Why LCHF is Gaining Popularity

[Spiral]

I think this video by Plant Positive titled Stephen Phinney, Native Americans, and Low Carb Fitness is interesting.

Low carb resulted in almost as high endurance as high carb. Almost doesn't cut it when you are competing in the Olympic Trials Marathon, in my opinion.

I am going to listen to that podcast. The plusses and minuses of going keto. Should be interesting.

ADDED: To chime in on Runs On Starch's comments.

Most people I hang with think of a full marathon, 26.2 miles baby, as a long endurance event. Sure, at the elite level the full marathon is just over a 2 hour event. For people like me (I have never attempted a full marathon), we're talking about a 4 hour event.

I agree with Runs on Starch. A high fat eater is going to have a tough time even qualifying for the Olympic Trials Marathon. It's tough enough for those who eat lots of carbs.

I remember hearing that Scott Jurek once consumed some vegetable oil during a long run or maybe it was a long endurance race. And he had GI trouble. Jurek is not afraid of fat.

In any case, I think we need to remember that when you consume lots of fat, especially with certain types of fat, you are really slaughtering the heck out of your cardiovascular system, causing all kinds of damage to the ability of your arteries/veins to expand based on demands made by your body.

This can't be good for performance.

One more thing . . . . . .

I think the reason why LCHF is gaining popularity among some athletes and coaches is because many of these guys are not interested in doing the boring work of reading the scientific journals of the past 100 or so years. So, if some guy at the gym says, "Dude, you can totally boost your performance by eating more fat and staying away from the carbs," these people tend to believe this stuff.

Jocks and coaches might think they are very sciency. But they aren't. They are not going to spend years going through all of the scientific literature before publishing their book on how to become faster. They are going to publish their book when the need the money, which is right now.

And desperate athletes, disappointed by their lackluster half marathon performance (I'm pointing at myself here) are vulnerable to quack therapies just the same way someone who has just been diagnosed with cancer is vulnerable to believing that shoving coffee beans up ones bum is going to save your life.

. . . . . .

And one main reason why LCHF is popular in general, among athletes and non-athletes.

Carbohydrates are bad for you. At least the way they are eaten in the United States. In the US we eat carbohydrates as donuts, French fries and Oreo Cookies and Pop Tarts.

Carbohydrates are good for you. Pinto beans, peas, sweet potatoes. We don't eat them that way in the US.

[vgpedlr]

Spiral, have you read any of Volek's studies? Whatever one thinks of his recommendations or lifestyle, they are very interesting, if for no other reason than that they challenge accepted ideas about exercise physiology. The latest one, FASTER, is available for free, and is quite readable, even for liberal arts nerds like me.

I've seen Plant Positive's videos regarding Phinney and Volek. I searched them out specifically, but there wasn't much there. I found their book, The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance, and Volek's interviews on Endurance Planet much more interesting. It doesn't change my mind, but 10 yrs ago, pre-McDougall, it could have.

[Spiral]

Spiral, have you read any of Volek's studies?

There is no measurement of sprinting ability or the ability to run for a long time at a specified pace. So, how is one going to learn anything from that study?

When Nathan Pritikin wanted to demonstrate (to himself and his doctors) that he no longer had heart disease, he did a stress test and blew the stress test out of the water.

That's not what happened in this case. So, one can view Volek's study with a shrug.

[vgpedlr]

There is no measurement of sprinting ability

No. That is why they selected ultra-endurance athletes. They weren't addressing sprint performance. That has been a question raised by LC athletes, "Do you lose your top end?" A topic for a different study. Reductionist science gets its name from reducing variables. You can't look at too many things at once.

... or the ability to run for a long time at a specified pace.

Studies looking at exercise performance never do, because pace is irrelevant. A six minute mile running pace may be MAF for one person, but VO2 max for another. So researchers always use intensity as as a gauge, specifying it as percentage of VO2 max. That also allows comparison across sports, so you can use runners, cyclists, triathletes, Nordic skiers, rowers etc.

So, how is one going to learn anything from that study?

One learns that glycogen is not as necessary as one thought previously. The body can oxidize fat for energy at a much higher rate depending on diet. No one too my knowledge has shown that before, and it goes against everything you read about exercise fueling going back many years.

When Nathan Pritikin wanted to demonstrate (to himself and his doctors) that he no longer had heart disease, he did a stress test and blew the stress test out of the water.

A stress test is a different animal, and not the purpose of the study. You can't test too many things at once. This test wanted to investigate metabolism, not heart disease risk, so they measured gas exchange and muscle biopsies.

So, one can view Volek's study with a shrug.

I give a shrug too, but it's still interesting and opens up possibilities for further research. Since they deliberately matched athletes by ability, it doesn't show which is "better" or explain why one would want to choose one diet over another. It showed that athletes can perform at a high level on bother HF and HC diets. Which is remarkable because decades old dogma in exercise science has said that glycogen stores are so critical such a performance would impossible or highly unlikely. The LC athletes would bonk when glycogen got too low. But they didn't.

I shrug because the HC athletes didn't bonk either. Despite not being "fat adapted" and not refueling, they were efficient enough with both fat and glycogen stores to perform at the same level. The study didn't live up to the hype of the LC athlete community.

What it becomes is a feather in the cap of the LC folks. One of the sacred cows has been that you "need" lots of carbs for exercise performance. Turns out that's not true. By itself, not super important, or surprising that the body can make use of whatever fuel you give it. But for those who believe LC diets are best for long term health, this study is reassuring. I imagine that it's the sort of study that your aunt might show you, knowing that you're a runner. "See, you don't need to eat all those dangerous carbs to run races!"

[Spiral]

I shrug because the HC athletes didn't bonk either. Despite not being "fat adapted" and not refueling, they were efficient enough with both fat and glycogen stores to perform at the same level. The study didn't live up to the hype of the LC athlete community.

What it becomes is a feather in the cap of the LC folks. One of the sacred cows has been that you "need" lots of carbs for exercise performance. Turns out that's not true. By itself, not super important, or surprising that the body can make use of whatever fuel you give it. But for those who believe LC diets are best for long term health, this study is reassuring. I imagine that it's the sort of study that your aunt might show you, knowing that you're a runner. "See, you don't need to eat all those dangerous carbs to run races!"

I agree. My aunt has already mentioned that you can consume a high fat diet and compete in endurance events. My other aunt, a lacto-ovo-vegetarian and Ironman triathlete tends to quietly disagree.

If I take off my low-fat, whole foods, plant based hat for a second and if I were a typical endurance athlete, it seems that I would be consuming the standard American diet. In other words, about 50 percent carbs, 32 percent fat and 18 percent protein or thereabouts. I am guessing that neither the McDougall diet nor the High Fat diet would have much appeal to most of your average endurance athletes, unless you could convince them that one or the other would trim minutes off of their finish time.

So, Volek might be moving the dial a little bit in the direction of High Fat. But I'm not sure it's a significant shift. By our standards, Americans are already on a high fat diet.

It would be a big deal, however, if Meb Keflezighi announced he was going high fat and he ended up winning the Boston Marathon on that high fat diet.

ADDED:

Take someone like Luke Puskedra. Puskedra is in the 25 to 29 age group. He finished 5th in the Chicago Marathon (1st place if you exclude the 3 Kenyans and 1 Ethiopian) back in October of 2015. He will be in the Olympic Trials Marathon.

Now, if he were to announce that he was on a high fat diet, that would catch the attention of runners like me. Volek's scientific studies might interest some. But far more look at actual performance results and the celebrity athletes. When the celebrity athletes start eating lots of eggs and butter instead of pasta and millet, that's when your mid-pack runner is likely to get on board.

[Thrasymachus]

Based on Volek's work in this study and previous work with elite cyclists, yes, I think it's possible. I think someone can eat that way and train appropriately, eventually leading to a world class performance. ...

... Elite athletes are often very conservative, unwilling to risk any big change, especially in diet, and rightly so. But if LC diets continue to gain in popularity, I don't see why an elite level performance would be impossible.

...

Almost all elite athletes are basically doping, especially so for elite cyclists. If I remember in alot of the recent Tour De France's you have to look at number 16 or even lower in the peloton to find non-dopers. Carl Lewis who is often cited as an example of the success of the McDougall diet has admitted that he has benefited from corruption and favoritism in drug testing like many other American athletes:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/a ... ncanmackay

Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.

"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

...


Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up. It will add weight to calls by leading anti-doping officials and top athletes for an independent inquiry into the US's record on drug issues.

...

I don't think diet is enough of a factor one way or the other to prevent elite athletes from being elite even if they have the worst diets. One example is the 300 lb.+ over muscled NFL lineman that eat very high fat diets and die very early likely because of that and the concussions and blunt force trauma, but it doesn't matter because their athletic prime doesn't extend far enough for public spotlight to show how broken down and pathetic those guys are at age 40 and beyond. There are lots of article marveling at the amazing growth in size of nfl players over the years:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/sport ... wanted=all
You cannot eat healthy or be healthy and be giant mountains of men like them. It is basic physics and entropy, they are big, so they eat alot and very high fat. In other words they are bigger and stronger in their youth at the price of decreasing their lifespans.

I think in senior athletes, at age 50+ eating a diet close to the Starch Solution really starts to matter a great deal. But that demographic does not draw eyes or attention. The athletic prime in almost every sport with high visibility is so narrow that diet is a non-factor. Further the people with bad genetics who cannot tolerate a bad diet as well and are health disasters even in their 20's or early 30's, are not able to become elite athletes in the first place. They are weeded out in the high school level or don't even pursue athletics at all.

[vgpedlr]

Almost all elite athletes are basically doping...

Sad but true. I used to hold out hope for the Kenyans, thinking that the costs of a doping program would be beyond the reach of Kenyans. But the influx of European coaches and sponsorship money has changed that.

Carl Lewis who is often cited as an example of the success of the McDougall diet has admitted that he has benefited from corruption and favoritism in drug testing like many other American athletes:.

I've known of the corruption in international track for a long time. It's also bad in real football (soccer) and tennis. A big Spanish doping sting a few years back caught a doctor and rounded up the cyclists while the footballers and tennis stars escaped. I hadn't seen Carl Lewis's admission, but no surprise.

I don't think diet is enough of a factor one way or the other to prevent elite athletes from being elite even if they have the worst diets.

I do. Diet is still important, as the margins at the top are very small. The dope only does so much, you still have to eat and most importantly, train. Diet still matters a lot to allow for consistent training and avoiding illness. The pros are very careful about what they eat, but what they think is "right" for their short term career is not necessarily "right" for long term health. Jeff discusses this idea of "over-nutrition" having short term benefit, but long term risk

One example is the 300 lb.+ over muscled NFL lineman that eat very high fat diets and die very early likely because of that and the concussions and blunt force trauma, but it doesn't matter because their athletic prime doesn't extend far enough for public spotlight to show how broken down and pathetic those guys are at age 40 and beyond. There are lots of article marveling at the amazing growth in size of nfl players over the years:

More sad but true.

I think in senior athletes, at age 50+ eating a diet close to the Starch Solution really starts to matter a great deal. But that demographic does not draw eyes or attention. The athletic prime in almost every sport with high visibility is so narrow that diet is a non-factor.

I still think diet is a major factor, as I explained above. While elite athletes are usually done by age 35, I think there will be plenty of attention on older athletes, but for a different reason. That reason is participation. Endurance racing of all kinds has grown tremendously in recent years, and the biggest age group is men in their 40s. They are also the fastest. There is growing interest in sport at these later ages, and while you won't see them on TV or in a Nike ad, I think the numbers and money they're willing to spend will drive more interest.

Sadder still, is me wondering at the back of the pack when I race, are those guys in front on the gear? I mean, with a $10K bike strapped to a $50K SUV, what's another grand for a good dope program?