Fitness
Moderators: melkor


Low Carb Ketosis and Exercise - Possible?


Quote  |  Reply
I am currently on a VLCD (500 kcals/day) which leaves me in a permanent state of ketosis, so I burn fat for energy (producing ketones all the time) due to a low carb intake.
I am walking for between 60-120 mins per day for exercise and feeling full of energy afterwards so the process seems to be working. However, I would like to go back to the gym and do cardio & weights.
Is this possible? Will the ketosis conversion be able to keep pace with the energy required for the treadmill? Will I be able to do weights (for toning / strength) with no glycogen / glucose in my system or will ketones to used?

Can someone knowledgeable about ketosis process help me out on this?

Cheers

collies
54 Replies (last)
are you under a dr's care?  sounds like a medifast or hmr type diet.  you need to talk to the dr because of the ketones and the lactic acid and the stress on one's kidneys.  but hey let me know cuz i have a friend doing medifast.

and make sure that you are drinking enough water.
drea99,

Thanks for the advice. I am doing the "Cambridge Diet". I drink 4 litres of water per day. When I started I had a body composition test done.
I don't appear to have lost any muscle mass so far only fat, but it is only 3 weeks. I check my ratios (lean/water/fat) every week.
I don't know a lot about the VLCD diet you mention, but I did about a month and a half of low carb/no carbs on the Atkins diet.  It worked and I lost about 20 pounds during that time, but it was NOT good for my body... I ended up in the hospital.  Since then, I've just watched my calorie intake, minimized the fat/sugar calories, work out every day and have dropped over 120 pounds in less than a year.  My honest opinion is that any diet that pushes your body into such an extreme state of nutritional abnormalcy can't be good.  The energy your body needs comes from carbs, so eating the right kind of carbs maximizes your body's efficiency.  I'm not an expert, though... I just think there are healthier ways to do it that will provide sustainable results.  Just think of it as a lifestyle change... if you don't learn the right ways to eat, you'll just gain it all back when you reintroduce carbs into your diet.

As far as working out, I think it's essential regardless of what diet you're on.  If you don't, you'll end up losing muscle and bone mass and that's the wrong stuff to lose!!  Good luck!
I agree with raehn. anything so extreme cannot be good for the body. I also did the low carb thing. I introduced the diet when I was already working out hard for 1-2 hours a day, 5 days a week. I was making progress just thought I needed a boost. Well I kept up the schedule for a few weeks, saw dramatic results, then got really sick. I was layed out on the couch for five days with no strength at all. I was pretty scared for awhile. I increased my carb intake to 50 and recovered. Now I watch my cals, my sugar and bad carb intake and I feel great. Just stay tuned to what your body tells you. If your on a new diet give your body time to adjust before you change your workouts. vise-versa. If you've been stablized on the same diet and amount of excersize for awhile then adjust which one you feel fit slowly. Maybe if all you do is walk, then once or twice a week try jogging, or anything else of higher intensity. 
I did the starting phase of the atkins diet while swimming / lifting daily.  It didn't seem to impact my stamina too much, and the extra protein helped with muscle growth (potential liver damage non-withstanding).  On the other hand, i saw significant impact at work.  It turns out the brain runs solely off of glucose, and there's not much glucose in a T-bone steak.  Or Taco Bell for that matter!  I dropped from 250lbs to 220, but ended up at 260 within six months.

Eating more reasonably (what I call the "post-college I can't afford to pig out now that my parents don't pay the bills" diet) was much more effective (dropped down to 215).  It also saved me $60-$70 a week in food bills.

If you stick with the Low-Carb diet, I found  "cheating" by eating green vegetables had a very positive impact.  The extra fiber and vitamins gave me energy, and didn't seem to impact ketosis much.
It's hard to tell someone that the low carb diet isn't worth it when they have lost weight doing it and it seems to  be working.

Having said that, listen to what some of these posts say. The low carb thing may be a good jump start and it may be a good way to get yourself of junk,( too much bread, chips, snack food etc.) but in the end listen to what you're asking. Essentially you're asking if you can exercise? This is crazy. Your diet is supposed to support you bodies movement and activity, not the other way around.

I did the Atkins diet for a number of months and although I too lost weight(20 pounds), I felt like crap most of the time. I was so sick of not eating greens and fruits, I dropped it like a bad habit.

In the past 4 months, I've done regular cardio and weight training, watched my caloric intake, eating plenty of fruits and vegetables and watching portions and have never felt better. The pay off has been a drop of 32 pounds and a toned body.

I know it's not the answer you were looking for, but in my opinion, drop the low carb thing.  Eat a peach, lift a weight, take a run, and I now it's cliche but healthy calories in, calories out and exercise and still the best way.

You're walking over an hour a day and probably have reduced your calories. Don't you think that has a lot to do with your weight loss ? 

Cyclical ketosis diet is a lot better in my personal experience, you need to fuel the body once in a while with carbs, as it is pointed out, staying too long on something as hardcore as Atkins diet can have pernicious effects on one's energy, well-being and long term fat loss. If your body have a tendency to gain mass, you better start training (resistance training) so you gain muscle mass through higher insulin sensitivity. This way, if you want to eat more (which is natural), you simply up the exercice on that day.

 

Cyclical ketosis diet is not really about weight loss, it's about changing one's body composition (reduce fat, gain muscle). Don't be worried women, this is a good diet for you. Building extra muscle won't make you look bulky, moreover it will not happen overnight, as you girls don't have a tendency to gain muscle mass like men do. To get more information on this, visit www.bodybuilding.com

Atkins and CKD are completely diff. There is no way one can work out and be on Atkins.  I dislike and would never recommend Atkins for anyone.

I could spend a lot of time explaining CKD but the below link does an awesome job.

http://www.bodybuildingdungeon.com/forums/nut rition/2156-cdk-cyclical.html

it sounds like a very unhealthy way to lose weight to be honest, staying on a diet like this for any lenght of time could do you some serious damage.
Original Post by fitnessgirll:

There is no way one can work out and be on Atkins.  I dislike and would never recommend Atkins for anyone.

 Actually it's not only possible to work out and be on Atkins, I've had some of my best training runs carb free. Yesterday I ran 13K and swam for 30 minutes, all while in ketosis and without taking in any carbs. The body is not only perfectly capable of running without carbs, it actually prefers it. There is only a small one inch area of the brain stem that requires glucose to function, the rest of the body is perfectly fine without it.

I'm sorry but any diet that can cause diabetics to go into a coma and overall cause many people to have dangerously low blood sugar, kidney failure, high cholesterol, osteoporosis and kidney stones and even cancer, etc...eh....I will never, ever recommend it!

Besides, I'm a believer that in order to reach your goals you have to work damn hard at it. Quick fixes and fad diets are debunked almost as quickly as they come out. Eating clean and exercising will always be the best for the body.

I highly encourage you to do some research on the subject. Diabetics wouldn't have diabeties in the first place if they followed a low carb diet. It's carbs that cause diabeties, and the best treatment for diabeties is a low carb diet.

You're confusing ketosis, a natural harmless process that your body uses to digest fatty acids, with ketoacidosis, which is only observed in uncontrolled diabetics and sever alchoholics. Your body actually produces ketones to digest all fat, not just when you're in ketosis - ketosis is simply that the body is producing more ketones in response to a higher demand to process fatty acids (coming from both food and your fat stores) and because there is more ketones being produced it can be detected through a urine test.

What causes low blood sugar is diabeties, not low carb diets ... there is zero evidence of ANY cases of kidney failure in healthy people who switch to or follow a low carb diet (only people who are already in kidney failure should avoid a low carb diet, it's not the low carb diet that causes kidney failure), cholestorol levels have been clinicly shown to go down on a low carb diet, not up, and all of the other claims you make about the dangers of low carb diets are unfounded and proven otherwise. It's actually been shown that a low carb diet reduces risk of cancer, not cause it like you state.

Also, there's nothing quick fix or fad about low carb eating. Most low carb dieters lose 1 - 2 lbs a week after the initial induction phase. Most low carb dieters also exercise and work hard to reach their goals. Low carb eating has not been 'debunked' and in fact every attempt at doing so has shown results that prove that a low carb way of life is in fact more healthy than the currently accetped 'balanced' diet.

Again, I encourage you to do some research on the subject - you'll be surprised at the weakness of the data that our food pyrimid is based on.

Original Post by sybil878:

I highly encourage you to do some research on the subject. Diabetics wouldn't have diabeties in the first place if they followed a low carb diet.

 And, I need to do research?

Although type II diabetes has been linked to obesity..that is not the only cause and certainly has nothing at all to do with type 1. Besides being a certified Personal Trainer, I am a licensed dietician, and will never recommend the fad diets [ie: Atkins]. Best of luck with it.

OY.

 

Carbs are known to cause diabetes - I didn't say that obesity itself causes diabetes (although the two usually go hand in hand). Being a licensed dietician unfortunately doesn't make you an expert on anything other than the government dogma of thier balanced food pyrimad, which is based on faulty research conclusions. I honestly don't mean any offense by that, I have done a lot of research on the actual studies that the main stream food pyrimid is built on and their conclusions are not justified. Just because you learned it in school doesn't make it true.

The main reason I follow a low carb diet is for my health because based on what I have researched, not for weight loss (I am at a healthy weight and normal BMI). I encourage all of my loved ones to follow a low carb diet because the evidence is clear that a high carb diet is harmful and causes disease. I have completed several half marathons and a half ironman while following a low carb diet and am now training for a full marathon followed by a full ironman. There is no reason to eat carbs.

 Edited to add - type 1 diabetes is not caused by diet or lifestye and usually is found in children because their body simply isn't able to produce insulin at all - this is a problem with their pancrease; type 2 diabetes is totally different in terms of what's going on with the body - in fact they are polar oposites. Type 2 diabetes is the over stimulation of insulin - the body has to produce more and more insulin (because too much carbohydrates are being consumed) that cells become resistant to the insulin, causing high blood sugar (because the insulin isn't able to do it's job fully)

There are people that can live on carbs, literally, their whole lives, never exercise and never get fat or diabetes. There are people that eat well, exercise, are in the normal weight range and bf percentile for their age and get diabetes. Explain that! You can't..bc if you could..there would be a cure for diabetes! I can tell you that genetics, regardless of diet, plays the biggest part in getting diabetes. One of my clients got gestational diabetes and never gained more than 36 lbs while pregnant. Another client did not get it although she gained over 80 lbs while pregnant. Both gave birth to normal sized, healthy babies. Gestational diabetes is often used by dr's as a precursor to type II diabetes and those women are often put on certain diets to help prevent... but those diets are not carb restricted.

Also, juevenile diabetes......my bff has a son that has it..he lives on carbs..his blood sugar is always maintained at normal levels. Of course, being a pre teen, his dietary recom. - even for diabetes - will be diff than age onset and/or adult diabetic patients but still...there be carbs!

I appreciate your input but honestly, it is not I but YOU that does not know what you are talking about.  I am not about the food pyramid..I am about HEALTHY, NUTRITIOUS, and CLEAN eating and of course, incorporating fitness into your life so you can live long[er] than someone that does not.

Trust me, you will not find a reputable dr on this planet that is for the ATKINS diet. May be all the dr's on this planet just go by the ''govt dogma of the balanced food pyrimad''.... Short term...sure..gets you short term results. Those go away. Long term..NO way!

Humans survived on primarily a meat diet for hundreds of thousands of years. Explain that! The Inuit traditionally ate only fat and meat, never ate a vegetable ever - and never had any instance of diabetes or cancer until they started eating a westernized diet. Clearly you do not want to look objectivly at the data. There are plenty of doctors who support atkins style diets.

http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/bigfatdiet/

http://www.drjaywortman.com/

Why do people feel the need to attack dietitians in favour of ideas from nutritionists?

 Nutritionist isn't a protected title; anyone can call themselves one. As Dara O'brien tells you:. “Dietician” is like dentist, and “nutritionist” is like tootheologist.”

 Dr. Jay Wortman supports those two loonies Gary Taubes and Michael Eades who both think insulin is this magic reality-defying hormone that can cause body fat to appear in the absence of a dietary calorie surplus and who act extremely surprised every time someone points out to them that acylation stimulation protein is a far more potent fat storage hormone than insulin which works in the absence of insulin to drive excess free fatty acids in the blood stream into storage in a fat cell.

 Wortman goes so far as to call that cherry-picking crank Taubes a good friend and a credible science writer which tells me that his research standards must not be very good.

 Taubes has been seen on TV, telling Jillian and Bob from "The Biggest Loser" to their faces that exercising and dietary restraint won't cause weight loss if the dieter didn't go on a low-carb diet.

 There are populations that will find a low-carb approach beneficial; especially the populations with low skeletal muscle sensitivity for various reasons like the severely obese but it's still a calories in/out thing at heart. Jeff Volek's done some good work on that.

 That the Inuit never got cancer is a myth; but with an average life span of about 40 years they generally didn't live long enough to die from it. The lack of carbs in their diet did mean that there was no adverse selection pressure against gene complexes making them vulnerable to Type II diabetes so they're a high-risk group now with more widespread carb availability, but you can't extend results based on population studies of small, genetically distinct isolated populations out to the general human population.

 There's an important difference between the Atkins diet and traditional indigenous diets in populations like the Inuit or the Saami though. They didn't just eat the animal muscle, they ate everything but the squeal, including the stomach contents of grazers like the Caribou.

 With the exception of marginal edge populations like the Inuit though, the average paleolithic diet would generally work out to get about 50% of your calories from animal sources and about 50% from plant-based sources. Though it's a little hard to talk meaningfully about the Paleo diet given that you'd need to specify if you were discussing the various Americas, Himalayan, central European, southeast pacific or any of the African zones and quantify how much they varied. Paleo man would generally eat anything that didn't ran fast enough and that he could choke down best out of three tries, have kids at 14 and die of old age at 40 so it's a little hard to take Paleo man as a role model for health seriously.

Ugh. I give up. I'm not attacking dietians, I'm simply saying just becasue something is taught in school dosen't make it true. 20 years ago they taught dietitians that eggs cause high cholesteral, this has since been proven false. I'm simply saying look at the data objectivly. Really people, there are huge south beach threads on this forum - do you really think they're all idiots too. Sorry, but I don't consider any 'authority' from the biggest loser credible on health.

Archaeological digs don't actually support the theory that humans ate any significant amount of fruits or veg except on an opportunistic basis. And Paleo man did not die of old age at 40 - paelo man died of influenza, virus, tooth decay or other contageous diseases or was eaten by a bear. It was rare for someone to die of old age. I'd even go as far as saying if they had the same medical abilities that we did, they would live longer than the average carb consuming modern man.

I see it's utterly useless trying to discuss this topic here though.

 

Original Post by sybil878:

Archaeological digs don't actually support the theory that humans ate any significant amount of fruits or veg except on an opportunistic basis.

 

Probably because tomatoes don't leave lasting evidence the way animal bones do.  Have you ever read The Invisible Sex by J.M. Adovasio, O. Soffer and J. Page?  It provides a very interesting discussion of how the role of meat in ancient civilizations may well be highly exaggerated due to the gender bias of those doing the research (i.e. men feeling that the male hunting role is more important than the female gathering role) and that introduction of nuts/seeds into the diet can explain all the development traditionally attributed to "big man bring back big meat".  People have a funny tendency to find what they're looking for, and traditional archaeology has tended to focus on the male side of things - overemphasizing the role that hunting and meat actually played in cultures.

Original Post by susiecue:

Original Post by sybil878:

Archaeological digs don't actually support the theory that humans ate any significant amount of fruits or veg except on an opportunistic basis.

 

Probably because tomatoes don't leave lasting evidence the way animal bones do.  Have you ever read The Invisible Sex by J.M. Adovasio, O. Soffer and J. Page?  It provides a very interesting discussion of how the role of meat in ancient civilizations may well be highly exaggerated due to the gender bias of those doing the research (i.e. men feeling that the male hunting role is more important than the female gathering role) and that introduction of nuts/seeds into the diet can explain all the development traditionally attributed to "big man bring back big meat".  People have a funny tendency to find what they're looking for, and traditional archaeology has tended to focus on the male side of things - overemphasizing the role that hunting and meat actually played in cultures.

The bolded part made me laugh hahah :p

other than that, I wouldn't doubt it.

that's the best explanation I've heard on this subject yet.

54 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement