Aren't we ALL fat-burners and sugar-burners? What's the difference? page 3

[BestBetter]

there is twice as much energy in the fat

Since you are right, there is twice as much energy per gram of fat than per gram of carbohydrate, then shouldn't petite women such as myself (5'4) consume more carbs than fat, since smaller women have significantly less caloric needs than an average man?

... Insulin levels rise, blocking fat release from adipose tissue and putting the body into storage mode, then excess glucose goes to the liver to be processed into triglycerides then transported to adipose tissue for storage

I've read this, too, but I'm questioning whether it's really this simple. If so, how could it be possible for anyone to EVER lose any fat eating low-fat, high-carb? According to this process, eating sugars, regardless of total caloric intake would ALWAYS result in constant fat gain, which clearly it doesn't.

2/ Insulin spikes more often and larger, high Insulin is also corrosive to the body.

I'm also wondering how it's possible that insulin, which is released EVERY time we consume anything besides pure fat could be corrosive to our bodies. I could understand that excess insulin, or constant insulin release could be problematic, but if a few blasts of insulin per day was really that detrimental, it would seem that we are meant to eat pure lard, not even protein (since that causes an insulin release).

then it would not have caused high insulin levels as most of it would be used as they were gathering.

You're saying that carbs spaced throughout the day don't cause an insulin release, if they are being used as they are eaten? They still have to go through the digestion process, though, so I'm not not sure how you could avoid the insulin issue.

Two, now that you are a fat burner your body can also utilize fat more efficiently during workouts. In fact you can utilize fat at higher levels of intensity and for longer periods than someone that is not fat adapted.

On paper, this seems totally reasonable, but when I think about my personal experience, this didn't happen at all. I ate low carb (75-100 grams from fruit) for about a year, and during that time I worked out pretty hard at the gym. I made such little progess in one year that I was ready to throw in the towel. I couldn't increase my weights, and was using almost the same ones that I'd started with a year before (now that's pathetic!). With my very first carb-reload (a huge rice based lunch) I started making gains INSTANTLY. In fact, when I had eaten a decent carby meal within a day of weightlifting, I was almost always able to increase my weights on one or more sets. No carbs for awhile = no gains. I would think that a year should be plenty of time to be burning fat optimally.

But as I'm needing a lot of calories, I tend to consume quite a lot of protein along with my fats.
Would it therefore turn my body into a sugar burner ?

This is pretty interesting...the protein-insulin connection isn't mentioned too often, I wonder how eating protein affects insulin response in comparison to carbs.

[magicmerl]

2 - I used to get night sweats a few hours after going to bed (also common in family) and these went away when diet changed, after the occasional dietary discretion I would find a bit of a return in the sweats and eventually tracked it back to higher Carb intake, particularly wheat, I put it down to possibly toxins like gluten initially, but now I'm thinking it may well be the additional liver activity in converting excess glucose to triglycerides, the sweats used to last for an hour or two, then my body temp would go down again and I would sleep fine.

I wonder if it is not the glucose liver thing that is creating additional heat in bed for you?

It probably is. I'm not consuming any wheat at all, so gluten is not the culprit in my case. So *if* it's the liver conversion that's causing the heat, then there's no point ingesting that amount of carbs.

Interesting.

I think I will try replacing my 'dessert' this week with a few scrambled eggs (so, all fat and protein). That will show me whether it's the total calorie intake causing it or something more specific to carbs.

Since you are right, there is twice as much energy per gram of fat than per gram of carbohydrate, then shouldn't petite women such as myself (5'4) consume more carbs than fat, since smaller women have significantly less caloric needs than an average man?

Because fat is satisfying and makes you feel full in a way that carbs do not. THIS is the magical difference between a HFLC diet and a LCHF diet. In both your calories are low, but in the low fat diet you feel hungry all the time.

I've read this, too, but I'm questioning whether it's really this simple. If so, how could it be possible for anyone to EVER lose any fat eating low-fat, high-carb? According to this process, eating sugars, regardless of total caloric intake would ALWAYS result in constant fat gain, which clearly it doesn't.

When you've just eaten your (high carb) meal your body will absolutely not be burning fat for a while, because it'll be burning off your glucose infusion you just gave it. That glucose will be relatively depleted after a couple of hours and then your body will be burning fat (until the next glucose infusion). That's how you can burn fat while eating carbs.

I'm also wondering how it's possible that insulin, which is released EVERY time we consume anything besides pure fat could be corrosive to our bodies. I could understand that excess insulin, or constant insulin release could be problematic, but if a few blasts of insulin per day was really that detrimental, it would seem that we are meant to eat pure lard, not even protein (since that causes an insulin release).

Because of Insulin Resistance?

You're saying that carbs spaced throughout the day don't cause an insulin release, if they are being used as they are eaten? They still have to go through the digestion process, though, so I'm not not sure how you could avoid the insulin issue.

No, she's saying that the insulin response is proportionate to the amount of glucose consumed.

On paper, this seems totally reasonable, but when I think about my personal experience, this didn't happen at all. I ate low carb (75-100 grams from fruit) for about a year, and during that time I worked out pretty hard at the gym. I made such little progess in one year that I was ready to throw in the towel. I couldn't increase my weights, and was using almost the same ones that I'd started with a year before (now that's pathetic!). With my very first carb-reload (a huge rice based lunch) I started making gains INSTANTLY. In fact, when I had eaten a decent carby meal within a day of weightlifting, I was almost always able to increase my weights on one or more sets. No carbs for awhile = no gains. I would think that a year should be plenty of time to be burning fat optimally.

Yeah, it's things like this (and my cold hands) where your body seems to react differently to carbs as to fats that makes me think that cutting all carbs out isn't necessarily the way to go.

[Neckhammer]

Yeah, I don't think you have to live life on no carbs. I just see significant evidence that "lower" carb seems to be the most conducive to health, so that is what I go on.

I dunno about your gains at the gym BestBetter. I eat in that range 50-100 and do Body by Science workout only once a week. I get stronger on almost every lift every single session I go in. However, I also have put on 10-15 lbs in the past 9 months. I eat at a surplus on purpose since I was building muscle. And hey it works. I trimmed down to 150 in December and weigh 163 today.

As to your insulin conundrum that is part of the reason people recommend not snacking. Insulin is not evil, but it seems to be a hormone best seen infrequently. So even if you are carb loading sticking to 2-3 meals a day max would be best.

Some representing numbers for how much fat vs carb vs lactate one may burn in different exercise states is here The interplay of exercise and ketosis

And this "Lesson 4

While it’s probably the case that my liver has less glycogen (i.e., stored glucose) at any point in time, relative to what would be present if I were eating a high-carb diet, it’s not clear this matters, at least for some types of workouts. Why? Take the following example:

* Someone my size can probably store about 100 gm of hepatic (liver) glycogen and about 300 gm of muscle glycogen at “full” capacity. This represents about 1600 calories worth of glucose – the most I can store at any one time.
* Before I was ketotic, you’ll recall from my post on the change in my physical performance, my RQ at 60% max VO2 (about 2,500 mL of O2 per min consumption) was nearly 1.00, so at that level of power output (a pace I can hold for hours from a cardiovascular fitness standpoint) I required 95% of my energy to come from glycogen. So, how long do my glycogen stores last? 2,500 mL of O2 per minute translates to about 750 calories per hour, so I would be good for about 2 hours and 15 minutes on my glycogen stores.
* Contrast this with my ketotic state. Let’s assume my glycogen stores are now only half what they were before. Muscle biopsy data suggests this is probably an overly conservative estimate, but let us assume this to be the case. Now I only store 50 mg of hepatic glycogen and 150 gm of muscle glycogen, about 800 calories worth of glucose.
* In ketosis, my RQ at 60% max VO2 is 0.77 (at last check), telling me I am getting only 22% of my energy from glucose and the remaining 78% from fat. So, how long do my depleted glycogen stores last? Nearly 5 hours. Why? Because I barely access glucose at the SAME level of oxygen consumption and the same power output.

I know what you’re thinking…why is this an advantage? Just consume more glucose as you ride! It’s not that simple, but you’ll have to wait until my upcoming post, “What does exercise have to do with being in the ICU” to find out."

[oxide]

When you upped your fats from a low carb/low fat/high protein diet, did you compensate by lowering your protein intake ?

This is a good question. What is your calorie intake? At least for me, in order to maintain, I need to eat low-carb AND relatively low calorie. It's not one or the other, it's both.

(For the record, I clock in at about 1300 cal/day. 77g fat, 87g carb, 71 g prot. No exercise.)

[sbhikes]

I'm finding it really interesting to read Phil Maffetone. I highly recommend reading his website. He's got some great insights. Some stuff I've taken away:

1. Fat-burning/sugar-burning or metabolic flexibility is partly supported by, partly indicative of your aerobic fitness.

2. You can do a test to determine how metabolically inflexible you are. Just go off the carbs and see what happens. If certain things happen, you are probably carb intolerant and need to reduce them to regain your metabolic flexibility.

3. Some people just are carb-intolerant and others are not. It's useful to know which camp you are in. I suspect that a lot of the people who are exasperated by the VLC folks around here simply are not carb-intolerant and have no idea what that is like.

[Omni]

Since you are right, there is twice as much energy per gram of fat than per gram of carbohydrate, then shouldn't petite women such as myself (5'4) consume more carbs than fat, since smaller women have significantly less caloric needs than an average man?

Yes, more carbs in grams, but the same in calories and this difference in volume may also have some bearing on why you may have experienced some weight gain when you added more fats into your mix, the lowered volume may not have been as satisfying.
The other thing I wonder about is how much energy is actually used in converting glucose to fat in the liver, if this figure is significant even 10% of glucose calories, then this may also contribute to a better weight loss effect on carbs vs fats at equal calorie diets as some % of the carbs are burnt off in the conversion process.

I've read this, too, but I'm questioning whether it's really this simple. If so, how could it be possible for anyone to EVER lose any fat eating low-fat, high-carb? According to this process, eating sugars, regardless of total caloric intake would ALWAYS result in constant fat gain, which clearly it doesn't.

As above, but also there is sleep & other fast times when you will always burn fat irrespective of diet mix.

I'm also wondering how it's possible that insulin, which is released EVERY time we consume anything besides pure fat could be corrosive to our bodies. I could understand that excess insulin, or constant insulin release could be problematic, but if a few blasts of insulin per day was really that detrimental, it would seem that we are meant to eat pure lard, not even protein (since that causes an insulin release).

I think the body handles insulin spikes well, if they are not constant, the GI rating of food is the area under the insulin spike curve shown when x amount of that food is consumed. So if a small amount of High GI food is consumed, it may spike the Insulin quite high, but the curve is very narrow as the glucose is used up quickly and Insulin levels fall quickly, conversly if a large amount of low GI food is consumed, then the Insulin will not spike as high, but will take a lot longer to clear the greater volume of glucose so the curve will be much wider.
As far as the damage goes, it is caused by both the absolute level and how long those levels are maintained, so if you are consuming a no fat diet, then your Insulin (&glucose) will be at a much higher level for a much longer period after each meal than it would be if you were consuming the bulk of your calories as fats, assuming the protein effect is constant in both.
So regarding insulin sensitivity, its like turning a switch on, being the difference between a light press with your finger or hitting it with a hammer, if you keep using a hammer (high sugar SAD diet) to turn it on, eventually you will break the switch and T2 diabetes steps in.

You're saying that carbs spaced throughout the day don't cause an insulin release, if they are being used as they are eaten? They still have to go through the digestion process, though, so I'm not not sure how you could avoid the insulin issue.

As above, there will be an insulin response, but it will be much lower and shorter, than if you concentrated all the carbs into one meal, note though I do not think continuous snacking is a good idea as our intestinal tract also needs downtime for repairs, just a hypothetical response of how one could be a sugar burner. I'm sure there are many cases of SAD people that are dominant sugar burners, in the office setting, bowl of sweets/snacks on the table, constant drip feed throughout the day.

[magicmerl]

What are 'certain things'?

You make it sound like we will be thrown into the bog of eternal stench for eating a peach.

[Neckhammer]

I'm finding it really interesting to read Phil Maffetone. I highly recommend reading his website. He's got some great insights. Some stuff I've taken away:

Seems like a really interesting fella. I'm going through some of his site right now. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Omni]

It probably is. I'm not consuming any wheat at all, so gluten is not the culprit in my case. So *if* it's the liver conversion that's causing the heat, then there's no point ingesting that amount of carbs.

Interesting.

I think I will try replacing my 'dessert' this week with a few scrambled eggs (so, all fat and protein). That will show me whether it's the total calorie intake causing it or something more specific to carbs.

I'm quite curious to see how you go, I noticed those effects a while ago, but only recently began wondering if it may be the liver doing overtime converting Glucose to Triglycerides for storage, I think the reduction in liver workload may be one of the additional unrecognized benefits of maintaining a low/moderate carb diet. I may look at playing with some carb cycling myself to see if I can duplicate the results consistantly.
This then made me start to think more about other liver loadings, everywhere you read on health discussions about "Liver Cleanses" etc, I don't think there is a Herbal "Drain Cleaner" that we can get to flush out the liver, I think the best you can do is reduce liver workload and allow repair time for the liver to clean itself out the way it needs to.

[Omni]

I'm finding it really interesting to read Phil Maffetone. I highly recommend reading his website. He's got some great insights. Some stuff I've taken away:

1. Fat-burning/sugar-burning or metabolic flexibility is partly supported by, partly indicative of your aerobic fitness.

2. You can do a test to determine how metabolically inflexible you are. Just go off the carbs and see what happens. If certain things happen, you are probably carb intolerant and need to reduce them to regain your metabolic flexibility.

3. Some people just are carb-intolerant and others are not. It's useful to know which camp you are in. I suspect that a lot of the people who are exasperated by the VLC folks around here simply are not carb-intolerant and have no idea what that is like.

I suppose it is the degree of carb tolerance, even in primative groups there are some that get 90% of their calories from dense carbs at times, I wonder whether they would fare as well on a ketogenic diet?