and discipline - like stopping smoking "cold turkey" does. Problem is we can live without smoking, stopping eating has other consequences!! But if you stick at it, then the cravings (for that's what it is really, not genuine hunger) will start to fade, just as they do for nicotine. It IS bloody hard though (I know this, because it's what I'm trying to do, without getting into an unhealthy relationship with food), and we as humans like an easy win, hence alternative diets.
-
Auntie Helen and I are VERY different that way!
I was a THIN kid, given books like 'Wendy Won't Eat' as a treat.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/35/3a/c5353a06d4eb84c98e47d6ba3e04e547.jpg)
I got ravenous at puberty and ate more than I should later because I wanted the curves the other girls had. I ate a bit to much as a student but never got REALLY heavy.
I bonked out easily when cycling and was unable to move if I cut the carbs, even if I'd been off them for several days. On the road hunger was less a feature than nigh-paralytic bonk.
I would get a HUGE appetite a couple of days after a long ride.
Now I'm static, I can cut the carbs to small and sensible quantities. I don't hit points 5-6 on my scale, no matter how long I go between feeds.
Things would be very different if I were active.
My weight is within acceptable limits, despite zero exercise for a couple of decades.
-
Ian, you seem not to understand that some people's hunger response is in some way broken, that they feel genuinely hungry although they shouldn't be. We aren't all like you, you are lucky enough not to have this, and can say "just don't snack between meals". But if you are ravenous that is almost impossible!
Yes, it is possible. It takes willpower and discipline - like stopping smoking "cold turkey" does. Problem is we can live without smoking, stopping eating has other consequences!! But if you stick at it, then the cravings (for that's what it is really, not genuine hunger) will start to fade, just as they do for nicotine. It IS bloody hard though (I know this, because it's what I'm trying to do, without getting into an unhealthy relationship with food), and we as humans like an easy win, hence alternative diets.
I said it is almost impossible.
I know it is possible as I managed it back in the year 2000 when I did a mega diet with weight watchers.
However, the weight crept back up again as the cravings for me never faded, and you cannot have that willpower all the time - for the rest of your life!!! I managed it for a year or so which was pretty impressive.
The huge benefit of Keto is I don't need willpower as I don't have the cravings.
-
Ian, you seem not to understand that some people's hunger response is in some way broken, that they feel genuinely hungry although they shouldn't be. We aren't all like you, you are lucky enough not to have this, and can say "just don't snack between meals". But if you are ravenous that is almost impossible!
Yes, it is possible. It takes willpower and discipline - like stopping smoking "cold turkey" does. Problem is we can live without smoking, stopping eating has other consequences!! But if you stick at it, then the cravings (for that's what it is really, not genuine hunger) will start to fade, just as they do for nicotine. It IS bloody hard though (I know this, because it's what I'm trying to do, without getting into an unhealthy relationship with food), and we as humans like an easy win, hence alternative diets.
Auntie Helen makes a fair point here. I think, but am not an expert, that there may be several elements to this including, but not necessarily all or only:
- Our bodies get set at particular weights and hunger regulating hormones tend to push us back there, from either side. reseting the set weight can be difficult and may need a combination of time, diet change an exercise - all require some effort of will
- sugar addiction is, I suspect, brain based, but again needs effort and possibly alternative behaviours to address
- tiredness stimulates eating and helps breakdown insulin response. Not overworking isn't always easy
- general misery - eating when miserable is pretty common
So, willpower is necessary, but it's not a simple picture
-
I used to eat a lot, all the time, and suffer from 'sugar highs' and lows. The original hangry man.
Was put on a drug to treat migraines - it has a side-effect on appetite, appreciating food and hunger. Now, I have to remind myself to respond to hunger. Oh, and the hangry crap went away.
Ian asked 'what is wrong with hunger'. If I don't respond to hunger (and I'm capable of ignoring it, it seems insignificant), I can quite easily not eat. I don't have reserves. I'm under 'ideal' body fat for my age and struggling to keep weight on. Sports performance also suffers. I'd quite literally starve to death while eating as much as I felt like eating. A type of anorexia.
-
I tried the same drug and I not only didn't feel hungry but felt almost completely unable to eat while taking it. I was only on it for about 5-6 weeks cos it broke my brain spectacularly, but it was very weird not being able to get enough calories into myself, especially as I still got "not eating enough" migraine issues.
-
Pneumonia and erythromycin dropped my weight and appetite spectacularly.
Took me ages to get any fitness back!
-
Ian, you seem not to understand that some people's hunger response is in some way broken, that they feel genuinely hungry although they shouldn't be. We aren't all like you, you are lucky enough not to have this, and can say "just don't snack between meals". But if you are ravenous that is almost impossible!
There have been interesting studies done in people who have had a specific type of gastric bypass operation and their food cravings disappeared immediately, although with other types of operation this did not happen. There have also been occasions where thin people given a fecal transplant from fat people end up fat. So maybe something in the gut microbiome has an effect, as does something in the stomach, and maybe many other things. We just don't know enough about it yet.
I can tell you that I have been fat my entire life because I have been eating when I am hungry. It is the hunger feelings that are not reflecting reality (my body doesn't need fuel, it has plenty) and for me, magically, the Keto diet takes this away. This morning I didn't have breakfast and did a non-stop 85km ride in temperatures about zero. Came home and had my salad lunch because it was lunchtime. I just had my salad and a few peanuts and that was it. I am not hungry now. This would NEVER have been the case before.
The Keto diet isn't for everyone at all. But the question the OP gave is who would benefit? I, and a number of others, have said those who have these strong hunger cravings (I compare myself to a Labrador), which is NOT YOU but is lots of other people. So please don't dismiss our lived experiences just because it isn't your experience. If someone else who has these hunger pangs regularly is reading this, then perhaps, just perhaps Keto might help them. Or maybe not. But you only know when you try it.
Any discussion about whether diet x will benefit while be biased towards those who feel they have benefited. I'm not arguing with that. I'm making the point that I think diets are generally the problem and symptomatic of a deeper issue in our relationship with food. That's not a personal criticism; not that you need my blessing, if it works for you, then I'm genuinely happy and you should go with it.
Our relationship with hunger is broken. It's hardly a surprise that with the ready availability of large quantities of (often poor quality) food people get heavier. Yes, there will be metabolic outliers and we blame genetics, the gut microbiome, carbs, advertising, but at the end of day, we get larger because we eat more and we control what we eat. If that's not the case, then we may as well all give up and become eating machines.
Honestly, I get a bit annoyed with the entire 'it's easy for you' argument. It's not. I used to be fat and I was fat because I ate lots of food. Yes, I was hungry all the time and yes, I ate all the time. I didn't magically stop being hungry when I lost weight. I still want to eat all the Hobnobs in the world right now. But I've acknowledged that I can't do that and stay healthy (and I don't buy snacks because frankly, if they were there I'd eat them). So yes, I have to watch what I eat and I have to exercise. The alternative would be a lot easier.
Also, there are downsides to any diet. Keto (though the definitions seem to vary) envisages a significant change to your metabolism, humans don't generally run in that mode, and I don't know what the long term outcomes of running a body like that are. No one does. Diets with large contributions of protein and fat may have significant negative effects (and this is true of any unbalanced diet). Also there's the environment impacts. There's nothing inherently harmful about carbohydrates, human civilization has developed in lock-step with farming and available sources of carbohydrate. I appreciate that not every advocate of keto is out to demonize carbs, but it comes across often enough.
-
Storable carbs brought us literacy, commerce and culture.
Hunter-gatherer societies are seldom able to record wisdom and pass on any knowledge between multiple generations.
The 'diseases of civilisation' attack those whose lives are not 'nasty, short and brutish'.
-
Scale of hunger:
1)BORED ->2) Peckish -> 3) Ready for Food -> 4) Hungry -> 5) Ravenous -> 6) Bonk/'Black fantin'
Discounting 1, 2 is what I'd describe as "hunger". I'd replace 3 with "obvious gurgling / acid reflux effects from empty stomach that might be satiated by application of food". 4 and 5 don't exist, but I'd insert a state at about 5.5 where nausea means you actively don't want food. 6 is completely disconnected from food, other than at an intellectual level.
Once I get past 3, it's easy to simply not eat, unless I do something physical that takes me to 6.
I think I'm broken, even before all the psychological fuck-ups. I remember during some biology lesson in primary school not knowing the correct[1] answer to "how do you know when you need to eat".
[1] By which I mean I literally couldn't explain it, not that I wasn't sure how to dumb the answer down to teacher-appropriate level, as was often the problem with SCIENCE questions.
-
I don't know how lack of a bile bag might change this.
Have you noted any difference?
-
<much good stuff snipped>
...
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
You sure about that?
Might want to check their running speeds.
The best marathoners do about 13mph, right? That's hardly a sprint.
Whereas even Kipchoge could go a LOT faster than that over a stand-alone 100metre race. (yes I know he'd get nowhere near, say, 10s for the distance, but he'd manage a lot faster than 17seconds!)
Is that what you meant? ???
-
I don't know how lack of a bile bag might change this.
Have you noted any difference?
Only in the lower digestive tract. Too long (12 hours or more) without eating some fat and I'll be on a slow journey up the Bristol scale. My tolerance for certain foods is much reduced - really fatty stuff like chips[1] rarely ends well, and while my tolerance for tomato has increased over the years since the surgery, I have to be careful about onions. I can tolerate more of these when diluted with sufficient easily-digested carbs (white rice, bread, pasta, etc.). I was never a big fan of particularly fibrous foods, but these days I actively avoid consuming too much of it, to avoid poosplosion.
[1] I now refuse to eat chips unless they're *really* nice and I don't need to go anywhere in the morning. It's simply not worth the consequences.
-
If that's not the case, then we may as well all give up and become eating machines.
Well that's the point of all life forms, isn't it? Eating and reproducing machines.
As Helly points out:
Storable carbs brought us literacy, commerce and culture.
Hunter-gatherer societies are seldom able to record wisdom and pass on any knowledge between multiple generations.
The 'diseases of civilisation' attack those whose lives are not 'nasty, short and brutish'.
But that's just complicated human stuff.
-
<much good stuff snipped>
...
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
You sure about that?
Might want to check their running speeds.
The best marathoners do about 13mph, right? That's hardly a sprint.
Whereas even Kipchoge could go a LOT faster than that over a stand-alone 100metre race. (yes I know he'd get nowhere near, say, 10s for the distance, but he'd manage a lot faster than 17seconds!)
Is that what you meant? ???
Try running a single 5 minute mile and then come back and tell me that isn't putting out a lot of power.
-
yes, marathon is a high intensity activity (provided it's done properly - not jogging or walking, but running all of it) and it will burn through glycogen reserves during the first ~25-30km.
-
I am very much NOT a runner but my understanding is that marathon runners plan/pace their efforts to reach 'the wall' (bonk/total glycogen depletion) on the finish line.
[musing] I don't think this is particularly healthy and might explain, in part, why a tiny proportion drop dead at that point.
-
I am very much NOT a runner but my understanding is that marathon runners plan/pace their efforts to reach 'the wall' (bonk/total glycogen depletion) on the finish line.
[musing] I don't think this is particularly healthy and might explain, in part, why a tiny proportion drop dead at that point.
Doesn't work like that. If you are a slower runner, you will hit the wall well before you finish. You need to take on fuel - modern sports drinks and gels make this relatively easy.
The elite runners can manage to complete a marathon before hitting the wall.
If you are 'just jogging' then it is possible to switch to other pathways and keep going; most of us can walk for 5 hours without eating. We won't collapse. I've paddled a kayak at a reasonable pace for 2.5hours without hitting the wall (about 25km) - I don't have the muscle fitness to push myself hard enough, my body had the reserves to keep up with the burndown rate.
-
<much good stuff snipped>
...
Does it have a downside? Yes, you lose some efficiency/ability for sudden delivery of very high power through a switch from glycogen as the primary muscle power source. You will never see an Olympic athlete on this diet as they need to have sudden power delivery for a final sprint and they can always refuel adequately.
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
You sure about that?
Might want to check their running speeds.
The best marathoners do about 13mph, right? That's hardly a sprint.
Whereas even Kipchoge could go a LOT faster than that over a stand-alone 100metre race. (yes I know he'd get nowhere near, say, 10s for the distance, but he'd manage a lot faster than 17seconds!)
Is that what you meant? ???
Try running a single 5 minute mile and then come back and tell me that isn't putting out a lot of power.
How much is "a lot"?
(The amount of power that *I* can generate isn't very relevant.)
-
yes, marathon is a high intensity activity (provided it's done properly - not jogging or walking, but running all of it) and it will burn through glycogen reserves during the first ~25-30km.
Again, "high intensity" is all relative. I'm aware of the difference between jogging and racing for 40km. Are you aware of the difference between a marathon and a sprint?
Your 30km figure could well be right - but as you will see in my post, I did refer to train low, race high.
Of course you are kinda proving my initial point; there is only 1 Olympic running event longer than 30km!
-
sprint and marathon are both high intensity disciplines, different level of high, but still high. same as in cycling, take a hill climb competition and a classic one day race - they are high intensity in their own way. just riding along (akin to walking) is low intensity - i could ride all day long without bonking and needing any food.
-
No, a sprinter will use, what, 12-1300watts, whereas a regular (pro) rider will for the most time ride at ~250watts. A body in ketosis may be able to convert fat to energy fast enough for 250watts, but is utter incapable of doing that for 1300watts, so you need sugar.
I know from my own kendo training, that I will start fading after 5 minutes, so at recent tournament, I supplemented with gummybears between each match, in order to make sure that I had enough energy.
-
No, a sprinter will use, what, 12-1300watts, whereas a regular (pro) rider will for the most time ride at ~250watts. A body in ketosis may be able to convert fat to energy fast enough for 250watts, but is utter incapable of doing that for 1300watts, so you need sugar.
i assume it's a typo (twice?) for 350w? even a mamil like me can ride at 250w for few hours, and not in a race..
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860 (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860)
-
Yeah, my memory must have been broken...350watts is a more typical 'average' pro output.
-
If an elite marathon runner is running a race on the ketosis pathway, they are going too slow.
Someone else will go faster.
There, mattc, now do you get the point?
For such a (relatively) short duration race (just over 2 hours), the keto energy pathway isn't the right one.
-
MrC, you might want to check the last line in my post that triggered you off:
[in bold]
<losing top-end power...>
I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of events where no sudden spurt is required. (a simple example - you hardly ever see a sprint finish in the marathon, and when you do they are hardly putting out 800W.)
Also, plenty of athletes use the "train low, race high" approach. [I'm sure google will find you some citations.] So their training diet isn't damaging their race-day performance.
You sure about that?
Might want to check their running speeds.
What I also was thinking about this is that MANY olympic events are not power (or endurance) sports; they are skill-based. (although nearly all require a high-level of strength conditioning, or whatever the current jargon is) The track athletics only accounts for a tiny %age of the final medals table.
-
No, a sprinter will use, what, 12-1300watts, whereas a regular (pro) rider will for the most time ride at ~250watts. A body in ketosis may be able to convert fat to energy fast enough for 250watts, but is utter incapable of doing that for 1300watts, so you need sugar.
i assume it's a typo (twice?) for 350w? even a mamil like me can ride at 250w for few hours, and not in a race..
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860 (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860)
This is the kind of difference I am talking about: 350W vs 1200W is a huge gap.
For a more human illustration, read Wiggo's account of his Hour record, and how absurdly easy he was finding it for the first 12minutes.
-
If an elite marathon runner is running a race on the ketosis pathway, they are going too slow.
Someone else will go faster.
There, mattc, now do you get the point?
For such a (relatively) short duration race (just over 2 hours), the keto energy pathway isn't the right one.
I'm not sure that's quite right. I think if you want maximal power, you need to 'fire on all cylinders' and 'burn' sugar, glycogen, belly fat and subcutaneous fat simultaneously. An elite runner may be ketotic at the finish line but they are not just running on ketones.
-
No, a sprinter will use, what, 12-1300watts, whereas a regular (pro) rider will for the most time ride at ~250watts. A body in ketosis may be able to convert fat to energy fast enough for 250watts, but is utter incapable of doing that for 1300watts, so you need sugar.
i assume it's a typo (twice?) for 350w? even a mamil like me can ride at 250w for few hours, and not in a race..
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860 (https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/five-hours-363-watts-wout-van-aerts-strava-ride-reveals-his-massive-effort-at-strade-bianche-371860)
This is the kind of difference I am talking about: 350W vs 1200W is a huge gap.
It is a huge gap, but aren't the figures meaningless without specifying duration? Hell, even I - a fat bloke pushing 60 with COPD - can push out 350W; just not for long. Young bloods who can do 1500W+ do so for just a few seconds.
-
If an elite marathon runner is running a race on the ketosis pathway, they are going too slow.
Someone else will go faster.
There, mattc, now do you get the point?
For such a (relatively) short duration race (just over 2 hours), the keto energy pathway isn't the right one.
I'm not sure that's quite right. I think if you want maximal power, you need to 'fire on all cylinders' and 'burn' sugar, glycogen, belly fat and subcutaneous fat simultaneously. An elite runner may be ketotic at the finish line but they are not just running on ketones.
Helly hits the nail on the head. The proportion of fat/carb useage is individually determined by adaptation, training and genetics, but faster increases carb useage Some athletes burn more fat for more output than others, which is probably an advantage in ultra endurance sport and (even) marathon, if only because it spares carb for later in a competitive race. I understand that there is also some evidence that a sustained keto adaptation may impair the 'top end' of carb fueled performance, which is pretty important if your an 800m runner say.
At the end of most races I ever ran, I think I was primarily fueled by Ceatine Phosphate. Perhaps I wasn't fast enough to get away from the pack...
-
I know I've posted this before..
I was never fast but learned to optimise my performance.
I used to time my 'fast commutes' - parents in Golders Green to Hillingdon Hospital via A 502, A406, A40 and Long Lane, usually before 6am on summer mornings.
My Friday commutes were always the fastest. They were mostly fuelled by my Tea with Grandma on Thursday. Parkway Patisserie Honey Cake, with its mixture of flour, sugar, oil, honey and egg seemed to provide an optimal mix.
I went like the wind; 52 minutes of almost flat-out - HR 145-175 riding.
Didn't seem to get 'Friday legs', though I was commuting more slowly almost every day. I'm sure I was firing all cylinders - just never had a good engine...
-
This seemed quite interesting.
https://trainright.com/should-endurance-athletes-go-keto-ketosis-ketogenic-diets-for-endurance-athletes/
-
Pretty much what I was saying, and not just applicable to endurance, but generally. I think it's generally a case that you lose weight on a keto diet through calorie restriction rather than something magical about the diet.
-
If an elite marathon runner is running a race on the ketosis pathway, they are going too slow.
Someone else will go faster.
There, mattc, now do you get the point?
For such a (relatively) short duration race (just over 2 hours), the keto energy pathway isn't the right one.
I'm not sure that's quite right. I think if you want maximal power, you need to 'fire on all cylinders' and 'burn' sugar, glycogen, belly fat and subcutaneous fat simultaneously. An elite runner may be ketotic at the finish line but they are not just running on ketones.
I think we are agreeing.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't compete in an elite-level marathon on just a keto diet basis.
I agree that there are some olympic sports that are almost purely skill-based (rifle and pistol shooting come to mind). Even those require some physical conditioning, but it is not the level of physical power, endurance or speed that determines a win, it is primarily skill.
Dinghy sailing is an interesting sport, as it is primarily skill (with an element of chess-like calculation) and a very high dependency on physical conditioning.
-
So where's a good source of information on the keto diet? For information on what you can eat but recipes too.
-
Www.dietdoctor.com
-
The proportion of fat/carb useage is individually determined by adaptation, training and genetics, but faster increases carb useage Some athletes burn more fat for more output than others, which is probably an advantage in ultra endurance sport and (even) marathon, if only because it spares carb for later in a competitive race. I understand that there is also some evidence that a sustained keto adaptation may impair the 'top end' of carb fueled performance, which is pretty important if your an 800m runner say.
Yup, I'd go along with that!
-
Www.dietdoctor.com
This^^^!. Shopping list, meal plan, recipes.
-
I’d recommend Our Path, which you can have prescribed on the NHS in some areas. Having tried WeighWatchers and SlimmingWorld this I’d definitely say this is better for me, as it’s all online. I’m 5 weeks in and have already lost nearly two stone.
It’s a low carb diet but I can assure you that you won’t get the carb cravings you tend to find with other ‘keto’ diets
I can give people a promotional code as well if anyone is interested
-
I'm currently on the class A drug habit diet. Having an honest and sincere class a drug habit has seen me drop 16kg in 7 weeks. Would recommend only coke and smack though, meth can really mess you up.