LCHF - Low Carb High Fat Diet Ver 2

[nochain]

 

 

Good to hear I'm not the only one struggling... The thing is, I KNOW my fitness is at least 15-20 min faster than I am doing currently. I don't suffer, just don't have any "Oomph"

How often do you race?

I Don't do the LCHF thing...more Paleo so Low carbs(between 50 and 80 grams)but not that low so I don't know about the effects of doing the following.

Try and eat a bit more carbs the day before the race...not much..up it to maybe 80 grams...as part of this have a bottle of your race drink before you go to bed.

Next morning have a fat shake early with some future life closer to the race.Eat a Banana right before the start and you should be ready to race!

There was a link in the previous tread about the train low,race high concept and I really think it works for me.

I Train on water only or mostly no water and then race on carbs...but I don't need a lot during a race.At Nissan this past weekend I had less than 500ml of carb mix on me and still had left in the bottle after the race.

 

Keep going,and remember not to do to much intensity during the week before a race because I think that might drain you more.Do some shorter sprints but mostly just good fat burning tempo.

The sweetspot tempo stuff will make you stronger while using fat stores mostly.

 

[DIPSLICK]

Hello all, on the fourth day of joberg2c stopped LCHF not because it wasn't working but because I couldn't get enough fat, then I got sick and before I done sani2c I did not have enough time to get back into ketosis, so I rode Sani on carbs and have been eating carbs since, long story short how long before I am back in ketosis, this riding with bars, is not lekke and will my muscles need to get used to working like a diesel again???

[DIPSLICK]

Hello all, on the fourth day of joberg2c stopped LCHF not because it wasn't working but because I couldn't get enough fat, then I got sick and before I done sani2c I did not have enough time to get back into ketosis, so I rode Sani on carbs and have been eating carbs since, long story short how long before I am back in ketosis, this riding with bars, is not lekke and will my muscles need to get used to working like a diesel again???

[ebenvn]

How often do you race?

I Don't do the LCHF thing...more Paleo so Low carbs(between 50 and 80 grams)but not that low so I don't know about the effects of doing the following.

 

Thanks for your input! I have given a lot of thought about it and will propably revert more to a Paleo type setup. I will definately not go to sugars etc, but am thinking of picking up carbs to higher levels (around what you are doing).

 

I race around once a month or so. I tend to do 2 high intensity trainings in the week and 2 lower intensity ones (all on water). I will continue experimenting and keep you up to date with my new findings.

 

Also looking forward to seeing how much low GI carbs I can have daily and still be in Ketosis...

[nochain]

 

 

Thanks for your input! I have given a lot of thought about it and will propably revert more to a Paleo type setup. I will definately not go to sugars etc, but am thinking of picking up carbs to higher levels (around what you are doing).

 

I race around once a month or so. I tend to do 2 high intensity trainings in the week and 2 lower intensity ones (all on water). I will continue experimenting and keep you up to date with my new findings.

 

Also looking forward to seeing how much low GI carbs I can have daily and still be in Ketosis...

Maybe some of the LCHF experts can commend here,You have done a lot to get to the stage where you are now so not sure if you should change your daily diet.Just maybe use a different approach for the 1 big race you do during a month and see how it goes.

Maybe after a couple of months you get closer to racing on LCHF without the negative effects...and in the meantime you can still race without the frustration of not having the power.

 

I am very tempted myself to go full LCHF but struggle to find the right time to do this because of a heavy race schedule.

Doing SA marathon champs this weekend and after that I think I will go full LCHF and see what happens.

[htone]

Hello all, on the fourth day of joberg2c stopped LCHF not because it wasn't working but because I couldn't get enough fat, then I got sick and before I done sani2c I did not have enough time to get back into ketosis, so I rode Sani on carbs and have been eating carbs since, long story short how long before I am back in ketosis, this riding with bars, is not lekke and will my muscles need to get used to working like a diesel again???

 

If you go super strict LCHF and keep the carbs well below 50g, you should be back in ketosis within a week. Your muscle adaptation has happened, it doesn't just disappear, so it is a matter of just "switching" back. Depending on the time you were on high carb, this could be from 1 - 3 weeks usually.

 

Guys, the KEY is to train, train, train the way you want to race. You need to allow time for this adaptation to happen. It takes anywhere from 4 - 6 months to fully adapt, as in grow new mitochondria in your muscles. If LCHF does not work for you or you don't have the patience to go through this rather lengthy adaptation, then revert to a Paleo type diet as has been suggested. Whatever you do, don't go back to a high carb lifestyle and avoid Coke like the plague (@Pastapouch).

[DIPSLICK]

If you go super strict LCHF and keep the carbs well below 50g, you should be back in ketosis within a week. Your muscle adaptation has happened, it doesn't just disappear, so it is a matter of just "switching" back. Depending on the time you were on high carb, this could be from 1 - 3 weeks usually.

 

Guys, the KEY is to train, train, train the way you want to race. You need to allow time for this adaptation to happen. It takes anywhere from 4 - 6 months to fully adapt, as in grow new mitochondria in your muscles. If LCHF does not work for you or you don't have the patience to go through this rather lengthy adaptation, then revert to a Paleo type diet as has been suggested. Whatever you do, don't go back to a high carb lifestyle and avoid Coke like the plague (@Pastapouch).

THANKS GOOD NEWS THAT

[Roux 1]

Some feedback on LCHF/Paleo and training principals and racing. ( I being a student of the subject)

 

Lets call it n=1+1: The +1 being the race/training element:

 

Background:

• 5 weeks training block, with week 5 rest week. i.e. low volume
  
• Intensity: did not exceed my max aerobic HR, as per Maffetone.
  
• 4 weeks high volume
  

Race: feedback: 70km flat race road.

• Time: 1h52, ave HR 173, ave speed 38km/h, wind relative strong. Road races in Klerksdorp are flat, but the wind make up for it.
  
• One bottle of water.
  
• Lunch 2 hours before: mix salad, olive oil, left over lamb chops. My coffee mix: flax oil, coconut oil and cream.
  
• Must add: did not know what to expect during the race. Can the high intensity be sustained, keeping in mind I did no intensity work. I faded in the sprint at the end.
  
• Result: very happy, it was possible to keep intensity high.
  
• Recovery: small banana, coffee mix again and some peacan nuts.
  

Interpretation:

• Train to race, not the other way around. High intensity is a bad stressor on your body.
  
• LCHF/Paleo does not inhibit performance, maybe it exposes your fitness depth ...... , you have been training wrong, your performance was based on carbs/sugar. Which is not sustainable...my own interpretation of my results.
  
• Remember, depending on your years of biking, the effect of this training regime may take it's own time. Be careful of intensity work, yes, there is place for it.
  
• This is still a experiment in progress.
  
• Firstly train slower to go faster later.
  

Not everything in life must must be rushed, especially training ( I refer to race to train regime). example: "I only have 1 hour of training time now I must hammer it" It is a false truth that has been sold to us. It will make you sick.

 

The End

[davetapson]

Ok guys - I am on the border to quit LCHF.... Because of the previous thread being lost, I go through everything - sorry if it is long...

 

 

Haven't got anything to say that the other guys haven't said, but if someone else says it as well, then it adds some weight.

 

My experience was exactly the same as yours - rode Barberton and Sabie in the same state as you are now and got seriously disillusioned with the whole LCHF thing. But Noakes said somewhere that you should not be racing before you've been LCHF for 6 months, so I just stuck to it and hoped it would come right.

 

I rode day one of Sani2C on water - full power, no problems. I didn't want to risk day 2 so used ucan until Highflats where I eventually succumbed to Sani deliciousness.

 

It seems that you can't push the process - it takes time to get full performance back after going LCHF, and for me, that took 5 - 6 months. I'm stoked that I don't have to worry about carb juice / bonking anymore. Sure, if I want to perform, esp over 65km+ proper MTB, then I still need supplemental CHO, but I need it less and less as time goes by.

 

You need to decide why you're doing LCHF, and see if it is worth it for you.

 

For me, I primarily do it to stop GERD / reflux. The rest is a benefit. So, unless I want to take PPI's for the rest of my life, I have no choice - which makes it easy. But bottom line, once you are adapted, it's pretty awesome. Someone talks about it 'removing the tyranny of CHO ingestion' or somesuch, but that is how it is.

 

For me, prior to doing all this, if someone had said 'hey, hop on a bike and do day one of sani on some water', I'd've thought they were nuts. Now, hey, I can do it...

[davetapson]

Final thought: ebenvn - how do you feel if you race on your old carb supplementation regime - does that work? If so, stick with that for another couple of months - train without, race with? I.e. ease into it.

 

When I was doing Barberton, I got so tired of only being able to ride slowly that I had coke and a banana at the second last water stop (20km from end?) and took off like a rocket ship...

[jcza]

Can someone please post a link or description of Maffetone method for heart rate calc? I base my max on actual max HR achieved and calculated zone based on that number and resting HR.

 

I keep increasing my max HR on my Garmin because it drives me nuts when it starts beeping even though I still feel strong. Wasted 30mins this weekend at Magalies Monster trying to get it down, then ignored it and rode to the end.

[Roux 1]

EXCERPT:

From “The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing” by Dr. Phil Maffetone

 

The 180-Formula and Heart-Rate Monitoring

 

An important training companion to assist you in developing optimal endurance and better fat burning is a heart-rate monitor. This simple device is a valuable tool that not only guides your training but is part of an important assessment process, and can even be used in some competitive situations. A heart monitor is really a simple biofeedback device. Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines biofeedback as “the process of providing visual or auditory evidence to a person of the status of body function so that you may exert control over that function.” Unfortunately, most people use their heart-rate monitors only to see how high their heart rate gets during a workout, or evaluate the morning, resting heart rate.

 

In the 1970s, I first measured heart rates as a student involved in a biofeedback research project. I observed and jotted down responses in human subjects to various physiological inputs, such as sounds, visual effects, and other physical stimulation, including exercise. The subjects’ reactions were evaluated by measuring temperature, perspiration, and heart rate. Through this research, it became evident that using the heart rate to objectively measure body function was simple, accurate, and useful, especially for athletes. I began using the heart rate to evaluate all exercising patients, and by the early 1980s developed a formula that anyone could use with their heart monitor to help build an aerobic base. This “180 Formula” enables athletes to find the ideal maximum aerobic heart rate in which to base all aerobic training.

 

The heart rate is directly related to, and a reflection of, the body’s oxygen need. The heartbeat, the outcome of the heart’s muscular contraction to help pump oxygen-rich blood through the body, is also associated with systolic blood pressure, while diastolic blood pressure reflects relaxation of the heart as measured between beats. The relationship between two heartbeats is associated with heart rate variability, reflecting our parasympathetic aspect of brain and nervous system function—this being an important factor for professionals to assess heart health and for athletes to evaluate recovery from training and racing.

 

The heart itself has a built-in mechanism of nerves that controls its own rhythm (to maintain a heart rate of around 70 to 80 beats per minute), but the brain, through the action of the autonomic nervous system and various hormones, controls the wide range of heart rates based on the body’s needs. This rate can be as low as 30 to 40 in those with great aerobic function to as high as 220 or higher in young athletes during all-out efforts.

 

Abnormal heart rates also fall within this range, sometimes making heart rates inaccurate. For example, in the later stages of the overtraining syndrome, the resting heart rate is abnormally low; and those who are too stressed can have abnormally high resting and training heart rates.

 

In my continued attempt to individualize training heart rates, in the late 70s and early 80s I had several bulky heart monitors in my office, used for accurate heart rate evaluation. Whether the athlete was on a treadmill or stationary bike in the clinic, on the track, or at other locations, I would record a number of pre- and post-workout features. These would include the athlete’s gait—their moving posture during the workout—along with standing posture and muscle balance, and I would correlate this mechanical efficiency with heart rate at various points before, during, and after workouts. It was obvious that training at various intensities affected both posture and gait: the more anaerobic, the more distortion of the body’s mechanics. These changes are due, in part, to previously existing muscle imbalance and muscle problems that develop during the workout. This is sometimes very subtle and other times more obvious. All this information was correlated, and ultimately, an ideal training heart rate was found that promoted optimal aerobic function without triggering significant anaerobic activity, excess stress, muscle imbalance, or other problems.

 

It soon became evident that the athletes needed more consistent training quality, rather than relying on the feel of the workout on the day they used the heart monitor. It became necessary for each athlete to have his or her own heart monitor and train with it every day. The advent of modern heart monitors, which sensed the heart rate directly from the chest wall and transmitted the information to a wristwatch, was a great benefit in this regard, with Polar’s entry into the marketplace in 1982. One of the most significant observations I made during this period was that athletes who wore heart-rate monitors during each workout felt better and improved in performance at a faster rate than others who trained without a monitor.

 

It was now possible to find an ideal training heart rate for athletes building their aerobic system; however, it was a relatively lengthy process of one-on-one assessment. My goal now was to find a way that any athlete could determine an optimal training heart rate, using some simple formula.

 

As I began lecturing and writing more about endurance training, it was difficult to explain the details of all this information on assessment without some simple and specific guidelines. The idea of a formula that would be accurate for an individual and result in a very similar or identical heart rate as my manual assessments seemed ideal. While the 220 Formula was commonly used, the number I found to be ideal in my assessment was often very different from the 220 Formula; it was usually significantly lower. In addition, it was becoming evident that athletes who used the 220 Formula for a daily training heart rate showed poor gait, increased muscle imbalance, and other problems following a workout at that heart rate, and that these athletes were more often overtrained.

 

There are two ways to define age. Chronological age is measured by calendar years, but this may not be a good reflection of fitness and health. We all know athletes who appear much younger—or older—than their chronological age. Some maintain better levels of physical, chemical, and mental function throughout life, reflecting a truer physiological age, while others who are the same chronological age do not. We can evaluate these differences by measuring heart and muscle function, blood sugar, and hormone levels, and by performing other clinical tests. An appropriate questionnaire that asks about fitness and health history is also very useful to assess physiological age, and would better represent “age” in a new and more accurate formula.

 

Over time, I began piecing together a mathematical formula, taking the optimal heart rates in athletes who had previously been assessed as a guide. Instead of 220 minus the chronological age multiplied by some percentage, I used 180 minus a person’s chronological age, which is then adjusted to reflect their physiological age as indicated by fitness and health factors.

 

By comparing the new 180 Formula with my relatively lengthy process of one-on-one evaluations, it became clear that this new formula matched very well—in other words, my tedious assessment of an athlete and the 180 Formula resulted in a number that was the same or very close in most cases.

 

Early in this process, I made number of relatively minor changes to the formula. By the early 1980s, I settled on the final, most effective formula and this is the one in use today: 180 minus a person’s chronological age, which is then adjusted to reflect their physiological age as indicated by fitness and health factors. The use of the number 180 was and is not significant other than as a means to finding the end number. Plus, 180 minus age itself is not a meaningful number; for example, it is not associated with VO2max, lactate threshold, or other traditional measurements. The end number is an athlete’s maximum aerobic heart rate. This is the training heart rate that reflects optimal aerobic training, and a number which, when exceeded, indicates a rapid transition to more anaerobic training. Through the use of this 180 Formula, all athletes can obtain their ideal individual aerobic training rates.

 

Calculate Your Own Maximum Aerobic Training Heart Rate

 

To find your maximum aerobic training heart rate, there are two important steps. First, subtract your age from 180. Next, find the best category for your present state of fitness and health, and make the appropriate adjustments:

1. Subtract your age from 180.

2. Modify this number by selecting among the following categories the one that best matches your fitness and health profile:

a. If you have or are recovering from a major illness (heart disease, any operation or hospital stay, etc.) or are on any regular medication, subtract an additional 10.

b. If you are injured, have regressed in training or competition, get more than two colds or bouts of flu per year, have allergies or asthma, or if you have been inconsistent or are just getting back into training, subtract an additional 5.

c. If you have been training consistently (at least four times weekly) for up to two years without any of the problems just mentioned, keep the number (180–age) the same.

d. If you have been training for more than two years without any of the problems listed above, and have made progress in competition without injury, add 5.

 

For example, if you are thirty years old and fit into category (B), you get the following:

180–30=150. Then 150–5=145 beats per minute (bpm).

 

In this example, 145 will be the highest heart rate for all training. This is highly aerobic, allowing you to most efficiently build an aerobic base. Training above this heart rate rapidly incorporates anaerobic function, exemplified by a shift to burning more sugar and less fat for fuel.

 

If it is difficult to decide which of two groups best fits you, choose the group or outcome that results in the lower heart rate. In athletes who are taking medication that may affect their heart rate, those who wear a pacemaker, or those who have special circumstances not discussed here, further individualization with the help of a healthcare practitioner or other specialist familiar with your circumstance and knowledgeable in endurance sports may be necessary.

 

Two situations may be exceptions to the above calculations:

• The 180 Formula may need to be further individualized for people over the age of sixty-five. For some of these athletes, up to 10 beats may have to be added for those in category (d) in the 180 Formula, and depending on individual levels of fitness and health. This does not mean 10 should automatically be added, but that an honest self-assessment is important.

• For athletes sixteen years of age and under, the formula is not applicable; rather, a heart rate of 165 may be best.

 

Once a maximum aerobic heart rate is found, a training range from this heart rate to 10 beats below could be used as a training range. For example, if an athlete’s maximum aerobic heart rate is determined to be 155, that person’s aerobic training zone would be 145 to 155 bpm. However, the more training at 155, the quicker an optimal aerobic base will be developed.

 

Initially, training at this relatively low rate may be stressful for many athletes. “I just can’t train that slowly!” is a common comment. But after a short time, you will feel better and your pace will quicken at that same heart rate. You will not be stuck training at that relatively slow pace for too long. Still, for many athletes it is difficult to change bad habits.

 

Case history

One of my patients by the name of Don was a good runner who usually placed in the top of his thirty to thirty-nine age-group. When he came to my clinic with chronic injuries, fatigue, and recurrent colds, one of the first things we did was test him on the track with a heart monitor. At his maximum aerobic heart rate, Don was only able to run at an 8:40 pace—almost two minutes slower than his usual training pace! I recommended that Don train at this slower pace with a monitor for a three-month base period. But two weeks later he called me and said it was impossible to run that slow. I again explained the whole process and how he would get faster. A week later he faxed a letter saying he could not train by my recommendations. But several months later, with worsening fitness and health, and almost unable to race, Don came back to the clinic. Now he was ready to train aerobically. It took several months of dedicated base building, beginning with a slower pace, for Don to increase his aerobic pace until finally he was running his “normal” 6:45 training pace—but this time at a heart rate that was twenty-five beats lower than our previous evaluation.

***

The accuracy, usefulness, and importance of the formula have been time-tested throughout the years. But by the early 1990s, many of the athletes I’d worked with for a decade or more taught me another important lesson about the 180 Formula. Seeing the changes they made, including some longer than normal plateaus, helped me come to an important conclusion: Those using the 180 Formula successfully for more than five years needed to adjust their maximum aerobic heart rates down by about two to three beats. They could not keep using the same maximum aerobic heart rate they’d determined years earlier, despite healthier aging. While we age over time chronologically, building fitness and health during the same period results in a slower physiological aging. So in five years of proper (successful) training and improving health, your training heart rate does not need to be lowered by five beats; instead, because you’re physiologically not as “old,” decrease only by two to three beats. When in doubt, always choose a lower maximum aerobic heart rate. This assumes the factors in the 180 Formula that pertain to medication, illness, and competitive improvements are the same. Otherwise, further reductions in the training heart rate may be necessary.

 

Read more about “The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing.”

[Roux 1]

Now that is small print

[davetapson]

Can someone please post a link or description of Maffetone method for heart rate calc? I base my max on actual max HR achieved and calculated zone based on that number and resting HR.

 

I keep increasing my max HR on my Garmin because it drives me nuts when it starts beeping even though I still feel strong. Wasted 30mins this weekend at Magalies Monster trying to get it down, then ignored it and rode to the end.

 

Here's the link to the same stuff posted by Roux - can also use this to scoot around his site...

 

http://philmaffetone.com/180formula.cfm

[davetapson]

jcza - my understanding is that you only train at Maffetone's 180 formula hr. You race as per normal - tongue hanging out on front wheel stuff...

 

I've done a lot of thinking on Maff's stuff. This is what I've distilled it to.

1. Maff says train at 180 - age (which for me = 180 - 49 - 131).

2. Maff says NEVER to exceed this in training.

3. Maff says that you will plateau at times, but hang in there.

4. Maff alludes to the fact that you will do a lot of racing, and that the earlier races act as intensity sessions for the main races of the season.

 

1. Mark Allen says train like Maff says.

2. BUT Mark Allen says that when you plateau, do some (not much) intensity sessions and that will fix the plateau'ing.

3. Mark Allen says and then carry on as before when not plateau'ing.

 

So, what Dave takes away from this is:

1. Training the Maff way gives you an ENORMOUS base and huge aerobic capacity / capability.

2. Maff training DOES require some intensive efforts - if you race rarely (like me) then you do not have weekly or fortnightly 'early' races to act as intensity session for your main races.

3. So even if Maff says 'never exceed Maff 180 formula', I believe that you do need to work some kind of high intensity sessions into your Maff training - which goes a bit against what Maff preaches.

 

Have a look at Mark Allen's site to get his view, which in my eyes is Maff mk2.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not saying this IS how it is, I'm just saying this is how I think it is. YMMV. Terms and conditions apply etc.

Edited May 27, 2013 by davetapson

[zappa]

@davetapson

 

Please add links to Mark Allen site.

 

Thanks