I remember reading somewhere that apprently in any and all situations, 60% of the protein you eat is always converted to carbs under Gluconeogenesis
Anyone know if this is true?
[quote]kindke wrote:
I remember reading somewhere that apprently in any and all situations, 60% of the protein you eat is always converted to carbs under Gluconeogenesis
Anyone know if this is true?[/quote]
Absolute statements such as this are rarely true.
Any protein ingested that isn’t synthesized or used gets converted to glucose through gluconeogenesis. 60%? I doubt it. How much though? Most likely highly individual, depending on LBM and amount of protein eaten.
Doesn’t make sense.
If you eat 200g it will convert 120g?
But if you only eat 100g it will only convert 60g?
How does the body determine proportions and then act accordingly…it doesn’t.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Doesn’t make sense.
If you eat 200g it will convert 120g?
But if you only eat 100g it will only convert 60g?
How does the body determine proportions and then act accordingly…it doesn’t.[/quote]
Good point. This would be all the more reason to just eat more protein.
Like the others said, absolute numbers like this are rarely true. The key point here is to take in enough carbs/fats so that this conversion is minimized. Outside of this, don’t sweat it as its out of your hands.
[quote]Tstud_9 wrote:
…its out of your hands.[/quote]
No it is not.
OP please PM me. I’ll help you with gathering knowledge on the topic.
You’re question is impossible to answer concisely except to say there are few arbitrary absolutes in biology.
I think it may be that if protein is converted to glucose then there is a 40% loss of energy in this process?
So if you are only eating enough protein to cover cell turn over then only a small amount would get converted to glucose. If you had an abundance of protein and no carbs then if carbohydrate were required then the protein would be converted to garner 60% of the original caloric energy.
That’s my understanding. Plus as people said, those numbers vary and like I said how much this process happens depends on activity level and diet.
That’s just what I think.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Tstud_9 wrote:
…its out of your hands.
No it is not.
OP please PM me. I’ll help you with gathering knowledge on the topic.
You’re question is impossible to answer concisely except to say there are few arbitrary absolutes in biology.[/quote]
WHy PM? Share this with everyone.
The basic apparent underlying concern here suffers from a false premise, and is similar to some other nutritional supposed problems.
For example, all nutrients absorbed into the bloodstream are either burned to water and CO2 and/or are excreted, generally in the urine.
Some, when discovering that all of a nutrient is eliminated in the urine, decide that therefore “it is just being pissed away” and this convinces them they should not convince much of it.
As another example, nitrogen balance studies have been done for many years to try to determine whether the body was, net, building protein or losing it. (One problem of these studies is that they failed to measure nitrogen loss from sweat, but that’s an aside.)
Some have taken these studies and concluded, Extra protein taken in just gets burned and excreted anyway. Studies prove it! Therefore you just piss it away, and therefore those bodybuilders are foolish.
Why, even Ellington Darden fell into this trap in one of his books.
Problem is, let’s posit for the moment that what is supposed to happen – the only way that it would be desirable to do something – is for a nutrient NOT to be almost entirely burned or “pissed away.” Why, if you consume 100 g of it, some large fraction ought not be excreted!
E.g., suppose that of a bb’ers consumption of say 300 g of protein in a day (let’s simplify and assume all is absorbed, not the case but for illustration let’s assume it) we can prove that 95% of it was burned/excreted. Therefore, he was wasting his money.
IF it’s the case that 15 g/day, that missing 5%, went to extra anabolism, isn’t 15x365 grams, or about 12 pounds per year EXTRA, worthwhile??
So how would a study that showed most (they were not so precise as the above in past studies I’ve read) consumed protein is burned/excreted prove that there is NO BENEFIT to doing it?
Similarly, if the OP is assuming that if 60% of consumed protein is converted to glucose this is the slightest reason not to do it, that somehow most of the protein one consumes ought not get burned, there is a laboring under a false premise.
Most of all macro and micronutrients WILL get burned/excreted. They have to: otherwise buildup over years and decades would be absurd.
was this “research” sponsored by the grain lobby ?