LCHF - Low Carb High Fat Diet Ver 2

[P.A.K.]

I am 1.86m tall. About two years ago, I was about 90kgs. During that time I was following Weigh-Less, and it seemed to work for me, even though it was quite difficult to maintain. I've never eaten so much in my life, like I had to then. I was also not exercising at all. Yet I could maintain a steady weight of 90kgs (which is good for me).

 

Lately I am 104kg (was 111kg just before Argus, lost a few until 108kg, and then started LCHF).

 

I'm struggling to lose weight at the moment. I can only imagine what cycling with 14kgs less must feel like

According to my BMI, which I know isn't much to go by, I am obese. I'm not masculine at all.

 

A typical day with Weigh-Less could include up to 6 slices of low-Gi bread . You have 3 large meals, and 3 snack meals in-between.

 

Typically, each large meal would include at least 100g cucumber, 100g tomato's, about 100-120g of some sort of meat, and carbs in the form of two slices of bread or potatoes etc. Snacks would be biltong, a fruit, yogurt etc.

 

Everything was low-fat though. Skim milk, fat-free yogurt, light margarine, no fat on meat, no droewors. You get the grim picture. I don't get how this diet worked, but it did for me.

 

One possible theory is that, because you eat so often, your body doesn't need to store any fat, because it doesn't go into starvation mode.

 

Can it be that because I get less hungry now on LCHF, I eat less often and my body goes in some sort of 'storage' mode?

 

I am thinking of combining the eating patterns I learnt on Weigh-Less with the food choices I learnt from LCHF. Maybe have some fruit in-between meals, together with some droewors, biltong or yogurt. Have up to 300g of cucumber & 300g of tomatoes a day, but with some lekker cheese in the salad too, and olive oil for dressing. And still don't have any starches?

Edited September 18, 2013 by P.A.K.

[davetapson]

Dave I'm not sure this theory is correct (maybe a scientist or professional can help out)

 

My understanding is that we all have glycogen in our liver, brain and muscles and the depletion starts immediately when we start racing. Professional athletes have been shown to be able to store more muscle glycogen and we can condition ourselves to do the same. However we can never replenish enough and will ultimately run out and come to a halt - hopefully this will only happen after we reach the finish line.

 

What you describe is the typical carb-burners cycle - dependent on carbs. With LCHF adaption your liver produces the glucose you require through gluconeogenesis - effectively it can produce glucose from protein and fats. There is a study somewhere on BG levels of an endurance athlete that shows that a properly adapted athletes BG doesn't vary a whole lot - because the liver produces glucose from whatever it has in abundance at the time.

 

I've tried to search for the article, but am battling to find it. My feeling is that we're (those of us who contribute to this thread) are part way adapted - hence we can do the not so high intensity stuff for as long as we want, but start to battle when we outstrip our livers ability to produce glucose from fat. So - in order to get the liver's biochemical pathways revved up to provide sufficient glucose to race on, it will need to be stimulated to do so by training / racing with no carbs.

 

I'll try and find the article.

 

Link on gluconeogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

[Wet Ears]

PAK I would guess you are not insulin resistant/carb intolerant and therefore don't need to manage your carb intake the way someone who is resistant/intolerant would.

 

I would chow down on carbs then but the healthy ones staying away from refined and processed foods, so go ahead and chomp those bananas, sweet potatoes etc.

 

Disclaimer - this is the view of an extremely lay person so take it with a pinch of salt!!!

[jcza]

What you describe is the typical carb-burners cycle - dependent on carbs. With LCHF adaption your liver produces the glucose you require through gluconeogenesis - effectively it can produce glucose from protein and fats. There is a study somewhere on BG levels of an endurance athlete that shows that a properly adapted athletes BG doesn't vary a whole lot - because the liver produces glucose from whatever it has in abundance at the time.

 

I've tried to search for the article, but am battling to find it. My feeling is that we're (those of us who contribute to this thread) are part way adapted - hence we can do the not so high intensity stuff for as long as we want, but start to battle when we outstrip our livers ability to produce glucose from fat. So - in order to get the liver's biochemical pathways revved up to provide sufficient glucose to race on, it will need to be stimulated to do so by training / racing with no carbs.

 

I'll try and find the article.

 

Link on gluconeogenesis: http://en.wikipedia....Gluconeogenesis

 

Thanks Dave, interesting reading. My only concern remains when one goes 80% and above effort.

[davetapson]

EDIT: Burning fat & fuel economy

 

This is interesting reading. I wonder how the figures would vary for a highly fat adapted individual?

 

I suppose the bottom line is what is the highest rate that the liver can produce glucose and how does one train to create that?

 

If you can raise the level at which carb burning takes over, you can eke out your stored glucose for longer?

 

Change of tack:

Going back to the 'running out of carb' argument.

 

My experience is that now I've (somewhat) adapted, I don't bonk anymore.

 

Sure, I may not be able to maintain the pace I might like to, but I don't bonk. Bonking is when you fall off your bike, crawl into some shade under a tree and shed a tear or two. Proper bonking is running out of carb, for sure.

 

But not being able to maintain a high intensity points at a body that is just not able to utilise sufficient energy to maintain that higher pace.

 

HTone, in the original thread mentioned that you can feel the limit, and you can 'surf the bonk'. i.e you can ride at an intensity at which you know if you increase it bad things will happen, but if you don't, you can carry on for an extended period of time.

 

I'd describe that as the limit that one's system is able to derive energy (from fat combined with the glucose output of the liver). After an hour or so you are likely to have used up stored glucose (blood, liver, muscle) so the energy has to be coming from somewhere?

 

If you can train yourself to utilise more fat for energy (i.e. the bigger and more numerous mitochondria route) and increase gluconeogenesis from the liver, then the intensity at which you can 'surf the bonk' becomes much higher.

 

Chalupsky seems to have got it to a point at which the intensity he could maintain was high enough to beat everyone else.

 

There could be a difference between paddling and cycling tho - the muscles used are smaller, and technique is probably more important (surfing swells etc).

 

I'm grudgingly willing to admit that at proper race intensities, maybe you do need to supplement a bit with carbs tho (take note: supplement A BIT, not the "eat everything in sight just because I'm racing method" (unfortunately, damn!! )) - check this guy: http://www.irunfar.com/2013/09/jason-schlarb-2013-run-rabbit-run-100-champion-interview.html

 

I'll extract the important bit:

iRF: You had a good run there, a good run at Speedgoat 50k, a great run here—what have you changed with your training or your approach to the schedule? What have you mixed up this year?

Schlarb: It’s two or three things. First one is not racing in August and taking another race out early in the summer to make sure I’m fresh and feeling good. Another one is a grain-free diet and making the body a fat-burning system. I think I had 1,500 calories for 17 hours.

iRF: The entire race.

Schlarb: The entire race. I didn’t bonk at all. The first hour and 25 minutes I didn’t take anything. Then after that it was about 100 calories every 40 or 45 minutes. The last 10 to 15 miles there were a couple times I hit it at 35 minutes. That made me efficient and with a 100 being so aerobic, it was just perfect. I had no salt, no salt caplets. It was nothing but the basics of running on fats and hitting the carbs just every once in awhile. That just worked out perfectly. That’s the result of going grain-free/Paleo. That really worked out well. Training has really come together and figuring out what works for me—doing that and having fun.

He said he didn't race until 70 miles - so probably conserved his carb until he needed them and then burned them up at the right time. The 100 cal / 45 mins probably kept his glucose reserves topped up and preserved the main body of his reserves until time for blast off.

 

PS; Have just had a look to try and find out how much 100 cal is - turns out it is a GU. So one GU every 45 mins. However, the GU website says that the body can absorb 350 cals per hour max, so this is about 1/3 of max absorbtion rate. I'd call a GU per 45 mins a lot, but in theory it is 1/3 of max. Hmmm...

[htone]

Not sure if you guys follow eatlowcarbhighfat.com but after four years of LCHF Tommy's blood lipid tests look like this.

 

http://www.eatlowcarbhighfat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sk%C3%A4rmavbild-2013-09-17-kl.-22.09.22.png

 

I'm no doctor but comparing with other results I have seen, this does look good?

 

Yes it does, but look at what it did initially - it goes up then stabilizes and settles around a healthy level. Also his ratio of HDL : LDL remains good. My own measurements seem to be heading the same way - I guess the trick is to stay in the LCHF zone for this to happen !

[htone]

I am 1.86m tall. About two years ago, I was about 90kgs. During that time I was following Weigh-Less, and it seemed to work for me, even though it was quite difficult to maintain. I've never eaten so much in my life, like I had to then. I was also not exercising at all. Yet I could maintain a steady weight of 90kgs (which is good for me).

 

Lately I am 104kg (was 111kg just before Argus, lost a few until 108kg, and then started LCHF).

 

I'm struggling to lose weight at the moment. I can only imagine what cycling with 14kgs less must feel like

According to my BMI, which I know isn't much to go by, I am obese. I'm not masculine at all.

 

A typical day with Weigh-Less could include up to 6 slices of low-Gi bread . You have 3 large meals, and 3 snack meals in-between.

 

Typically, each large meal would include at least 100g cucumber, 100g tomato's, about 100-120g of some sort of meat, and carbs in the form of two slices of bread or potatoes etc. Snacks would be biltong, a fruit, yogurt etc.

 

Everything was low-fat though. Skim milk, fat-free yogurt, light margarine, no fat on meat, no droewors. You get the grim picture. I don't get how this diet worked, but it did for me.

 

One possible theory is that, because you eat so often, your body doesn't need to store any fat, because it doesn't go into starvation mode.

 

Can it be that because I get less hungry now on LCHF, I eat less often and my body goes in some sort of 'storage' mode?

 

I am thinking of combining the eating patterns I learnt on Weigh-Less with the food choices I learnt from LCHF. Maybe have some fruit in-between meals, together with some droewors, biltong or yogurt. Have up to 300g of cucumber & 300g of tomatoes a day, but with some lekker cheese in the salad too, and olive oil for dressing. And still don't have any starches?

 

PAK, you are asking a very pertinent question and I don't have the answer to that. I am also sitting at around 95kg now and I eat very little - I think the body has gone into preservation mode somehow. I have, due to personal circumstances, not trained for the past month, not at all. Next week I am going to cut right back on my milk intake and actually substitute milk with water, to see if that makes any difference, and I will start training again from this weekend.

 

My guess is that on LCHF the body is much more conservative in how it uses its own energy stores and becomes quite efficient at keeping homeostasis at where it thinks the comfortable levels are.

 

Perhaps we could experiment with the same amount of food, but spread that throughout the day ? I only eat breakfast and dinner and seldom snack in between. My guess, however is that we are too far below the daily caloric requirement and need to be within that magic 500 kcal window to kick start the weight loss. Perhaps I should just get back into HIIT training as that got me going in the past. Interesting times - let's keep the conversations and the learning going !

[wonduhboy]

Man, I am loving the feedback and debate on this thread!

[jcza]

.........

PS; Have just had a look to try and find out how much 100 cal is - turns out it is a GU. So one GU every 45 mins. However, the GU website says that the body can absorb 350 cals per hour max, so this is about 1/3 of max absorbtion rate. I'd call a GU per 45 mins a lot, but in theory it is 1/3 of max. Hmmm...

 

Dave I think you have hit the nail on the head - fuelled by fat except for the bits where HR goes >85% when carbs is used. From own experience I find that road races are not as much of a problem as MTB races as the intensity is lower for longer. Personally I race with carbs but it is defintely less.

[HappyMartin]

Depends how you race I guess. Road races I am fine until the attacks start. Eventually I get shelled and then fight back once. The next attack I am toast. Awful to look down and see your HR at 95% as the group slowly rides away from you. That's when carbs are being burnt.

 

The thing is if you can't efficiently burn fat at lower intensities then you are never in the race. The whole fat burning thing is the foundation for me. Keep chucking cheap carbs down your neck while sitting on a couch and you are doing huge harm to yourself.

[Sniffie]

I seem to recall that a while back someone posted this link http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/nutrition/paleos-latest-converts-20130618 , about Dave Zabriskie and his LCHF eating while being a world class cyclist. Would be interested to see some new findings if any. Mark Sisson for one believes it is possible to compete at the highest level on a very low carb diet. One of the problems with research done on the low carb, professional athlete theme in the past seems to be that none of the athlete's have been fully fat adapted yet.

[HappyMartin]

Interesting person Dave Zabrisky. He is also vegan, has his own colon irrigation machine all for health reasons yet he admitted to using PED's

[htone]

Forget for a second about the many health benefits we have experienced with a healthier lifestyle.

I think the point relating to training that I was trying to make is this...

 

What if we REALLY tried to adapt ? What if we didn't give up when we hit that first mini-bonk and started taking carbs ?

What if we kept pushing that envelope and allowed the body the time to adapt - what is really possible ? Could we adapt to the point that we had the capability to perform at max or race effort without supplementation at all ?

 

I know most on here will have races to compete in, groups to ride with, or whatever valid reason why you cannot allow yourself to regularly have those "mini-failures" while riding and we then have to resort to supplementing for those peak efforts, but what if we could take the time to adapt ?

 

Because I am not a racer, this is a bit of an academic question for me - I have the luxury most of the time to train at my own pace and our group training rides are seldom so tough that I will burn through my available glycogen completely. So somewhere in my mind's eye I can see myself being able to ride at race pace, maybe even do stage races without supplementing....

 

I just cannot help but think back to more primitive man, heck even think back to the very, very early days of cycling when there were no GU's and gels - I think athletes then (and the hunters before them) were supremely adapted fat burners not through choice, but through design due to the "lifestyle" (read need to survive) then. I cannot for a second believe that a primitive hunter who had to chase down his prey always operated below 75% VO2Max and always had the opportunity to recover - there MUST have been mechanisms in our ancestral bodies that could burn stored bodyfat and burn it regardless of the requirements at rates far more efficient than what we are experiencing now. And THAT must be the ultimate goal, surely ?

 

I reckon if we stay on this, if we keep surfing those bonks for longer and longer, if we keep adapting and learning though this, we are going to have amazing conversations on here in a year or two....

[HappyMartin]

Now that's passion htone. Respect.

[Sniffie]

@htone

My friend!

You are so echoing my own thoughts on this subject! Glad you put it into words for me as I am not so fluent in English. When I met you at the end of March this year I think I was some way towards becoming fat adapted. Several things happened in the meantime that made me give up the strict LCHF approach. As I stated in an earlier post I am at the moment adopting JCZA's approach towards eating and riding. I have Berg and Bush coming up in a couple of weeks time, so I am not willing to make major changes in my current regime.

 

It should not be a consideration but...; Not lekker to be ridden into the ground while riding on water alone, by someone fueled by carbs, who you know should not be doing it if the playing fields were level. I am just wondering where I might have been now if I gutsed it out for a couple of months more...

[tombeej]

Just a little thing on Oscar Chalupsky's Molokai surfski wins...

 

I've done a bit of surfski myself in the past (participated in 2 world cups) so just to explain: the Molokai is an ultra endurance event. 50-odd km over open ocean, no high intensity stuff there. Actually a perfect race for someone who is very well fat adapted.

 

And Oscar wins over olympic level paddlers half his age because of his legendary ocean skills. Because a large component of surfski is how to 'link the runs', hooking on to each wave or ocean swell as it rolls underneath you, linking from one wave to the next, catching endless little free rides along the way. At the highest level if you miss a link or two in a row you're soon 100m behind the guy who was just next to you a minute before. It's more about seamanship than pure athletic ability.

 

So it's not really a race where you'd need high GI carbs at all.