The missing concept (in the brief quote in your comment) might be "fat adaptation", which takes (in my experience) 2-4 weeks (details: http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/the-art-and-science-of... )
One certainly can fuel activity with carbohydrates, but a fat-adapted person should have no trouble with physical activity on a (very) low carbohydrate diet. Interestingly, a fat-adapted athlete can still use carbohydrates for supplemental fuel before, during, or immediately following extreme exertion (no adaptation is required for short-term use of carbohydrates).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.runnersworld.com/newswire/d...
It is still unclear, and dubious to claim, that you can operate at 80+ percent VO2 max on hard work outs. Maybe for short workouts or workouts with bursts of activity e.g. basketball.
You can also undo fat adaptation pretty easily. The answer is it depends, but there is little evidence it has any large negative effects. Questions on peak performance vs "feeling fine" will be interesting to see in studies.
The thing is you can use RPE. We basically mean sustained 4/5 effort (rating of perceived on a scale of 1-5). It's a good enough proxy. VO2 max is also tricky because some people have higher or lower VO2 max but go faster or slower. Higher max != Faster times.
I think the sweet spot for very low carb diets is ultra marathon where you keep your HR around 130-140 anyway, wherein you would use fat anyway. Simple fact is you can't max your power output in an aerobic capacity without carbs. This is not disputed. What we want to know is where the cut off point is in terms of percentage of VO2 max.
Edit: just adding, Noakes talks about ultra performance in his book. It covers everything I saw in that book. He dives deep into the body systems and energy production of the body to suss out the science involved.
I actually spent a fair bit of time delivering VO2 max tests to athletes (in a previous life as an exercise physiology lab volunteer).
This comment has me wondering if I still know any active researchers in this area, looking for ideas...
But note that the context of this study is healthspan and mortality, not athletic performance, weight loss, etc.
It was just warning that this study does not warrant that keto diet is good for your health in the long term. The title is a bit misleading.
Why would they make such a claim? Anyone who has done keto and worked out has probably had the experience of doing quite a lot of physical activity while having had no carbohydrate intake at all for half a day before, or more.
Must see if you want to understand/practice keto right:
As far as my research into keto goes eating too much carbs kicks you out of ketosis (duh!) and eating too much protein triggers gluconeogenesis which also kicks you out of ketosis. Which is a shame because I'd be happy to eat fatty steak and fatty pork all the time!
Keto guidelines generally say 30g carbs per day and that's what I'm going to stick to (net carbs; I want to eat avocados!). So typical keto diet should work fine with what you say about carb requirement.
I don't have any particular desire to go all the way to 0 (or some really low number) and if I have some carb budget left I'm happy to get a latte. Starbucks says grande almond latte has 9g carbs (5g sugars). Perfect to tidy it up to just below 30g/day.
Since I switched to keto I have an amazing mental clarity. Literally from the moment I open my eyes in the morning I feel lucid (before I'd take me maybe 30 min and maybe a coffee to "wake up"). And I feel lucid all the way until I fall asleep (I don't get tired before falling asleep. Just go to bed, sleep). Nice and steady energy throughout the day.
Also, I feel noticeably better overall. My max strength suffered a little bit (keto can take 1-3 months to adjust) but I'm more energetic throughout the day, mind and body.
That is also my knowledge. Therefore, there seems no need for any intake of carbohydrates; So the claim about "needing carbohydrates" is not warranted (about intake, anyway)
At low circulating insulin levels, most cells in your body can efficiently metabolize fatty acids. For the minority of cells that cannot, your liver converts protein into sugar by a process known as gluconeogenesis.
It’s very possible to be a performance athlete and eat very low carb.
In a sessile starvation state glycogen stops being a meaningful energy source after 2 days, with the majority of it depleted in approximately 8-12 hrs (it's non-linear).
Depending on one's baseline physical activity and what they mean by "half a day," sure, glycogen stores can be reasonably depleted.
That said, glucogenic amino acids can replenish glucose stores, which can ultimately become glycogen. Glycogen remains low only in the context of low-carb and low-total calories, so what glycogen is replenished is soon exhausted.
It may be that you disagree, but I get the feeling that you ignored the "doing keto" part of my setup, and instead thought that the person in question was eating cake 12.5 hours before the workout. :)
The depth of color indicates how concentrated ketones are in your urine, which is impacted by (1) the amount of ketones your body is producing, and, very importantly, (2) your hydration level (i.e. how diluted your urine is).
For newbies, if the stick is pink AT ALL, congrats, you're in ketosis. Don't make the depth of color a big goal.
As someone who has been on a low-carb diet for 3 years, on and off, I definitely don't notice any difference in performance, mood or productivity while on a low-carb diet. Too many people (esp. those in a desk job) over estimate their physical activity levels and think they need more carbs.
Sure, if you're an athlete, all this doesn't apply to you. But, for the vast majority (who in the present day) lead highly sedentary lifestyles, it's about time we encourage them to get off carbs as much as possible.
"Gluconeogenesis is extremely expensive" [1]
The lowest quintile in this study were consuming 46,4% of kcal from carbs (that's about 230 gram of carbs for a 2000 kcal total intake). Not even close to low carb by today's standard in the health blogosphere.
The authors make this explicit in the discussion section:
>>> However, the absence of association between low carbohydrate intake (eg, <50% of energy) and health outcomes does not provide support for very low carbohydrate diets. Importantly, a certain amount of carbohydrate is necessary to meet short-term energy demands during physical activity and so moderate intakes (eg, 50–55% of energy) are likely to be more appropriate than either very high or very low carbohydrate intakes.