Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Aren't we ALL fat-burners and sugar-burners? What's the difference?

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    sunshine state
    Posts
    1,223

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

    I'm hoping someone can explain something I've been confused about: What is the difference between a 'fat-burner' and a 'sugar-burner'?

    This is my understanding, correct me where I'm wrong:

    Even if someone is eating a high carb diet, as long as they are eating below their caloric maintenance requirement, the body will automatically switch over to burning stored fat (assuming it doesn't decide to suppress metabolism instead).

    So, if there is a caloric deficit, then regardless of what macros the person is eating, the body will be burning fat, right?




    A little background:

    For a year, I ate a strict low-carb (about 75-125 grams/day from fruit+veggies), low-fat, high-protein paleo diet. Eating low carb was essential for me to eliminate binge-eating and food obsession. When I decided to add some good quality saturated fat for several months to my diet because I believe they are really important, I put on about 10lbs of fat. This made me realize that yes, eating fat DOES cause fat gain. During this time, I intermittent fasted regularly, with some days eating 1 huge meal, other days often skipping breakfast or eating in a 4-8 hour window. My appetite was easy to control, but I didn't lose that extra fat I gained.

    In the past month, my new experiment has been to go back to low-fat, but dramatically increase my carbs in the form of starches (white rice, potatoes) and sugar (cane, honey) but no corn-syrup in any amount (this kept me from binging on junk food). I expected this would make my appetite go bananas, but surprisingly IT DIDN'T. Some days I ate fruit for breakfast and had some sugar in my tea, then wouldn't be hungry for lunch. Other days, I have been more hungry, but small snacks easily cured this problem. The only thing I noticed was that it was important to have a little more fat with dinner to make sure that I didn't have trouble sleeping due to low blood sugar issues in the middle of the night.

    In theory, eating lots of starches and sugars should be causing a non-stop insulin response = fat gain, but I've not gained any extra fat eating this way. In fact, based on how my clothing fits, I seem to have actually lost a little bit.

    This leads me to think that the whole sugar burner vs. fat burner idea is a bunch of nonsense.

    Eating high fat keeps blood sugar stable, which means less hunger. That makes sense. But what doesn't make sense (unless I'm missing something) is how eating high fat can force the body to burn it faster or more efficiently. Clearly, this doesn't happen for me.

    I'm hoping someone can explain this fat-burning concept to me, since eating fat for me has only led to storing fat.
    Last edited by BestBetter; 08-25-2012 at 04:29 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •