Sport Low carb, glycogen, protein breakdown questions

[Karky]

it's an impossible question wrangell, and you know it.

Why is it an extreme diet? I'd say going all out on carbs and protein and almost no fat is extreme.. Think about that, cutting that much fat from your diet.. can't be good for you.
The only reason you say it is extreme is because you are used to something else.

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell, you know very well no one can answer those questions.

Realworksuks claims ( or maybe his book makes that claim ) , " a normal person maintains approximately 110 mmol of glycogen, and person in a consistent state of ketosis maintains 70 mmol ".

There is also some general agreement among scientists as to how many grams of glycogen an average person normally has in their muscles and liver ( and glucose in their blood ) as well.

So, I was simply wondering what a depleted amount of glycogen expressed as mmol / kg in your muscles might have as an equivalent in terms of grams of glycogen in your muscles. In other words, I thought it should be possible to say an average person who is on a keto type diet for 'n ' number of weeks has about ' X ' grams of muscle glycogen left in their body compared to a non-dieting average person would might typically have ' Y ' grams of muscle glycogen in their body.

That's all I was getting at.

If you don't, here's the deal. The body is not black and white. there is no way of calculating what you are asking about without some very sophisticated measuring equipment.

I agree.

But i would you think you can probably do some simple guesses as to what the implication of various types of training and various levels of carb consumption might have in the context of glycogen depletion.

For example, if you do intensive weight training for 1.5 hours ( as realworksuks did ), one could probably come up with a pretty good idea of how many total sets it took over 1.5 hours ( and allowing for things like body weight ) you could then make a guess as to how many calories you might burn in 1.5 hours. And, given weight training is primarily anaerobic, it stands to reason a lot of those calories you are burning in that 1.5 session are glycogen calories.

Again, I said I thought it might not be unreasonable to say you might burn about 400 calories in 1.5 hours of intense weight training. When you are only consuming anywhere from 280 - 400 calories a day from carbs ( as realworksuks did ), I think you can make a real case that doing intensive weight training while being a keto bulk diet would put a real dent in your muscle's glycogen stores. Obviously, some carb loading comes into play as well.

So you're quite right....it isn't " black and white " at all.

 

[Wrangell]

it's an impossible question wrangell, and you know it.

Why is it an extreme diet? I'd say going all out on carbs and protein and almost no fat is extreme

I agree...I think most ' average ' people should take in somewhere around 25% +/- of their overall calories from fat - depending on their personal circumstances of course.

.. Think about that, cutting that much fat from your diet.. can't be good for you..

Once again, I agree with you.

The only reason you say it is extreme is because you are used to something else.

I believe in embracing nutritional habits you can sustain day in day out for the next 30 years..habits that meet reasonable expectations of health and fitness.

So, if some average newbie who wanted to do a moderate amount of weight training and cardio for the next 30 years to keep fit and asked me for a ' reasonable ' and sustainable 30 year dietary approach in terms of macros ( notwithstanding all the issues about clean eating and determining ' maintenance calories ') I'd probably go with something like this as a basic guideline around which he could develop sound dietary habits within a fitness context.....

- consume .8 - 1 grams of protein per pound of your bodyweight

- consume 25% - 30% of your total calories from ( primarily good ) fats

- rest of the calories is from carbs​

...but that's just me.

So, at least within that context having almost 3X as much protein or 2 X as much fat or having only 5% carbs for the next 30 years then ' yes ' .... that is a bit ' extreme ' in my books ...but again, that's just me.

But, you are 100% correct to ask " Why is it an extreme diet ? "

Because, everyone has a different interpretation of is meant by " extreme ". It is a very subjective thing.

 

[realworksuks]

Wrangell, if you have no interest in following a ketogenic diet why are you wasting so much time in this topic?

I am guessing it's because you get a pleasure from asking a ton of questions to a person who thinks they are knowledged in a subject, and you love it when they finally don't have an answer for something.... that's my guess.

We could have sat here until I explained the entire ketogenic diet to you, but I have no interest in explaining it to a person who doesn't even have any interest in the diet. You aren't interested in the diet you are only interested in arguing.

What would my guess about how many grams of glycogen I had in my muscles at any point in time matter? You wouldn't believe I was right just like you didn't believe my bodyfat tests were right, and etc.

I have all the formulas for glycogen depletion in that book I recommended to you, I already told you I thought I had somewhere between 70 and 110 mmol's... you don't believe that, so what do you think I had?

When I switched from keto cutting with 20-40g of carbs in my diet to bulking with 70-100 grams I gained 4.8 pounds of lean mass in two weeks. I can tell ya right now it wasn't all muscle

I told you before that I was eating carbs before and after workouts, my workouts never suffered one bit so obviously my glycogen levels were far from exhaustion.

While doing anaerobic activity on a keto diet, yes, glycogen stores do get used for the time you are actually lifting the weight. But while you are resting between sets that is a FAT BURNING environment. So if I burned 400 calories over the time I was lifting it wouldn't have all been from carbs.



The bottom line about keto diets is that they are excellent for fat loss.

And they aren't the best for muscle gaining. They are great for keeping bodyfat low while bulking, but without the insulin and carbs you can't gain muscle as fast.

And that's the bottom line cuz realworksuks said so!

 

[Chillen]

And that's the bottom line cuz realworksuks said so!

THIS ROCKS!



Best wishes to ALL!


Chillen

 

[Wrangell]

Wrangell, if you have no interest in following a ketogenic diet why are you wasting so much time in this topic?

Too funny - that's fallacious reasoning on your part I'm afraid.

And, I'm not wasting my time in the least...I'm learning a little more about keto diets...and that's a good thing. Besides....how can having a discussion with realworksuks about nutritional topics be anything BUT " time well spent " ?

I am guessing it's because you get a pleasure from asking a ton of questions to a person who thinks they are knowledged in a subject, and you love it when they finally don't have an answer for something.... that's my guess.

You'd be guessing wrong.

If you don't have the answer to some " keto 101 " type questions - fair enough. A simple " I don't know " is a completely acceptable reply IMO.

Besides, if you read up on keto type diets ( i.e "the ketogenic diet" book you suggested ) and as a result you have been on 2 types of keto type diets...cut & bulk .......you seemed to be an excellent person to ask questions about some of the ' basics' of being on keto diets IMO.

We could have sat here until I explained the entire ketogenic diet to you, but I have no interest in explaining it to a person who doesn't even have any interest in the diet. You aren't interested in the diet you are only interested in arguing.

I'm not interested in going on any sort of keto diet - but I am casually interested in learning a bit more about it - when the topic comes up. And, a casual interest in understanding the simple basics of how it works from someone like yourself. Someone who has studied keto diets and gone on a cut and bulk version of the keto diet. So, if a topic thread about " keto diets ' comes up ( as i this case ) , I may pose some questions. Beyond that, I have no keen interest in " keto diets " per se.

Using another analogy, trying to understand how your body reacts to a starvation diet in order to lose fat or steroids in order to gain muscle or how creatine works doesn't mean someone wants to resort to a starvation diet to lose fat or to steroids to gain muscle or to use creatine.

What would my guess about how many grams of glycogen I had in my muscles at any point in time matter? You wouldn't believe I was right just like you didn't believe my bodyfat tests were right, and etc.

Because it is relevant to assessing how much gain in weight is actually due to gains in fat or muscle tissue.

I have all the formulas for glycogen depletion in that book I recommended to you, I already told you I thought I had somewhere between 70 and 110 mmol's... you don't believe that, so what do you think I had?

I don't have a huge issue with " 70 and 110 mmol's " per se - I was simply wondering if there is a total grams of muscle glycogen equivalent ( while on keto ) to this - and - if there was a mmol's / kg for those who do keto diets and also do anaerobic exercise - i.e weight lifting.

When I switched from keto cutting with 20-40g of carbs in my diet to bulking with 70-100 grams I gained 4.8 pounds of lean mass in two weeks. I can tell ya right now it wasn't all muscle

You might be right.

Depends if the calculation you used to arrive at 4.8 pounds of lean mass in two weeks is valid or not I suppose.

I told you before that I was eating carbs before and after workouts, my workouts never suffered one bit so obviously my glycogen levels were far from exhaustion.

Correct, you couldn't train intensely at all if they were 100% depleted

While doing anaerobic activity on a keto diet, yes, glycogen stores do get used for the time you are actually lifting the weight. But while you are resting between sets that is a FAT BURNING environment. So if I burned 400 calories over the time I was lifting it wouldn't have all been from carbs.

I never said it was.

The bottom line about keto diets is that they are excellent for fat loss.

I'm sure they are.

 

[realworksuks]

Besides....how can having a discussion with realworksuks about nutritional topics be anything BUT " time well spent " ?

LOL I'm still laughing at this. That was good, I'll give ya that.



It doesn't seem like you know this about bodyfat tests, but the fat mass is calculated off the skinfold measurements.

The only plugged figure is the lean body mass. Which is obviously your total weight minus fat mass.

 

[Wrangell]

Okay that makes sense. I think in your other post you meant calories and said grams.

If you meant about 400 calories that's in the ballpark.

As far as numbers, I know I've got liver and muscle numbers, which are supposedly 90/10%. And I think blood glucose is negligible because of how small it is, and if it's high the hexo/glucokinase will clear it to normal levels pretty quick.

Actually, I did say grams...as I have seen the carb energy stored in your muscles and liver expressed specifically as grams....as well as calories.

For example, one book I have is authored by Dan Benardot, ( a nutrition prof ...I think ) in which he says, [ his quote ] .........

" Humans can store....

- approximately 350 grams ( 1,400 calories ) in the form of muscle glycogen

- an additional 90 grams ( 360 calories ) in the liver

- and a small amount of circulating blood glucose - about 5 grams ( 20 calories ) " ​

...does that jive with your studies in this area ?

Now, at other times I have seen the muscle glycogen grams range put at 350 - 400 grams. Which is actually where the 400 number came from...it was meant to be grams ....not calories.

btw - Is there any reason why muscle calories ( the 1,400 above ) shouldn't be divided by 4 to get 400 grams instead of the 350 grams shown above ? It seems the liver and blood glucose grams above were calculated that way ( divided by 4 ) ?

Any thoughts as to why that may be ?

 

[Wrangell]

LOL I'm still laughing at this. That was good, I'll give ya that.

We're not discussing politics, religion or abortion here after all - which in the end, is generally a tremendous waste of time IMO.

But here, it's all about topics in nutrition.......and we're here to learn as much as we can.

Which mean " it's all good " IMO............and again, " time well spent "

It doesn't seem like you know this about bodyfat tests, but the fat mass is calculated off the skinfold measurements.

The only plugged figure is the lean body mass. Which is obviously your total weight minus fat mass.

Exactly, that is my point.

 

[Hoss]

My studies are much less related to performance and nutrition, and more towards biochemistry so my numbers may very well be off. In a book of mine, it states that the body can hold no more than 200g of glycogen. But relating this to the other data I've found I believe that they meant in the liver. The general consensus for the amount in the body is all <2000kcal, so about 500g total, the liver not holding more than ~150g of that (or 10% of total weight).

 

[Wrangell]

My studies are much less related to performance and nutrition, and more towards biochemistry so my numbers may very well be off. In a book of mine, it states that the body can hold no more than 200g of glycogen. But relating this to the other data I've found I believe that they meant in the liver.

The general consensus for the amount in the body is all <2000kcal, so about 500g total, the liver not holding more than ~150g of that (or 10% of total weight).

Sounds about right....400 in your muscles and 100 in your liver for about 500 in total.

With the possible exception of elite athletes / bodybuilders who very likely would have a bit more I suppose.

 

[Hoss]

I agree........

FYI the brain uses up to 170g of carbohydrates a day, it's a medical fact. Ever wonder why you get headaches so often if you follow a NO CARB diet? Because your brain doesn't like using ketones, and in your liver and kidneys gluconeogenesis isn't always running.

 

[realworksuks]

FYI the brain uses up to 170g of carbohydrates a day, it's a medical fact. Ever wonder why you get headaches so often if you follow a NO CARB diet? Because your brain doesn't like using ketones, and in your liver and kidneys gluconeogenesis isn't always running.

According to Lyle Mcdonald's book:

The CNS and brain are the largest consumers of glucose on a
daily basis, requiring roughly 104 grams of glucose per day (5,25).

AND

The brain’s glucose requirements
In a non-ketotic state, the brain utilizes roughly 100 grams of glucose per day (5,25). This
means that any diet which contains less than 100 grams of carbohydrate per day will induce
ketosis, the depth of which will depend on how many carbohydrates are consumed (i.e. less
carbohydrates will mean deeper ketosis). During the initial stages of ketosis, any carbohydrate
intake below 100 grams will induce ketosis (28). As the brain adapts to using ketones for fuel and
the body’s glucose requirements decrease, less carbohydrate must be consumed if ketosis is to be
maintained.



What do you think of that? Wrong info?


I think it's gotta be correct, because for me, consuming only 175g of carbs per day or so isn't that uncommon, and I don't get even close to getting into ketosis.

 

[Phate89]

FYI the brain uses up to 170g of carbohydrates a day, it's a medical fact. Ever wonder why you get headaches so often if you follow a NO CARB diet? Because your brain doesn't like using ketones, and in your liver and kidneys gluconeogenesis isn't always running.

Thats crazy man, i don't even eat 170g of carbs a day and i get no headaches at all. My brain must be a ketone running machine

 

[matt182]

Thats crazy man, i don't even eat 170g of carbs a day and i get no headaches at all. My brain must be a ketone running machine

No wonder your answers and explanations are absurd

 

[Phate89]

No wonder your answers and explanations are absurd

Running out of come backs now are you ? No more anti-carb theories?

 

[matt182]

No thanks, its more tedious than a religious debate. Funny the correlation.

 

[matt182]

And by the way its anti/low carb

 

[Hoss]

RWS, no that's not wrong info. Realize I said up to 170g of carbohydrates which is documented in studies which I can provide. And in my first post I said between 110 & 150g of carbohydrates, which is from a medical biochemistry book (if you'd like to know the author and edition I'll pull it out). And you have this black/white idea of 'ketosis' and the body, realize your body is ALWAYS making ketones it's only the amount that varies.

 

[Karky]

How big are the effects on the brain when it goes from carbs as energy to ketones? I bet it varies, but are there any studies done on this to provide an estimation? I have only heard people yelling about how it is harder to concentrate, etc, but never actually seen anyone on a low (20-30g carbs a day) carb diet complain about this. On the contrary, most seem to enjoy a better awareness (which I myself is actually starting to notice during university lectures). And is there any way to measure if these claim are true other than listening to what the different people experience?

Also, Mreik, I guess you can answer this question, but anyone else is free to take a shot:
When ketones are used for energy, they "assemble" into Acetyl-CoA, and go into the crebs cycle, right? After that, they are gone, am I correct? So if you have ketones in your urine, doesn't that mean those ketones hasn't been used for energy? I know there is one of the ketone bodies that can't be used as energy, but apart from this?
When you use a ketosis stick, does it usually measure for all the 3 ketone bodies, the 2 that can be used as energy or just the one that can't (surely an increase here, even though this one can't be used for energy would still suggest that more fat is being broken down?)

Basically, I want to know how ketones fit in with the rest of things.. with the crebs cycle. I did a bit of research and it seems that ketones are made from Acetyl CoA, and then made back into Acetyl CoA which then goes into the crebs cycle.. that makes no sense..