Researchers have not seen any evidence that the ketogenic diet (or any other diet that trains the body to engage lipolysis to a greater degree) increases exercise capacity.
They have seen evidence that these diets can retool the body to more readily use fat as an energy substrate. While this doesn't translate to performance gains, it can mean that on a multi-hour/multi-day effort that a self-supported athlete might need to have a bit less food in their packs as well as foods with a higher proportion of fat that are lighter. Lighter pack = faster athlete.
But...even low intensity exercise over long duration is going to result in the recruitment of FTa/FTb muscle fibers that run almost exclusively by glycolyis. So an athlete counting on fat to be the primary energy substrate has be really highly trained, practiced, and know their pacing thresholds really well to keep the recruitment of those muscle fibers to a minimum.
I can only speak to my personal experience. I’m not an athlete but I lift, bike and so on. On empty stomach. I don’t eat before training. I could never do that on carb diet.
Speaking from my personal experience to counter this, I run in the mornings up to 1 hour on an empty stomach. While I don't follow one diet, a larger portion of my food is carb based.
I follow TFTNA (Training for the New Alpinism) and Uphill Athlete (Steve/Scott's new book) training regiments that Parent mentions.
They do talk about retooling your body to use fat reserves more than carbs. While I'm sure the evidence shows that keto diet might make this switch faster and easier, someone on a non-keto diet (carb based) can also do this.
I don't think I'll be able to make any of their talks because the nearest city is a bit away, but I do frequent their forums/site which has an incredible trove of information.
Agreed! I love that Scott is so active on there. Those guys are legit.
My other very favorite resource is Shawn Bearden's Science of Ultra podcast, which is where I learned of the research paper I linked in my first post. Here's the one on fat adaptation: https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/19 . He has lots of pretty hardcore exercise scientists and researchers on. It's one of my favorite things to listen to while grinding up a hill. :)
Have you tried? I always run before eating (not as part of a regimen, it's just convenient), as I expect many do. And my diet is closer to inverse-keto than keto.
My guess: It appears as though your reason for posting was to say "I could never do that on a carb based diet". However, you never established and reason for that conclusion. Each of us has our personal opinion on a variety of different subjects. We could all post that personal opinion without any corroborating evidence, but because there are a lot of people, this would create a comment section containing mostly noise. People would prefer to see comments based on research or personal experience that seems to strongly corroborate the conclusion. Generally it has been my experience that I do not get many down votes simply because people disagree or are unhappy with what I'm saying. It's usually because I am clearly wrong, or I have simply contributed to the noise.
I think that your comment falls into the noise category and is undesirable because of that. If you had explained personal experiences to show how you reached your conclusion, It think you would get a better reaction. If you also showed how other possibilities could be rules out, then I think people would find it very interesting and you would get many up votes.
I don't think that's true for most people. I do weight lifting in the mornings with only a coffee, dinner around 6pm the previous day with no snacks afterwards, and my diet is fairly carby.
I found intermittent fasting hard on carb diet. It is super easy on keto diet. In fast I fast 2-3 days every now and then because it's just a seamless transition.
I'm not saying my personal experience should be considered universal, that'd be foolish. Just recounting that.
But it makes sense given how metabolizing fat and metabolizing sugar works. Insulin response, etc.
Especially in the case of diets, I think personal experience should acccount for most of how you make your decisions. The human body is very flexible to different conditions, the science here is pretty flaky, that trying to make sense of diets by using logic only helps very little. Anyway I'm just repeating what you're saying, that personal experience may not be universal but it's important for yourself.
I believe you are buying far too heavily into the narrative that FB swung the election. My guess is that you don't actually know very many people who voted for Trump. I do. Most of my family, in-laws, and a minority percentage of my friends did. While there a few are active on social media they would have voted the way they did regardless.
Good lord, tl,dr. And I'm a dev. Client sure as hell wouldn't read all that. And I know this because at the start of my career I wrote those kind of long-winded explanations before I realized that nobody was reading them.
Brevity is a virtue.
"Dear client, the change itself took very little time but making sure that this change did not have unintended ripple effects took a lot more. We are careful and deliberate when deploying changes to your production application because in this mission critical application, downtime and errors are not acceptable. If you'd like more detail I can provide it during our next regularly scheduled catch-up."
NetSol were scammy long before the web.com purchase. Back in 2007/2008 they were "front-running" meaning that if you searched for a domain name and didn't buy immediately, those dickheads would buy the domain and then demand a much higher price to sell it to you. Then when they got called out for it they tried to act all "oh, this is for YOUR benefit."[1] And they blatantly lied about the details of what they were doing.
> He acknowledged that the company does, indeed, put a hold on the domain name after a search is performed and reserves it for four days, but that if a customer searches for the same domain within that time at networksolutions.com, it will be available to register. After the four days is up, the domain is released.
I'm the source because I experienced this firsthand in 2007. I found the article because I needed to validate an almost 12 year old memory. :)
As for the quote you picked out, it's a partial truth.
The partial truth is that sure, the domain was "available to register"...at a multiple of the standard price. I don't remember what the multiple was. And if you wanted to purchase through another registrar you couldn't because NetSol held the domain.
Edit: I removed where I said the part about the domain being released after four days was a lie. I remember it being much much longer but at the same time, I don't remember all the details well enough to make a statement of that potency.
There was no net transfer of money from NetSol to the registry for those domains, except when a customer would accept the offer for the domain.
They registered the name, and just before the 5-day ICANN Add Grace Period would end, they reversed the registration and received full credit for the registration fee.
At that time the domain would immediately become available for registration again through any registrar with no grace/redemption/deletion periods.
> If the solution is flawed even a little bit, people will die. That will give self-driving cars a bad reputation and people will be unwilling to ride in them.
There is lots of debate on every autonomous car story, including this one, about "is as good as humans good enough", but that's a technical threshold. The real blocker (from my view) currently is and will be liability for "negligence."
If I'm driving and fiddling with the radio and as a result blow a light and kill someone, at most you can turn out my shallow pockets in civil court. The automaker has no liability.
But if the _car_ is driving and blows a light and kills someone, then the automaker can and will be sued because they've got deep pockets. I can see the ads now running during the Price is Right. "Hit by a runaway robot car? Jon from Orlando was awarded $3.2 million! Call Richard Cranium Attorney at Law and get yours!"
...that are now in college. Seeing my friend’s kids posting pics in front of the same buildings I took photos in front of in the 90s always causes me to sigh, say something to my wife about how tomorrow I will be 65, and then run my fingers through hair comfortably graying.
> strips people of their personalities and turns them into the most boring people ever
Harsh. As a parent, I find people my own age who don't have kids to be boring. It's probably less that your friends have lost their personalities, and more that your relationships can no longer draw from the well of shared experience. For example, I have a lot of elaborate and hilarious stories revolving around poop, but I'm not going to tell them around non-parents. I've tried, but all I get is puzzled and uncomfortable looks.
> When training for mountaineering, I sometimes climb 5000+ feet in a day. Days like that tend to elevate my resting heart rate for up to a week afterwords.
I'm curious, what is your living elevation? When you climb 5000+ feet in a day are you traveling to a higher elevation? And if so, after the movement are you staying at that higher elevation?
I am not a doctor. But I ascend a minimum of 20K feet per month via the steepest trails I can find. This usually includes a movement of up to 7500 feet of gain in a few hours. I've never seen my resting HR affected and do not recall having seeing that happen to anyone doing the same work unless they lived at lower elevation and were visiting.
If you're coming to an elevation much higher than your living elevation, doing a movement, and then staying at a higher elevation, then your elevated RHR is most likely due to the body's response to the reduced partial pressure of oxygen.
But if you're doing a move and returning to your "home" elevation and your RHR stays up...again I'm not a doctor in any way but I'd really encourage you to talk to one.
> I've never seen my resting HR affected and do not recall having seeing that happen to anyone doing the same work unless they lived at lower elevation and were visiting.
Out of curiosity, how do you know your resting HR isn't just always higher?
Because I monitor my resting heart rate obsessively. :D
At 6800 feet (where I live) my resting HR is 55BPM +/- 3 and falling because I've begun to train hard coming off of a really bad injury + surgery. During recovery where I was unable to exercise it drifted up over the months to 62BPM. As I get back into my best condition it'll fall into the low 50s.
At sea level my resting HR will fall by 5-7 beats for a couple weeks and then drift back to stasis over 6ish weeks my body reduces its red blood cell count and all the other acclimatization stuff. I try to avoid this.
I watch it pretty closely because as nabla9's excellent commentary in this subthread highlights, a persistently elevated resting HR is a sign of overtraining, which being a type A obsessive nutjob I am pretty susceptible to. :)
I've also found that an elevated heart rate that can't be explained by overtraining, for me, is indication that I've got an incoming illness that I don't feel yet, usually a sinus infection.
You're probably in much better shape than I am. For you, a 5000 foot day is probably fairly routine. For me, it still takes some willpower. I'm sure I will adapt over time.
But yes, to answer your question, I train at sea level and climb between to 6000-10000 feet on weekends, and sometimes high camp.
If your RHR is elevated at high camp that's to be expected as that's part of the physiological response to reduced partial pressure of oxygen.
If your RHR is still elevated after your return to sea level...huh.
I live at 6800 feet now but like you used to live at low elevation. I'd come out, hike up Pikes Peak (6700 feet start, 14100 foot finish) and then come back down to sleep at 6000ish feet. RHR would be up maybe 10-15BPM until I went home to sea level, then it went back down to normal literally on the drive home.
So the response you're seeing, I mean what do I know I'm not a researcher, doctor or expert but I will say that seems odd.
Check out this 40 minute podcast on altitude physiology. Super dense with really actionable information on the body's responses:
https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/29
They have seen evidence that these diets can retool the body to more readily use fat as an energy substrate. While this doesn't translate to performance gains, it can mean that on a multi-hour/multi-day effort that a self-supported athlete might need to have a bit less food in their packs as well as foods with a higher proportion of fat that are lighter. Lighter pack = faster athlete.
But...even low intensity exercise over long duration is going to result in the recruitment of FTa/FTb muscle fibers that run almost exclusively by glycolyis. So an athlete counting on fat to be the primary energy substrate has be really highly trained, practiced, and know their pacing thresholds really well to keep the recruitment of those muscle fibers to a minimum.
Best paper I know of on the subject is this one: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b7ffebe4b0568a75e33...
Best book I know of on long-duration effort is this one: https://www.amazon.com/Training-New-Alpinism-Climber-Athlete...