I know your post is from 2 years ago, but wanted to ask your opinion since I do find the subject interesting too. I do multi day fasts occasionally. While I don't do it, for ketosis, it does of course involve getting into ketosis, for a few days. What is your opinion of using glycogen stores vs using ketones?ClassicomanoLuigi said:First clause of that same sentence said "the concept of ketosis is not new..."No it isn't. The biochemistry of ketosis has been known for decades.
Second clause could have been better-phrased, thank you.
What it was getting at is
- they have shown this cellular pathway could be useful for proverbial 'marginal-gains' in short-duration cycling events, on the order of less than an hour.
- They haven't demonstrated efficacy at longer durations, and it seems doubtful that it would make a difference in performance in a single stage of a GT event, let alone in an overall multi-stage tour race
- Concur with those doubts, raised in other comments, on the thread above
I have a degree in biomedical research, including human pharmacology and physiology, and and would be glad to discuss particular approaches to the subject. It's interesting, isn't it ?
I don't agree with that entirely. Free for all surely can't be just as good as diets which focus on healthy living.proffate said:if we're interested in anecdotes, I've tried a wide variety of dietary strategies (for weeks-months at a time):
- carb back-loading
- various IF protocols
My cholesterol got better when I switched out carbs for dietary fat, but as far as athletic performance, body composition, or subjective feelings, no diet really made much difference. I've concluded that humans are incredibly adaptable and pretty much any diet will do the trick. Kind of puts paid to the adage of "you are what you eat" --- I'd instead say that "you are what you are, despite what you eat".
Even as a stop-gap solution ahead of a ban, advocating abstinence as a policy sounds a lot like those couldn't-find-Rome-on-a-roadmap American Christians who take the fun out of fundamentalism: mental.Despite the absence of scientific proof of performance enhancement from ketones, and as part of the UCI’s commitment to an honest and credible sport, the UCI Management Committee – like the Professional Cycling Council at its meeting on 20 September - requested that an additional scientific study be launched to clarify the question. While waiting for the results of the study, the UCI recommends riders to refrain from using this substance.
It's nonsense. I'm also unsure where this ends. Banning creatine and other supplements?
Personally, I think ketones should only be banned if they fit the fundamental reason for anti-doping: they put too much of a risk on the health of the individual.It's nonsense. I'm also unsure where this ends. Banning creatine and other supplements?
Unfortunately the original reason for anti-doping seems to have been lost a long time ago.Personally, I think ketones should only be banned if they fit the fundamental reason for anti-doping: they put too much of a risk on the health of the individual.
But I think the key word in the UCI's statement is credible ("the UCI’s commitment to an honest and credible sport"). Thing is, some people are more credulous than others, which make credibility a complex metric.
Could be cost, true, and that would be a valid point.I interpreted that as an allusion to cost.
I mean, marketing has somehow managed to convince people that berries literally grown in a bog should be highly prized, so I can see how that could be the case...Dumoulin has never been as good as he was when he had diarrhea sh*tting himself on the bike
Jokes aside if you can convince fans that a ketone product makes you fit it might not do anything for a pro athlete but it can generate a lot of sponsor revenue and maybe lots of the fans really can use the stuff (for weight loss).
There's a couple of fairly recent reviews I keep meaning to read but other things have been getting in the way recently. I'm assuming that they say pretty much what the previous work does, which is that there's not enough evidence either way to be conclusive?Expensive, but not excessively so within the budget of a WT team.
Scarce, they have never really fully commercialised.
There has never been a body of work that shows a real performance benefit, in fact the studies that show a negative effect are numerous.
We weren’t able to show a benefit in our lab tests.
My view is there was a wave of Nocebo effect in the peloton, where riders who didn’t have them felt like they were missing out.
This has been around for a long time now and isn’t commercial and there is no knockout proof It works.
I respected DSM’s stance. Why risk the health of riders when the potential long term effects aren’t known?
There appears to be one new review referenced just a dozen posts back that seems to claim the ketones do work. (NB: that came up at a conference in Leuven a couple of weeks ago and the slide in that Tweet bears the name of DQS's daddy-moneybags Zdeněk Bakala's sports science academy.There's a couple of fairly recent reviews I keep meaning to read but other things have been getting in the way recently. I'm assuming that they say pretty much what the previous work does, which is that there's not enough evidence either way to be conclusive?
A conference presentation isn’t a review, it even says “unpublished observations” on the slide so I’ll be taking it with a massive dose of salt.There appears to be one new review referenced just a dozen posts back that seems to claim the ketones do work. (NB: that came up at a conference in Leuven a couple of weeks ago and the slide in that Tweet bears the name of DQS's daddy-moneybags Zdeněk Bakala's sports science academy.
UCI medical director Xavier Bigard has said there is no scientific evidence that ketones improve performance, though the governing body currently recommends against their use pending further study.
In an interview with L’Équipe, he also acknowledged that it would be "complicated" for ketones to be added to the list of prohibited substances.