Ashtar
Mar-02-07, 03:02 PM
I read reading this study about ketogenic dieting and I found it interesting how they were discussing this one anomaly during an endurance test. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2
During the study, patients lost some weight, so to make it an equal burden, they made the people where backpacks that were as heavy as their difference in lost bodyweight.
They performed better!
So they were saying, one possibility (as a check in case keto didn't improve endurance) was that humans were more efficient at carying weight on their back, than distributed in fat cells around their body.
It's pretty interesting I guess, I can sort of see it, since we have strong backs. With a backback, it's more solid (depending on how the weight was stationed inside I guess) and you can stabilize it by holding the straps with your arms. Whereas fat just jiggles around and may be in areas that require less efficient muscles to work to lift them.
What it means basically, is say you're trying to maintain endurance, if you're 200lbs and lose 20lbs, you wouldn't get equal endurance just by putting on a 20lb backpack at 180lbs. You'd need to get a heavier one.
Of course, that's just jumping to a conclusion. There are a lot of other possibilities I don't think these scientists considered. One being an increase in lean mass (say, lost 25lbs fat gain 5lbs muscle) making it easier, an increase in aerobic fitness from those previous cardio sessions if they were untrained (which they did consider and made a new study with trained cyclists because of it). I do think keto might have something to do with it though, since by depleting glycogen your aerobic system has to increase by necessity to restore HTP and do it faster. It probably emphasizes retaining the slow-twitch muscle fibres over the fast-twitch.
Of course that sucks for tricking since it's so explosive and probably glycogen dependant. The keto dudes lost their sprinting ability.
During the study, patients lost some weight, so to make it an equal burden, they made the people where backpacks that were as heavy as their difference in lost bodyweight.
They performed better!
So they were saying, one possibility (as a check in case keto didn't improve endurance) was that humans were more efficient at carying weight on their back, than distributed in fat cells around their body.
It's pretty interesting I guess, I can sort of see it, since we have strong backs. With a backback, it's more solid (depending on how the weight was stationed inside I guess) and you can stabilize it by holding the straps with your arms. Whereas fat just jiggles around and may be in areas that require less efficient muscles to work to lift them.
What it means basically, is say you're trying to maintain endurance, if you're 200lbs and lose 20lbs, you wouldn't get equal endurance just by putting on a 20lb backpack at 180lbs. You'd need to get a heavier one.
Of course, that's just jumping to a conclusion. There are a lot of other possibilities I don't think these scientists considered. One being an increase in lean mass (say, lost 25lbs fat gain 5lbs muscle) making it easier, an increase in aerobic fitness from those previous cardio sessions if they were untrained (which they did consider and made a new study with trained cyclists because of it). I do think keto might have something to do with it though, since by depleting glycogen your aerobic system has to increase by necessity to restore HTP and do it faster. It probably emphasizes retaining the slow-twitch muscle fibres over the fast-twitch.
Of course that sucks for tricking since it's so explosive and probably glycogen dependant. The keto dudes lost their sprinting ability.