Strategies for endurance riding (Everesting/Audax)

A light bike doesn't replace good fitness.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Conza
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:28 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

by Conza

AeroObsessive wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:04 am
Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:12 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:24 pm
Fat-adapted always strikes me a a misnomer, however. Endurance athletes, by their very nature are quite adept at burning fat at all but the highest intensities.
17m 44 seconds...+ for a few minutes https://youtu.be/Id47XOjtcM4?list=PLtap ... dSi&t=1060. And feel free to zoom back a bit for more context.

TL;DR significant and substantial differences between LCHF / adapted vs. HCLF / carb adapted.
Yes, you can definitely up the relative percentages of fat utilisation, no questions. However this comes at a cost. Namely that the ability to utilise carbs effectively is down regulated.

Again, in mono-pace/iso-effort this can be effectively managed. Anything that requires that higher levels of effort (demands of terrain, race or other) means that the required energy cannot be effectively drawn upon.
Nope. Once adapted, that's not the case at all. [1]
I vaguely recall some keto athletes actually winning some ultra distance/time events, but for just about any other cycling event - carb the *f##k* up.
There's been many. Zach Bitter, running wise. But carb the fark up? Nope. In terms of other events? More explosive, not endurance? Also nope: https://twitter.com/ProfTimNoakes/statu ... 2324569101. Yes, anecdotical is weak AF. So feel free to ignore, and read the below study [1].
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
As aeroobsessive said, you increase relative fat oxidation but not performance.
If you ignore the fact of increased nutritional issues for those who are carb dependent. Beyond prevalent in Ironman etc. nutritional major factor. Just to give extreme example that makes principle a bit clearer.
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
Study after study shows decreased performance with a low fat diet.
Studies that all end before fat adaption. I mean it couldn't be clearer (delusional studies that don't allow for more than 6 weeks at a minimum. Depending on the individual can take up to 12months potentially.

I mean clear example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619799/ 4 days!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: . I mean your body is literally at the start of adjusting its priority back to fat as primary fuel source.
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
The main reasons are: First, you lose the ability to oxidize carbohydrates at the same rate as prior to getting fat adapted; thus lowering your oxidtaion capacity.

Second, oxidizing fat is less efficient than carbohydrates. Per molecule of oxygen you produce less ATP or energy when oxidizing fat compared to carbohydrates. As an example, for tye breaking 2 project in running, they ensured the athletes wete eating a high carbohydrate diet every day so they were burning the highest percentage possible of carbohydrates. To run that fast, they needed the highest possible efficiency, and that can only be achieved by oxidizing as much carbohydrates as possible.
https://www.jssm.org/volume18/iss4/cap/jssm-18-738.pdf [1]

Abstract

A common belief is that high intensity exercise (>60%VO2max) is best sustained by high rates of carbohydrate oxidation. The belief is based, in part, on an idea developed by Krogh and Lindhard in 1920. In the 100 years since, few studies have tested its validity.

We tested the null hypothesis that performance in competitive recreational athletes exercising at >80% VO2max, during simulated 5-km running time trials (5KTT) would be impaired during a 6-week period of adaption to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, compared to their performances when they ate a diet higher in carbohydrate and lower in fat (HCLF). Seven male athletes (age 35.6 ± 8.4 years, height 178.7 ± 4.1 cm, weight 68.6 ± 1.6 kg) completed two maximal exercise (VO2max) tests (Day 1 and 39) and four 5KTT (Day 4, 14, 28, and 42) in a fasted state during two 6-week periods when they ate either a HCLF or a LCHF diet, in a randomized counterbalanced, crossover design.

Exercise performance during the VO2max tests was unchanged on either diet (p = 0.251). Performance in the initial 5KTT was significantly slower on the LCHF diet (p = 0.011). [Day 4, what do you know?! :lol: ] There were no diet-related performance differences in the remaining three 5KTT (p > 0.22). Subjects exercised at ~82%VO2max. Carbohydrate oxidation provided 94% of energy on the HCLF diet, but only 65% on the LCHF diet. 5KTT performance at ~82%VO2max was independent of the runners’ habitual diet. The HCLF diet offered no advantage over a diet with a high-fat content.[!] Since these athletes run faster than 88% of recreational distance runners in the United States (U.S.), this finding may have wide general application.


:o . All that needs to be said really.
Finally, even if glycogen stores are limited compared to fat stores, we now know we can take up to 120g of carbohydrates per hour. That makes emptying glycogen stores more difficult. Most of the high carb people say that we can only have 60g per hour maximum, that's not the case at all.
Sure. Still super limited by comparison. 4min14s+ https://youtu.be/n8BY4fyLvZc?list=PLtap ... cdSi&t=251
On top of that, if you want to worsen your health and longevity, go for a low carb diet. If not, avoid a low carb diet
A beyond laughable notion! :lol:

1m12s+ Homo Carnivorus What We Are Designed to Eat: https://youtu.be/qn5zdWucv6I?list=PLtap ... LcdSi&t=71
It's all about the adventure :o .

bm0p700f
in the industry
Posts: 5709
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:25 pm
Location: Glermsford, Suffolk U.K
Contact:

by bm0p700f

My cadence for long or short rides rarely averages more than 60 rpm. 400km a week. In normal times I do plenty of 200km, 400km or more rides. Pbp is my longest.

Climbing or flat just eat regularly and eat normal food. For long rides coca cola, peanut m&m's, caffeine gum now that's stuff is dynamite, baguettes, pasties, fish and chips e.t.c are what I eat. On pbp on the last day I stopped for a 3 course meal half a litre of wine stuffed my face and started off again feeling shall we say slow. Finished in time though.

Dont over science this. If you ride alot and ride long distances you will work out what you need to do. Sciencing it is a recipe for failure. There is no way you can hold the science in your head on say pbp and make good decision that are not instinctive when tired. It has come natural to you. That's means experience and you work out what you need to do and how to overcome feeling sick for example which has happened to me on a 24hr tt. 1w hrs in stomach cramps....

by Weenie


altuna98
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:52 pm

by altuna98

Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 2:13 pm
AeroObsessive wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 1:04 am
Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 12:12 am
AeroObsessive wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 11:24 pm
Fat-adapted always strikes me a a misnomer, however. Endurance athletes, by their very nature are quite adept at burning fat at all but the highest intensities.
17m 44 seconds...+ for a few minutes https://youtu.be/Id47XOjtcM4?list=PLtap ... dSi&t=1060. And feel free to zoom back a bit for more context.

TL;DR significant and substantial differences between LCHF / adapted vs. HCLF / carb adapted.
Yes, you can definitely up the relative percentages of fat utilisation, no questions. However this comes at a cost. Namely that the ability to utilise carbs effectively is down regulated.

Again, in mono-pace/iso-effort this can be effectively managed. Anything that requires that higher levels of effort (demands of terrain, race or other) means that the required energy cannot be effectively drawn upon.
Nope. Once adapted, that's not the case at all. [1]
I vaguely recall some keto athletes actually winning some ultra distance/time events, but for just about any other cycling event - carb the *f##k* up.
There's been many. Zach Bitter, running wise. But carb the fark up? Nope. In terms of other events? More explosive, not endurance? Also nope: https://twitter.com/ProfTimNoakes/statu ... 2324569101. Yes, anecdotical is weak AF. So feel free to ignore, and read the below study [1].
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
As aeroobsessive said, you increase relative fat oxidation but not performance.
If you ignore the fact of increased nutritional issues for those who are carb dependent. Beyond prevalent in Ironman etc. nutritional major factor. Just to give extreme example that makes principle a bit clearer.
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
Study after study shows decreased performance with a low fat diet.
Studies that all end before fat adaption. I mean it couldn't be clearer (delusional studies that don't allow for more than 6 weeks at a minimum. Depending on the individual can take up to 12months potentially.

I mean clear example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29619799/ 4 days!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: . I mean your body is literally at the start of adjusting its priority back to fat as primary fuel source.
altuna98 wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 3:48 am
The main reasons are: First, you lose the ability to oxidize carbohydrates at the same rate as prior to getting fat adapted; thus lowering your oxidtaion capacity.

Second, oxidizing fat is less efficient than carbohydrates. Per molecule of oxygen you produce less ATP or energy when oxidizing fat compared to carbohydrates. As an example, for tye breaking 2 project in running, they ensured the athletes wete eating a high carbohydrate diet every day so they were burning the highest percentage possible of carbohydrates. To run that fast, they needed the highest possible efficiency, and that can only be achieved by oxidizing as much carbohydrates as possible.
https://www.jssm.org/volume18/iss4/cap/jssm-18-738.pdf [1]

Abstract

A common belief is that high intensity exercise (>60%VO2max) is best sustained by high rates of carbohydrate oxidation. The belief is based, in part, on an idea developed by Krogh and Lindhard in 1920. In the 100 years since, few studies have tested its validity.

We tested the null hypothesis that performance in competitive recreational athletes exercising at >80% VO2max, during simulated 5-km running time trials (5KTT) would be impaired during a 6-week period of adaption to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, compared to their performances when they ate a diet higher in carbohydrate and lower in fat (HCLF). Seven male athletes (age 35.6 ± 8.4 years, height 178.7 ± 4.1 cm, weight 68.6 ± 1.6 kg) completed two maximal exercise (VO2max) tests (Day 1 and 39) and four 5KTT (Day 4, 14, 28, and 42) in a fasted state during two 6-week periods when they ate either a HCLF or a LCHF diet, in a randomized counterbalanced, crossover design.

Exercise performance during the VO2max tests was unchanged on either diet (p = 0.251). Performance in the initial 5KTT was significantly slower on the LCHF diet (p = 0.011). [Day 4, what do you know?! :lol: ] There were no diet-related performance differences in the remaining three 5KTT (p > 0.22). Subjects exercised at ~82%VO2max. Carbohydrate oxidation provided 94% of energy on the HCLF diet, but only 65% on the LCHF diet. 5KTT performance at ~82%VO2max was independent of the runners’ habitual diet. The HCLF diet offered no advantage over a diet with a high-fat content.[!] Since these athletes run faster than 88% of recreational distance runners in the United States (U.S.), this finding may have wide general application.


:o . All that needs to be said really.
Finally, even if glycogen stores are limited compared to fat stores, we now know we can take up to 120g of carbohydrates per hour. That makes emptying glycogen stores more difficult. Most of the high carb people say that we can only have 60g per hour maximum, that's not the case at all.
Sure. Still super limited by comparison. 4min14s+ https://youtu.be/n8BY4fyLvZc?list=PLtap ... cdSi&t=251
On top of that, if you want to worsen your health and longevity, go for a low carb diet. If not, avoid a low carb diet
A beyond laughable notion! :lol:

1m12s+ Homo Carnivorus What We Are Designed to Eat: https://youtu.be/qn5zdWucv6I?list=PLtap ... LcdSi&t=71
Whatever

Unniti
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:35 pm

by Unniti

Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 2:13 pm
On top of that, if you want to worsen your health and longevity, go for a low carb diet. If not, avoid a low carb diet
A beyond laughable notion! :lol:

1m12s+ Homo Carnivorus What We Are Designed to Eat: https://youtu.be/qn5zdWucv6I?list=PLtap ... LcdSi&t=71
Absolutely wheezing on the floor at the thought that people mostly ate meat and fat way back when. Yes there are much more tools and cave paintings related to hunting because first those tools and the spoils are much more likely to become fossils than nuts and seeds. And the big hunts for massive mammals are much more interesting scenes to paint than those of picking up mushrooms and veggies. But don't be fooled by that though, the majority of ancient human diet came from the gathering part of us being hunter gatherers. Meat was a luxury commodity that people ate when they had access to it. Plants were the bread and butter because of how reliable gathering those is compared to hunting outside of extreme circumstances.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Dude, if you are using YouTube as an evidence base I would advise extreme caution. And Noakes is so far off the deep end now it's laughable.

There is a stark difference between cycling different energy intakes to elicit a (hopefully) better energy utilisation outcome, and just adopting a particular diet for everything, evermore.

But to date, for competitive athletes carbs still win as the primary energy source. That's not to say it's all done and dusted, but the science (and even anecdotes) does not support the ultra low/keto approach for effective athletic performance. Or performance in general.

But people assign identity to diet, and once a path is chosen, the identity is chosen, and critique of the diet is critique of the person.

Here's a study from the AIS. Their one goal is to win shit at the Olympics. If low carb/keto et al would give them the edge, they would 100% do it. But to date, they have seen *nothing* that would boost performance. Again can/is used in cycles, maybe for weight management, or tweak energy usage, but actual hard training and performance - caaaaaaaarbs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407976/

fruitfly
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:40 pm
Location: Wet coast

by fruitfly

Human dentition and length and proportion of small to large intestine reveals that we omnivores, and the teeth of our ancestors were also those of omnivores. We (and they) are adapted to eat what is available, whether that be plant or animal. The traditional diet of Eskimos is perhaps the best example of a high fat/meat diet with very little plant-based food, because that is what is available in the far north. Elsewhere, diets are more varied because what is available is more varied.

altuna98
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:52 pm

by altuna98

fruitfly wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:43 am
Human dentition and length and proportion of small to large intestine reveals that we omnivores, and the teeth of our ancestors were also those of omnivores. We (and they) are adapted to eat what is available, whether that be plant or animal. The traditional diet of Eskimos is perhaps the best example of a high fat/meat diet with very little plant-based food, because that is what is available in the far north. Elsewhere, diets are more varied because what is available is more varied.
And that's why eskimos have the worst heart health

User avatar
Conza
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:28 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

by Conza

Unniti wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:39 pm
Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 2:13 pm
On top of that, if you want to worsen your health and longevity, go for a low carb diet. If not, avoid a low carb diet
A beyond laughable notion! :lol:

1m12s+ Homo Carnivorus What We Are Designed to Eat: https://youtu.be/qn5zdWucv6I?list=PLtap ... LcdSi&t=71
Absolutely wheezing on the floor at the thought that people mostly ate meat and fat way back when. Yes there are much more tools and cave paintings related to hunting because first those tools and the spoils are much more likely to become fossils than nuts and seeds. And the big hunts for massive mammals are much more interesting scenes to paint than those of picking up mushrooms and veggies. But don't be fooled by that though, the majority of ancient human diet came from the gathering part of us being hunter gatherers. Meat was a luxury commodity that people ate when they had access to it. Plants were the bread and butter because of how reliable gathering those is compared to hunting outside of extreme circumstances.
:o :lol: ! You can't get much clearer than this: Fat of the land: What ancient bones tell us about the origin of the human diet | Jess Thompson | ASU Institute of Human Origins
https://youtu.be/iSCV_XFcVPU
AeroObsessive wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 9:47 pm
Dude, if you are using YouTube as an evidence base I would advise extreme caution. And Noakes is so far off the deep end now it's laughable.
Dude, youtube is a means of communication. Been citing nothing but very well known acknowledged medical professionals, n' those with a doctorate in nutritional science. Nothing to do with an appeal to authority here, but they've literally been lectures from seasoned medical professionals at conferences - not some numpty uploading a vlog. How is Noakes off the deep end? Weak ad hominem. You do realise he did a complete 180, right? And originally championed the whole carbs hypothesis?

Why do you think he changed?! :wink:
There is a stark difference between cycling different energy intakes to elicit a (hopefully) better energy utilisation outcome, and just adopting a particular diet for everything, evermore.

But to date, for competitive athletes carbs still win as the primary energy source. That's not to say it's all done and dusted, but the science (and even anecdotes) does not support the ultra low/keto approach for effective athletic performance. Or performance in general.

But people assign identity to diet, and once a path is chosen, the identity is chosen, and critique of the diet is critique of the person.
My identity ain't wrapped up in anything but being intellectually honest & open to reason. Explain how I previously accepted all of carb standard literature, did the everesting based off of it, and then now advise there's a better way to do endurance performance specifically relating to this activity? How's that fit into your model?
Here's a study from the AIS. Their one goal is to win shit at the Olympics. If low carb/keto et al would give them the edge, they would 100% do it. But to date, they have seen *nothing* that would boost performance. Again can/is used in cycles, maybe for weight management, or tweak energy usage, but actual hard training and performance - caaaaaaaarbs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407976/
And the state's health guidelines are meant to get people healthy — oops! They don't.
Surely if high carb ruined peoples health, they wouldn't endorse that junk / BS health advise - right? Nope, wrong.

https://youtu.be/Wj9_zEXOrDw?t=238 4m07s+

Do note: "Similarly, we made Sustain® in partnership with the Australian Institute of Sport, and Nutri-Grain® has long been a supporter of Australia’s Ironman and Ironwoman series – what could be more iconically Aussie than running out of the surf and scoffing down a big bowl of Nutri-Grain®."

That's all just by the by. Not hanging any hats on that, but just because its a state organisation doesn't mean its 'pure' (opposite is more likely in fact).

In any case, from the study you cite:

"Participants completed the 3‐week training intervention, with weekly volume totals showing a similar overall training commitment between groups, although participants in the LCHF group experienced greater perception of effort throughout, often experiencing substantial hardship or inability to complete sessions as planned"

YES! :lol:. Of course they would! Literally still in the process of adapting. My word, I mean ask literally anyone or look up recommendations online for athletes and those going LCHF/keto/carnivore and see how long they recommend for adaptation. I mean seriously, get a study that ain't flawed. I know they try poo poo the possibility towards the end ("but it is long enough"), but really—can you find any? I'd love to know! Here's one that is 6 weeks adaption.

High Rates of Fat Oxidation Induced by a Low-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet, Do Not Impair 5-km Running Performance in Competitive Recreational Athletes - Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2019) 18, 738-750https://www.jssm.org/volume18/iss4/cap/jssm-18-738.pdf/.

Exercise performance during the VO2max tests was unchanged on either diet (p = 0.251). Performance in the initial 5KTT was significantly slower on the LCHF diet (p = 0.011). [Day 4, what do you know?! :lol: ] There were no diet-related performance differences in the remaining three 5KTT (p > 0.22). Subjects exercised at ~82%VO2max. Carbohydrate oxidation provided 94% of energy on the HCLF diet, but only 65% on the LCHF diet. 5KTT performance at ~82%VO2max was independent of the runners’ habitual diet. The HCLF diet offered no advantage over a diet with a high-fat content.[!] Since these athletes run faster than 88% of recreational distance runners in the United States (U.S.), this finding may have wide general application.

Not youtube :wink: .
altuna98 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 5:53 am
fruitfly wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:43 am
Human dentition and length and proportion of small to large intestine reveals that we omnivores, and the teeth of our ancestors were also those of omnivores. We (and they) are adapted to eat what is available, whether that be plant or animal. The traditional diet of Eskimos is perhaps the best example of a high fat/meat diet with very little plant-based food, because that is what is available in the far north. Elsewhere, diets are more varied because what is available is more varied.
And that's why eskimos have the worst heart health
Except they don't... https://www.cardiobrief.org/2016/07/29/ ... t-disease/

============

Anyway, how about someone besides myself who has actually done an Everesting pipe up with some helpful tips - so we can get back on topic? :beerchug:
It's all about the adventure :o .

altuna98
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:52 pm

by altuna98

Conza wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:58 pm

Anyway, how about someone besides myself who has actually done an Everesting pipe up with some helpful tips - so we can get back on topic? :beerchug:
I also have done one and coached many, you are not alone.

AeroObsessive
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:42 am

by AeroObsessive

Conza wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:58 pm


:o :lol: ! You can't get much clearer than this: Fat of the land: What ancient bones tell us about the origin of the human diet | Jess Thompson | ASU Institute of Human Origins

https://youtu.be/iSCV_XFcVPU




Human have evolved from obligate omnivores, and most continue to be omnivores. There are no surprises here. That fact that ancestors ate bone marrow by pounding it etc, is interesting, but has zero implications for modern humans.






Dude, youtube is a means of communication. Been citing nothing but very well known acknowledged medical professionals, n' those with a doctorate in nutritional science. Nothing to do with an appeal to authority here, but they've literally been lectures from seasoned medical professionals at conferences - not some numpty uploading a vlog.




Uh huh. The algorithm feeds you what you want to watch. Do you dive into the ocean? Or the small pond that you have curated?


How is Noakes off the deep end? Weak ad hominem. You do realise he did a complete 180, right? And originally championed the whole carbs hypothesis?



Why do you think he changed?! :wink:


Marketing, and protecting a business empire and identity he has carefully curated. He has gone from pushing novel (and sometimes correct) theories to now pushing exceptionally wild and very unsubstantiated ones. Usually, once people jump on the anti-vax bandwagon shows that rational logic has left the building.




My identity ain't wrapped up in anything but being intellectually honest & open to reason. Explain how I previously accepted all of carb standard literature, did the everesting based off of it, and then now advise there's a better way to do endurance performance specifically relating to this activity? How's that fit into your model?




I don't know, how do you quantify performance?








And the state's health guidelines are meant to get people healthy — oops! They don't.

Surely if high carb ruined peoples health, they wouldn't endorse that junk / BS health advise - right? Nope, wrong.


https://youtu.be/Wj9_zEXOrDw?t=238 4m07s+

Do note: "Similarly, we made Sustain® in partnership with the Australian Institute of Sport, and Nutri-Grain® has long been a supporter of Australia’s Ironman and Ironwoman series – what could be more iconically Aussie than running out of the surf and scoffing down a big bowl of Nutri-Grain®."



That's all just by the by. Not hanging any hats on that, but just because its a state organisation doesn't mean its 'pure' (opposite is more likely in fact).


You are conflating several issues, and seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between them.

1) Marketing spiel and studies of sporting nature and not the same thing. A performance by the AIS is not rendered invalid because a company uses their branding to help sell products, unless it actually was used to influence the study, at which point the conflict of interest would be valid.

2) There is no evidence that people actually ever follow Government health guidelines for diet, given people rarely follow guidelines for anything.

3) These are the current dietary guidelines:- https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/d ... eating.pdf






In any case, from the study you cite:



"Participants completed the 3‐week training intervention, with weekly volume totals showing a similar overall training commitment between groups, although participants in the LCHF group experienced greater perception of effort throughout, often experiencing substantial hardship or inability to complete sessions as planned"



YES! :lol:. Of course they would! Literally still in the process of adapting. My word, I mean ask literally anyone or look up recommendations online for athletes and those going LCHF/keto/carnivore and see how long they recommend for adaptation. I mean seriously, get a study that ain't flawed. I know they try poo poo the possibility towards the end ("but it is long enough"), but really—can you find any? I'd love to know! Here's one that is 6 weeks adaption.


Seems like everytime a "keto diet" or VLC etc fails to perform as people want it to, it always seems to be "but the adaptation period wasn't long enough!"




High Rates of Fat Oxidation Induced by a Low-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet, Do Not Impair 5-km Running Performance in Competitive Recreational Athletes - Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2019) 18, 738-750https://www.jssm.org/volume18/iss4/cap/jssm-18-738.pdf/.



Exercise performance during the VO2max tests was unchanged on either diet (p = 0.251). Performance in the initial 5KTT was significantly slower on the LCHF diet (p = 0.011). [Day 4, what do you know?! :lol: ] There were no diet-related performance differences in the remaining three 5KTT (p > 0.22). Subjects exercised at ~82%VO2max. Carbohydrate oxidation provided 94% of energy on the HCLF diet, but only 65% on the LCHF diet. 5KTT performance at ~82%VO2max was independent of the runners’ habitual diet. The HCLF diet offered no advantage over a diet with a high-fat content.[!] Since these athletes run faster than 88% of recreational distance runners in the United States (U.S.), this finding may have wide general application.



Not youtube :wink: .


You've posted this twice now. Did you read the whole thing? 7 test subjects, lack of dietary controls, no washout period etcetc there a lot of limitations to suddenly hold this study as definitive proof that keto/low carb is the optimal for athletic performance when it shows nothing of the sort. What it does show is a that for literally a couple of people they were no worse off on this diet when performing at a steady pace of 82%VO2max for a short period of time. Worthy of further research? Absolutely. A model for all athletic endeavors? Not even close.








I don't think you read the whole thing. Definitive conclusion were not reached.




Anyway, how about someone besides myself who has actually done an Everesting pipe up with some helpful tips - so we can get back on topic? :beerchug:




Again, I'd argue 24hr mtb is harder than an everesting. Which I have ample experience in. And coached a guy to the national 24hr title. So, yeah.

allepunta
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:09 pm

by allepunta

Conza wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:58 pm
Unniti wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:39 pm
Conza wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 2:13 pm
On top of that, if you want to worsen your health and longevity, go for a low carb diet. If not, avoid a low carb diet
A beyond laughable notion! :lol:

1m12s+ Homo Carnivorus What We Are Designed to Eat: https://youtu.be/qn5zdWucv6I?list=PLtap ... LcdSi&t=71
Absolutely wheezing on the floor at the thought that people mostly ate meat and fat way back when. Yes there are much more tools and cave paintings related to hunting because first those tools and the spoils are much more likely to become fossils than nuts and seeds. And the big hunts for massive mammals are much more interesting scenes to paint than those of picking up mushrooms and veggies. But don't be fooled by that though, the majority of ancient human diet came from the gathering part of us being hunter gatherers. Meat was a luxury commodity that people ate when they had access to it. Plants were the bread and butter because of how reliable gathering those is compared to hunting outside of extreme circumstances.
:o :lol: ! You can't get much clearer than this: Fat of the land: What ancient bones tell us about the origin of the human diet | Jess Thompson | ASU Institute of Human Origins
https://youtu.be/iSCV_XFcVPU
AeroObsessive wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 9:47 pm
Dude, if you are using YouTube as an evidence base I would advise extreme caution. And Noakes is so far off the deep end now it's laughable.
Dude, youtube is a means of communication. Been citing nothing but very well known acknowledged medical professionals, n' those with a doctorate in nutritional science. Nothing to do with an appeal to authority here, but they've literally been lectures from seasoned medical professionals at conferences - not some numpty uploading a vlog. How is Noakes off the deep end? Weak ad hominem. You do realise he did a complete 180, right? And originally championed the whole carbs hypothesis?

Why do you think he changed?! :wink:
There is a stark difference between cycling different energy intakes to elicit a (hopefully) better energy utilisation outcome, and just adopting a particular diet for everything, evermore.

But to date, for competitive athletes carbs still win as the primary energy source. That's not to say it's all done and dusted, but the science (and even anecdotes) does not support the ultra low/keto approach for effective athletic performance. Or performance in general.

But people assign identity to diet, and once a path is chosen, the identity is chosen, and critique of the diet is critique of the person.
My identity ain't wrapped up in anything but being intellectually honest & open to reason. Explain how I previously accepted all of carb standard literature, did the everesting based off of it, and then now advise there's a better way to do endurance performance specifically relating to this activity? How's that fit into your model?
Here's a study from the AIS. Their one goal is to win shit at the Olympics. If low carb/keto et al would give them the edge, they would 100% do it. But to date, they have seen *nothing* that would boost performance. Again can/is used in cycles, maybe for weight management, or tweak energy usage, but actual hard training and performance - caaaaaaaarbs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407976/
And the state's health guidelines are meant to get people healthy — oops! They don't.
Surely if high carb ruined peoples health, they wouldn't endorse that junk / BS health advise - right? Nope, wrong.

https://youtu.be/Wj9_zEXOrDw?t=238 4m07s+

Do note: "Similarly, we made Sustain® in partnership with the Australian Institute of Sport, and Nutri-Grain® has long been a supporter of Australia’s Ironman and Ironwoman series – what could be more iconically Aussie than running out of the surf and scoffing down a big bowl of Nutri-Grain®."

That's all just by the by. Not hanging any hats on that, but just because its a state organisation doesn't mean its 'pure' (opposite is more likely in fact).

In any case, from the study you cite:

"Participants completed the 3‐week training intervention, with weekly volume totals showing a similar overall training commitment between groups, although participants in the LCHF group experienced greater perception of effort throughout, often experiencing substantial hardship or inability to complete sessions as planned"

YES! :lol:. Of course they would! Literally still in the process of adapting. My word, I mean ask literally anyone or look up recommendations online for athletes and those going LCHF/keto/carnivore and see how long they recommend for adaptation. I mean seriously, get a study that ain't flawed. I know they try poo poo the possibility towards the end ("but it is long enough"), but really—can you find any? I'd love to know! Here's one that is 6 weeks adaption.

High Rates of Fat Oxidation Induced by a Low-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet, Do Not Impair 5-km Running Performance in Competitive Recreational Athletes - Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2019) 18, 738-750https://www.jssm.org/volume18/iss4/cap/jssm-18-738.pdf/.

Exercise performance during the VO2max tests was unchanged on either diet (p = 0.251). Performance in the initial 5KTT was significantly slower on the LCHF diet (p = 0.011). [Day 4, what do you know?! :lol: ] There were no diet-related performance differences in the remaining three 5KTT (p > 0.22). Subjects exercised at ~82%VO2max. Carbohydrate oxidation provided 94% of energy on the HCLF diet, but only 65% on the LCHF diet. 5KTT performance at ~82%VO2max was independent of the runners’ habitual diet. The HCLF diet offered no advantage over a diet with a high-fat content.[!] Since these athletes run faster than 88% of recreational distance runners in the United States (U.S.), this finding may have wide general application.

Not youtube :wink: .
altuna98 wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 5:53 am
fruitfly wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:43 am
Human dentition and length and proportion of small to large intestine reveals that we omnivores, and the teeth of our ancestors were also those of omnivores. We (and they) are adapted to eat what is available, whether that be plant or animal. The traditional diet of Eskimos is perhaps the best example of a high fat/meat diet with very little plant-based food, because that is what is available in the far north. Elsewhere, diets are more varied because what is available is more varied.
And that's why eskimos have the worst heart health
Except they don't... https://www.cardiobrief.org/2016/07/29/ ... t-disease/

============

Anyway, how about someone besides myself who has actually done an Everesting pipe up with some helpful tips - so we can get back on topic? :beerchug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

allepunta
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:09 pm

by allepunta

altuna98 wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 3:38 pm
Conza wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 2:58 pm

Anyway, how about someone besides myself who has actually done an Everesting pipe up with some helpful tips - so we can get back on topic? :beerchug:
I also have done one and coached many, you are not alone.
Altuna, euskalduna?

altuna98
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:52 pm

by altuna98

allepunta wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 11:40 am

Altuna, euskalduna?
Bai

Raccooningtanuki
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:30 am

by Raccooningtanuki

On out of the saddle; as someone who has done a 200 km ride with no saddle before. I still say a long climb should be done seated for maximum efficiency. From research and experience.

That being said, I am preparing to tackle one of my old favorite hills completely out of saddle for the first time with a 2kg disc and 80mm front.
Spring propel viewtopic.php?t=140915
Fall guru merus viewtopic.php?t=155877
Summer carver nonsense viewtopic.php?t=156795

fastezzie
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:30 pm

by fastezzie

1. Lots of gears. Like, all the gears.
2. I like oval chainrings for climbing but ymmv.
3. Adjust your bike position if it's a steep climb. Move saddle forward a bit to keep the front wheel down without having to lean over the bike as much.
4. Stretch a lot.
5. Variety of food and drinks. I'd fuel most of it on liquids and stop every few hours for some solid food.
6. Don't carry excess weight. Bike, body, water, kit. It all adds up.

by Weenie


Post Reply