Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Today's Anti-Fiber Guest Blog

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by otzi View Post
    The top one should be 'Alcohol'
    True, but I don't consider alcohol a macro. It's a toxin first and foremost.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Kharnath View Post
      Huh? How does that work?
      It converts into more ATP. Fat is a less efficient source of fuel than sugar, which is why you hear people recommend high carbohydrate diets for people that want to lift weights, sprint very fast or run very long distances. A high fat/low carbohydrate diet limits you to more sedentary activity because it can't provide the energy needed to fuel intense exercises. Calorie for calorie, sugar gives you more bang for your buck than fat.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bbaker6212 View Post
        I think some of you people have lost your mind. Sugar is superior? There is ZERO essential nutrients in sugar. Even if you ignore the negative health impact of easily digested sugar and the insulin spike, why would you ingest so many vacant calories versus something else? At least things like butter, egg yolks, palm oil, lard, etc., have beneficial nutrients. I see no reason to ingest sugar except something like blackstrap that has a fair amount of minerals.
        There are zero essential nutrients in fat. If you read this thread, you'd know the issue is that the guest post compares fruit to white sugar. That is a completely absurd assessment.

        White sugar is nutritionally equal to olive oil, avocado oil, coconut oil, etc.

        Something like maple syrup, honey and molasses are more nutritious than butter or palm oil.

        I don't see what the argument is. Empty calories are empty calories, regardless if they are refined fat or sugar. I'm simply stating refined sugar is less fattening than refined fat calorie-per-calorie.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Kharnath View Post
          Huh? How does that work?
          It doesn't.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            It converts into more ATP. Fat is a less efficient source of fuel than sugar, which is why you hear people recommend high carbohydrate diets for people that want to lift weights, sprint very fast or run very long distances. A high fat/low carbohydrate diet limits you to more sedentary activity because it can't provide the energy needed to fuel intense exercises. Calorie for calorie, sugar gives you more bang for your buck than fat.
            This is wrong. Go read what Dr. Peter Attia has to say about this. He's an exercise maniac and eats a ketogenic diet. He does supplement with some carbs during lengthy exercise sessions (eg., longer than 1.5 hours). He readily admits that if you are a competitive athlete you will likely need to ingest more carbs, but if not an athlete there's no need. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
            Glycogen is more efficient for bursts of energy, but fat/ketones are more efficient for long term energy. Isn't this obvious?... because your glycogen stores are much smaller, calorie-wise, than your adipose tissue (fat stores).

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

              White sugar is nutritionally equal to olive oil, avocado oil, coconut oil, etc.
              OK, I'm now done exchanging with you. You clearly are clueless.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by bbaker6212 View Post
                This is wrong. Go read what Dr. Peter Attia has to say about this. He's an exercise maniac and eats a ketogenic diet. He does supplement with some carbs during lengthy exercise sessions (eg., longer than 1.5 hours). He readily admits that if you are a competitive athlete you will likely need to ingest more carbs, but if not an athlete there's no need. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
                Glycogen is more efficient for bursts of energy, but fat/ketones are more efficient for long term energy. Isn't this obvious?... because your glycogen stores are much smaller, calorie-wise, than your adipose tissue (fat stores).
                Fat is slow metabolizing. The more respiration that is seen in fatty acid oxidation is a shift from mitochondrial NADH to NAD+ ratio, which indicates that energy creation takes precedent over energy consumption for storage. More electrons get transported to complex 2 rather than complex 1, leading to less efficient atp/o and not as many couplings. Makes for a worse energy supplier in general. Some non-oxidized glucose is routed to glycogen after exercise for muscle glycogen resynthesis.

                Fat oxidation mimics starvation.
                Make America Great Again

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by bbaker6212 View Post
                  OK, I'm now done exchanging with you. You clearly are clueless.
                  Those things have near no nutrients, not sure what you're implying.
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    It converts into more ATP. Fat is a less efficient source of fuel than sugar, which is why you hear people recommend high carbohydrate diets for people that want to lift weights, sprint very fast or run very long distances. A high fat/low carbohydrate diet limits you to more sedentary activity because it can't provide the energy needed to fuel intense exercises. Calorie for calorie, sugar gives you more bang for your buck than fat.
                    Hmm, must be the language barrier. Because it makes absolutely no sense in my part of the world to say "it provides more energy per calorie".
                    Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Kharnath View Post
                      Hmm, must be the language barrier. Because it makes absolutely no sense in my part of the world to say "it provides more energy per calorie".
                      Fat provides more energy per calorie, and produces more ATP, but as said above:

                      "Fat is slow metabolizing. The more respiration that is seen in fatty acid oxidation is a shift from mitochondrial NADH to NAD+ ratio, which indicates that energy creation takes precedent over energy consumption for storage. More electrons get transported to complex 2 rather than complex 1, leading to less efficient atp/o and not as many couplings. Makes for a worse energy supplier in general. Some non-oxidized glucose is routed to glycogen after exercise for muscle glycogen resynthesis.

                      Fat oxidation mimics starvation."
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                        Fat provides more energy per calorie, and produces more ATP [...]
                        No, fat provides more energy per gram, not per calorie.
                        Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Kharnath View Post
                          No, fat provides more energy per gram, not per calorie.
                          I'm sure you knew what I meant.

                          I just got what that whole thing was about, and even got wrapped up in the typo. Jeez. How've you been doing btw?
                          Make America Great Again

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                            I'm sure you knew what I meant.
                            I also knew what Choco meant. I'm just being an asshat.
                            Yeah, my grammar sucks. Deal with it!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Kharnath View Post
                              I also knew what Choco meant. I'm just being an asshat.
                              Yeah I just read the quote and then posted it myself.
                              Make America Great Again

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                                Fat is slow metabolizing. The more respiration that is seen in fatty acid oxidation is a shift from mitochondrial NADH to NAD+ ratio, which indicates that energy creation takes precedent over energy consumption for storage. More electrons get transported to complex 2 rather than complex 1, leading to less efficient atp/o and not as many couplings. Makes for a worse energy supplier in general. Some non-oxidized glucose is routed to glycogen after exercise for muscle glycogen resynthesis.

                                Fat oxidation mimics starvation.
                                My point is that your body stores orders of magnitude more calories in adipose tissue than glycogen. Why do you think that is? Glycogen is for emergency use (fight or flight) and/or when the rate of energy needed requires anaerobic metabolism. It's the after-burner. Yes, more efficient but for short bursts of energy. Fat is the preferred energy storage for long-term energy. It's irrelevant IMO how fast fat is metabolized/oxidized. It's not meant to be used quickly.

                                And isn't it self evident that when you don't eat, whether short term, or long term (starvation), that fat oxidation takes place? That's the whole purpose of storing energy in adipose tissue!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X