Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fat preferred fuel over carbohydrates - Why? (Biochemically)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mike_h View Post
    I've a few questions.

    1.
    Do all VO2 Max tests give the energy source breakdown, or might some just tell you the overall oxygen consumption? I dunno, but here is one guys tests...The interplay of exercise and ketosis You may have to read part II for the VO2 max stuff.

    2. If one stayed low carb, does the body maintain a certain amount of muscle glycogen storage through glyconeogenesis, or are the muscles left almost completely "empty"? Yes, it will still prioritize to produce and refill gycogen stores.

    3. Can glycogen from the liver be moved quickly (or at all) into the blood stream for muscle work in the absense of sufficient muscle glycogen? From what I gather...yes it will be mobilized when appropriate.

    4. Is there a good generalization about when gluconeogensis would use dietary protein, rather than muscle mass to do its thing?
    Would most (gluconeogensis) occur after a protein meal and top up liver stores? Sure...as long as you are consuming enough protein in the diet and doing some resistance training to preserve muscle mass this occurs.

    On a side note, my understanding was that "preferred fuel" means what the body will prioritize, not what it "likes" the best.
    For example ethanol is burnt before carbohydrate. Technically it's "preferred" over carbs, it doesn't mean you should go on a high alcohol, low carb diet
    Damn the high alcohol low carb diet is my favorite one too!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

      The real killers seem to be grains, sugars, legumes, and the like....
      Your source for this bold statement?
      http://stackingplates.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
        Your source for this bold statement?
        What makes you feel that this is a bold statement?

        Comment


        • #19
          Yeah, I would have thought that they were fairly accepted primal villains by now (along with PUFAs).
          Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

          Griff's cholesterol primer
          5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
          Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
          TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
          bloodorchid is always right

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
            Your source for this bold statement?
            Lol you're always trolling this guy, are you jealous?

            He seems to have the most reasonable approach to paleo and doesn't come off as having an ego.

            His stance is clear, eat foods that are whole and good for you, and quit being afraid of fruits and other carbs because the body can also use them for fuel and not just fat.

            Also, the foods he mentioned are clearly not optimal and the statement was not bold at all.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
              What makes you feel that this is a bold statement?
              With all the uncertainties that leading researchers continue to have to this day, how can someone so definitively state that "grains, sugars, legumes, etc" are the real killers? Compound this with the fact that entire civilizations thrive upon these very things.

              Originally posted by Einz
              Also, the foods he mentioned are clearly not optimal and the statement was not bold at all.
              What makes you think that these things are "clearly not optimal"? These type of statements too frequently and easily get passed off as facts around here...
              http://stackingplates.com/

              Comment


              • #22
                StackingPlates, you seem to be spoiling for a fight.

                Why does Choco's couching of his criticism of those foods with "might" turn into a "bold statement" that is used "definitively".

                Please take a chill pill.
                Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                Griff's cholesterol primer
                5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                bloodorchid is always right

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                  Your source for this bold statement?
                  Certainly not your blog. You won't find a single fact on that rag.

                  http://www.marksdailyapple.com/categ...initive-guide/

                  Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                  StackingPlates, you seem to be spoiling for a fight.

                  Why does Choco's couching of his criticism of those foods with "might" turn into a "bold statement" that is used "definitively".

                  Please take a chill pill.
                  Well, it's very simple really. Let's assume for a second that you were God and had all the answers. If you were God and someone asked you to explain your intentions, you'd probably say something like this:

                  Originally posted by God
                  How did I get to this point? Well, I ask myself that question all the time. I’ve been involved with health and fitness for close to two decades, and have coached numerous individuals upon request over the years. It was never for money and was normally either a co-worker, family member, or friend who was just looking for some motivation to develop a consistent workout and nutritional plan. Honestly, I really enjoy watching people transform their lifestyle, body composition, diet, and seeing the joy it brings them when they realize what truly being healthy feels like.

                  Lately, I’ve really just developed an insane irritation at all the misinformation and horrible training methodology that I’m witnessing at an alarming rate. I’m irritated at doctors who want to prescribe medication instead of a change in lifestyle. Most of all, I’m irritated at people who appear to have just lost their zest for life as evident by the morbid obesity they’ve accumulated. I’ve been picking up more clients, and have even started working with folks that are not local to me for the first time which provides some new, unique, and exciting challenges. This should provide a little insight on the reason for the site, and where my mindset is currently.
                  God not only knows everything, but is completely self-righteous and pure, in it only for the good that comes from helping others. Sure, a mere mortal that would claim such a thing that's written above would be universally recognized as a prick, but we're not talking about a mere mortal. We're talking about God, here. That makes it ok.
                  Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-12-2012, 08:51 PM.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    A little bit of perspective, please.

                    The optimal nutritional substrate for the body is the one that is most readily available and enables it to survive. We have been down this reductionist path before and we are seemingly hell bent on making the same mistakes again: fat is the enemy, or maybe protein is the enemy, hang on, it's actually carbohydrate that we should steer clear of.

                    As has been mentioned previously, glucose undergoes glycolysis which produces 2 net ATP molecules and 2 pyruvate molecules. If there is no oxygen available at this point, you're done. Pyruvate accumulates, gets converted to lactic acid which is shunted to the liver to undergo gluconeogenesis and that gets you glucose that you can use in glycolysis ... and then you rinse and repeat. This is anaerobic respiration.

                    If you have sufficient oxygen, then you can process the pyruvate into Acetyl CoA and feed that into the TCA / Krebs cycle to get about 30 more ATP molecules for your trouble.

                    How about free fatty acids? Well, you first have to beta oxidize them to produce Acetyl CoA and then you can run that through the TCA / Krebs cycle, always with the proviso that you have enough oxygen to act as an electron acceptor.

                    So, how is fat derived Acetyl CoA different from the glucose derived Acetyl CoA? It isn't. Even if a cell were capable of caring about the source ("preferring one substrate over another"), there is no way it can chemically differentiate them. Further, your body will always strive to have glucose in reserve precisely for those times that insufficient oxygen is available to drive the Krebs cycle. In addition, your body will always have some adipose tissue in reserve for those times that you have plenty of oxygen available, but are subject to a temporary interruption in your external energy supply.

                    Is it possible to be happy, healthy, and fit while eating even moderate amounts of carbohydrates? Yes, it is. How about fats and proteins? Yup. Do you need to be judicious about which fats or carbohydrates, or protein sources you decide to eat? Well, duh!

                    -PK
                    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Awwww. PK! There you go being all reasonable and actually knowing what you are talking about and stuff. Way to ruin a perfectly good carb-war, dude.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        interesting thread. i've always wondered if eating a high-fat diet plays a role in in limiting non-metabolic acid buffering capabilities...perhaps more plasma bicarbonate? i guess i've assumed that we are limiting our exercise periods above ventilatory threshold for this reason; to spend less time in stressful, anaerobic pathways. is there any merit to these take-home messages i seem to be accumulating?
                        this wounded bear is gonna find ALL the answers...health, reveal thyself!!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pklopp View Post
                          A little bit of perspective, please.

                          The optimal nutritional substrate for the body is the one that is most readily available and enables it to survive. We have been down this reductionist path before and we are seemingly hell bent on making the same mistakes again: fat is the enemy, or maybe protein is the enemy, hang on, it's actually carbohydrate that we should steer clear of.

                          As has been mentioned previously, glucose undergoes glycolysis which produces 2 net ATP molecules and 2 pyruvate molecules. If there is no oxygen available at this point, you're done. Pyruvate accumulates, gets converted to lactic acid which is shunted to the liver to undergo gluconeogenesis and that gets you glucose that you can use in glycolysis ... and then you rinse and repeat. This is anaerobic respiration.

                          If you have sufficient oxygen, then you can process the pyruvate into Acetyl CoA and feed that into the TCA / Krebs cycle to get about 30 more ATP molecules for your trouble.

                          How about free fatty acids? Well, you first have to beta oxidize them to produce Acetyl CoA and then you can run that through the TCA / Krebs cycle, always with the proviso that you have enough oxygen to act as an electron acceptor.

                          So, how is fat derived Acetyl CoA different from the glucose derived Acetyl CoA? It isn't. Even if a cell were capable of caring about the source ("preferring one substrate over another"), there is no way it can chemically differentiate them. Further, your body will always strive to have glucose in reserve precisely for those times that insufficient oxygen is available to drive the Krebs cycle. In addition, your body will always have some adipose tissue in reserve for those times that you have plenty of oxygen available, but are subject to a temporary interruption in your external energy supply.

                          Is it possible to be happy, healthy, and fit while eating even moderate amounts of carbohydrates? Yes, it is. How about fats and proteins? Yup. Do you need to be judicious about which fats or carbohydrates, or protein sources you decide to eat? Well, duh!

                          -PK
                          I like this guy. A lot.

                          "Preferred fuel" is a marketing term. Your body doesn't care. Just make sure the source is low toxin. Fat, carbs, whatever. If you're eating a high fat diet simply because you like eating bacon, butter and steak in front of CW-minded people to provoke a shocked reaction out of them, reassess your goals. The same thing goes with those scared of fat because of caloric density or some cholesterol-heart disease myth. Listen to your body. It's pretty much Primal Blueprint Principle #1. If you listen hard enough, it'll tell you what you want.
                          Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-13-2012, 04:21 PM.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                            Awwww. PK! There you go being all reasonable and actually knowing what you are talking about and stuff. Way to ruin a perfectly good carb-war, dude.
                            So annoying isn't it....lets get back to the theoretical debate! Low insulin levels have been shown to increase life span. Carbs produce twice as much insulin as protein per calorie and protein releases glucagon in addition. Hence high fat low carb with the proportionately needed protein is the optimal diet.....DANCE!!!

                            BTW you don't actually have to respond to this I'm F'ing with you ...kinda.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                              With all the uncertainties that leading researchers continue to have to this day, how can someone so definitively state that "grains, sugars, legumes, etc" are the real killers? Compound this with the fact that entire civilizations thrive upon these very things.



                              What makes you think that these things are "clearly not optimal"? These type of statements too frequently and easily get passed off as facts around here...

                              Actually, your quite right. Nothing in science is definitive. Studies may indicate something but they can not definitively state anything. There are a lot of epidemiological research that indicates more sugar and more wheat correlate with reduced health. If you find a civilization where they did not consume these things...upon which the introduction of such IMPROVED health then you truly have something of interest in disputing the claim.

                              And I think we all understand that traditional preparation of these items makes a helluva lot of difference in their structure when consumed vs. modern methods with genetically modified product.
                              Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-13-2012, 04:37 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                                So annoying isn't it....lets get back to the theoretical debate! Low insulin levels have been shown to increase life span. Carbs produce twice as much insulin as protein per calorie and protein releases glucagon in addition. Hence high fat low carb with the proportionately needed protein is the optimal diet.....DANCE!!!

                                BTW you don't actually have to respond to this I'm F'ing with you ...kinda.
                                But why does it always devolve to LC/HF vs. LF/HC as if those are the only possible combinations? What about the poor left out and neglected protein?

                                When I told people I was dialing back the fat intake to lose weight, everyone jumped to the conclusion that I was replacing it with carbs. Not so. I replaced it with lean protein and watched the pounds drop off.

                                Now that I am at maintenance my protein and fat are about equal but I still keep the carbs low. It's optimal *for me*.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X