Carbohydrate-to-Fat Conversion

Nutrition
61

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Nobodies physiology is DRASTICALLY different. just slightly. [/quote]

… Which is why many of us are STILL WAITING for the OP’s comments re: muscle glycogen replenishment in the absence of carbohydrate intake.

paging DrEllis - pls address that point
[/quote]
Carbs aren’t the only way of replenishing glycogen. It just so happens to be the fastest way. And speed isnt really of much concern if you are only training once a day.[/quote]

Yeah gluconeogenesis is another way, but not exactly optimal for people who are trying to build muscle (everyone on this site pretty much). It doesn’t really matter about the speed either. If the body upregulates the amount of gluconeogenesis to replenish glycogen, even at a slow speed, it is still not optimal for people trying to build muscle.

62

[quote]schanz_05 wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Carbs aren’t the only way of replenishing glycogen. It just so happens to be the fastest way. And speed isnt really of much concern if you are only training once a day.[/quote]

Yeah gluconeogenesis is another way, but not exactly optimal for people who are trying to build muscle (everyone on this site pretty much). It doesn’t really matter about the speed either. If the body upregulates the amount of gluconeogenesis to replenish glycogen, even at a slow speed, it is still not optimal for people trying to build muscle. [/quote]
looks like my edit didnt come through. I also added that if you are fat adapted (running off fat as primary fuel source) your body does not use much glycogen. People who are fat adapted have little to worry about when it comes to body protein being broken down for energy as there is a much better and easier way to get energy via bodyfat. Though when you are adapted to using carbs in absence of them and in a state of low glycogen your body “may” use its own protein stores. But there is usually plenty in the blood stream to use up before catabolising muscle protein.

63

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

[quote]schanz_05 wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Carbs aren’t the only way of replenishing glycogen. It just so happens to be the fastest way. And speed isnt really of much concern if you are only training once a day.[/quote]

Yeah gluconeogenesis is another way, but not exactly optimal for people who are trying to build muscle (everyone on this site pretty much). It doesn’t really matter about the speed either. If the body upregulates the amount of gluconeogenesis to replenish glycogen, even at a slow speed, it is still not optimal for people trying to build muscle. [/quote]
looks like my edit didnt come through. I also added that if you are fat adapted (running off fat as primary fuel source) your body does not use much glycogen. People who are fat adapted have little to worry about when it comes to body protein being broken down for energy as there is a much better and easier way to get energy via bodyfat. Though when you are adapted to using carbs in absence of them and in a state of low glycogen your body “may” use its own protein stores. But there is usually plenty in the blood stream to use up before catabolising muscle protein.[/quote]

Honestly, I am only interested if the people eating like that to gain most of their muscle look the way I want to look.

For performance reasons, I would not eat that way.

For optimal muscle growth I would not eat that way.

It is a possibility for fat loss…but I fail to see how this is ideal for gaining muscle at a rate that would stand out to those of us serious.

This is not the Curves website.

64

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

[quote]schanz_05 wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Carbs aren’t the only way of replenishing glycogen. It just so happens to be the fastest way. And speed isnt really of much concern if you are only training once a day.[/quote]

Yeah gluconeogenesis is another way, but not exactly optimal for people who are trying to build muscle (everyone on this site pretty much). It doesn’t really matter about the speed either. If the body upregulates the amount of gluconeogenesis to replenish glycogen, even at a slow speed, it is still not optimal for people trying to build muscle. [/quote]

looks like my edit didnt come through. I also added that if you are fat adapted (running off fat as primary fuel source) your body does not use much glycogen. People who are fat adapted have little to worry about when it comes to body protein being broken down for energy as there is a much better and easier way to get energy via bodyfat. Though when you are adapted to using carbs in absence of them and in a state of low glycogen your body “may” use its own protein stores. But there is usually plenty in the blood stream to use up before catabolising muscle protein.[/quote]

Honestly, I am only interested if the people eating like that to gain most of their muscle look the way I want to look.

For performance reasons, I would not eat that way.

For optimal muscle growth I would not eat that way.

It is a possibility for fat loss…but I fail to see how this is ideal for gaining muscle at a rate that would stand out to those of us serious.

This is not the Curves website.[/quote]

Not sure Im reading you right. Are you saying that you yourself would not be able to gain optimal muscular weight on a diet of which calories are coming from fat primarily? What makes you think that, have you tried? Bearing in mind Im not agreeing with the idea of very low/zero carbs in conjunction with high fat. Im thinking more along the lines of 40-50% of calories from fat, 20-30 from carbs and 20-30 from protein. Provided your calories are high enough why wouldnt you gain muscular weight?

65

Yes, I’ve tried eating that way…along with just about every other way. Every human is not going to gain optimally eating like this. Not only that, but it isn’t like carbs have prevented anyone from getting huge.

If you already have the size and want to eat like this, cool.

But why do people act like any fad that comes along requires full attention?

They don’t…especially when most of the huge fuckers walking around didn’t eat that way to look like that.

66

In response to the OP, isn’t the low-fat diet recommendation based on the THEORY that high amounts of cholesterol carried by low density lipoprotein (LDL) is the cause of atherosclerosis leading to myocardial infraction (heart attacks). The very idea that high cholesterol and saturated fat are bad for you was created out of thin air. The cholesterol campaign and the low fat diet is based on three ideas. First, the concentration of cholesterol goes up if we eat too much saturated fat. Second, when cholesterol is too high, our arteries are converted from smooth canals to rough-walled and narrowed tubes. Thirdly, because of the irregular artery wall a blood clot may be created causing myocardial infarction or a stroke.

Since low-fat diets (<30% fat) work for those who have subclass B LDL (small, stickier particles of LDL) it is a pretty uniform recommendation resulting in drastic lowering of LDL particles and cholesterol levels. Less small sticky particles the less total things to become plaque on your arteries is the THEORY.

Subclass A (large, fluffy LDL people) however have a less favorable response resulting in 1/3 to 1/2 having a modest drop in LDL cholesterol of asbout 10 mg. Furthermore, the number of LDL particles reduced are almost exclusively subclass A which a large and fluffy and have a hard time getting stuck on the arteries. Almost 40% of subclass A men who take on a low-fat diet experience a shift so severe they actually convert from Subclass A to Sublcass B meaning a majority of their LDL particles became much smaller and included a lot more triglyceride (made by the liver in order to store unneeded sugar). Triglycerides increased tremendously almost by 60 mg on average, which is also seen in those with subclass B, but for unknown reasons in did not affect LDL particle size for in this group.

So if you believe the culprit for heart attacks is High LDL cholesterol, and you are subclass B, it isn’t a bad diet but if that isn’t the case you can actually make your LDL particles and total cholesterol worse.

I for one believe high cholesterol is good for you, the higher the better. It literally is one of the most important chemicals in the body. The only chemical that there is more of in the brain other then cholesterol is water. It is impossible to build cell walls and nerve fibres without it. Not only is cholesterol used by brain cells and nerve fibres as an important building material; the chemical processes necessary for the creation of nerve impulses are also dependent on its presence. We produce sex and stress hormones by altering its structure a little bit. With help from sunlight you skin transforms it into vitamin D. Infact, it is so important every cell in the body can produce it on its own. The importance of cholesterol is apparent in the egg. It is the richest source of cholesterol and because this compound is necessary to produce a healthy, living, warmblooded creature. Your liver produces far more then you could ever consume in a day and regulates how much it produces depending on how much you eat. Why would we evolve a system that kills us through heart attack?

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, I’ve tried eating that way…along with just about every other way. Every human is not going to gain optimally eating like this. Not only that, but it isn’t like carbs have prevented anyone from getting huge.

If you already have the size and want to eat like this, cool.

But why do people act like any fad that comes along requires full attention?

They don’t…especially when most of the huge fuckers walking around didn’t eat that way to look like that.[/quote]
Forgive me I may be wrong but I didnt think you were ever a high carb low fat bulker. Especially with all the steaks and such you eat.

How exactly would you eat today if mass at all costs was your modus operandi. Id imagine it would be “heaps of everything” which would workout pretty balanced as far as macro split is concerned. Id wager you would even find that your calories were definately coming primarily from fat sources. Hence you would have been fat adapted and eating optimally for growth.

I eat from Burger King quite regularly and even there if I counted macros I would be getting the largest portion of my calories from fat.

A burger I get there is 20-30g carbs 50-60g protein and about 30-40g fat. So the primary source of calories is fat.

68

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, I’ve tried eating that way…along with just about every other way. Every human is not going to gain optimally eating like this. Not only that, but it isn’t like carbs have prevented anyone from getting huge.

If you already have the size and want to eat like this, cool.

But why do people act like any fad that comes along requires full attention?

They don’t…especially when most of the huge fuckers walking around didn’t eat that way to look like that.[/quote]
Forgive me I may be wrong but I didnt think you were ever a high carb low fat bulker. Especially with all the steaks and such you eat.

How exactly would you eat today if mass at all costs was your modus operandi. Id imagine it would be “heaps of everything” which would workout pretty balanced as far as macro split is concerned. Id wager you would even find that your calories were definately coming primarily from fat sources. Hence you would have been fat adapted and eating optimally for growth.

I eat from Burger King quite regularly and even there if I counted macros I would be getting the largest portion of my calories from fat.

A burger I get there is 20-30g carbs 50-60g protein and about 30-40g fat. So the primary source of calories is fat. [/quote]

I’m not afraid of fat by any means…and yeah, I do take in a decent amount when really working on gaining as I don’t like to just munch on huge amounts of carbs and I like foods calorically dense so I get to eat less of it.

I am gaining right now. I am not “eating everything” like I did in the past but my food intake is by no means restricted…and Im still don’t eat that many carbs.

The average breakfast for me at my heaviest was 10 whole eggs. I usually wouldn’t even eat carbs with that. When I was eating more steak, much of my diet was likely fats and protein…but to literally go SUPER LOW CARB is a death sentence to my performance in the gym and in my gains.

It works for me to get lean though. MAG-10 and low low carbs is now my locked in method for fat loss.

When gaining, like now, I literally force myself to eat more carbs. I am especially doing that now mostly to see how Indigo affects it.

69

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
looks like my edit didnt come through. I also added that if you are fat adapted (running off fat as primary fuel source) your body does not use much glycogen. People who are fat adapted have little to worry about when it comes to body protein being broken down for energy as there is a much better and easier way to get energy via bodyfat. Though when you are adapted to using carbs in absence of them and in a state of low glycogen your body “may” use its own protein stores. But there is usually plenty in the blood stream to use up before catabolising muscle protein.[/quote]

but even fat-adapted folks periodically consume carbohydrates, the C in CKD etc

and doesn’t long periods of little/no carbs intake actually produce deleterious effects?

70

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

[quote]schanz_05 wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:
Carbs aren’t the only way of replenishing glycogen. It just so happens to be the fastest way. And speed isnt really of much concern if you are only training once a day.[/quote]

Yeah gluconeogenesis is another way, but not exactly optimal for people who are trying to build muscle (everyone on this site pretty much). It doesn’t really matter about the speed either. If the body upregulates the amount of gluconeogenesis to replenish glycogen, even at a slow speed, it is still not optimal for people trying to build muscle. [/quote]
looks like my edit didnt come through. I also added that if you are fat adapted (running off fat as primary fuel source) your body does not use much glycogen. People who are fat adapted have little to worry about when it comes to body protein being broken down for energy as there is a much better and easier way to get energy via bodyfat. Though when you are adapted to using carbs in absence of them and in a state of low glycogen your body “may” use its own protein stores. But there is usually plenty in the blood stream to use up before catabolising muscle protein.[/quote]

Honestly, I am only interested if the people eating like that to gain most of their muscle look the way I want to look.

For performance reasons, I would not eat that way.

For optimal muscle growth I would not eat that way.

It is a possibility for fat loss…but I fail to see how this is ideal for gaining muscle at a rate that would stand out to those of us serious.

This is not the Curves website.[/quote]

This is what I have been trying to get Dr.Greg to respond on. If you are fat fuel adapted for your main energy source, I don’t think that is going to be OPTIMAL for performance. Based on what I know about how fuel systems work, I can’t see fat being a good fuel for moderate to intense anaerobic activity such as weight lifting. Then you’re left with the body using gluconeogenesis for glucose, which I stated isn’t optimal for people looking to gain muscle.

71

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:

Since low-fat diets (<30% fat) work for those who have subclass B LDL (small, stickier particles of LDL) it is a pretty uniform recommendation resulting in drastic lowering of LDL particles and cholesterol levels. Less small sticky particles the less total things to become plaque on your arteries is the THEORY.

[/quote]

this is completely wrong on ALL levels

72

[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
In response to the OP, isn’t the low-fat diet recommendation based on the THEORY that high amounts of cholesterol carried by low density lipoprotein (LDL) is the cause of atherosclerosis leading to myocardial infraction (heart attacks). The very idea that high cholesterol and saturated fat are bad for you was created out of thin air. The cholesterol campaign and the low fat diet is based on three ideas. First, the concentration of cholesterol goes up if we eat too much saturated fat. Second, when cholesterol is too high, our arteries are converted from smooth canals to rough-walled and narrowed tubes. Thirdly, because of the irregular artery wall a blood clot may be created causing myocardial infarction or a stroke.

Since low-fat diets (<30% fat) work for those who have subclass B LDL (small, stickier particles of LDL) it is a pretty uniform recommendation resulting in drastic lowering of LDL particles and cholesterol levels. Less small sticky particles the less total things to become plaque on your arteries is the THEORY.

Subclass A (large, fluffy LDL people) however have a less favorable response resulting in 1/3 to 1/2 having a modest drop in LDL cholesterol of asbout 10 mg. Furthermore, the number of LDL particles reduced are almost exclusively subclass A which a large and fluffy and have a hard time getting stuck on the arteries. Almost 40% of subclass A men who take on a low-fat diet experience a shift so severe they actually convert from Subclass A to Sublcass B meaning a majority of their LDL particles became much smaller and included a lot more triglyceride (made by the liver in order to store unneeded sugar). Triglycerides increased tremendously almost by 60 mg on average, which is also seen in those with subclass B, but for unknown reasons in did not affect LDL particle size for in this group.

So if you believe the culprit for heart attacks is High LDL cholesterol, and you are subclass B, it isn’t a bad diet but if that isn’t the case you can actually make your LDL particles and total cholesterol worse.

I for one believe high cholesterol is good for you, the higher the better. It literally is one of the most important chemicals in the body. The only chemical that there is more of in the brain other then cholesterol is water. It is impossible to build cell walls and nerve fibres without it. Not only is cholesterol used by brain cells and nerve fibres as an important building material; the chemical processes necessary for the creation of nerve impulses are also dependent on its presence. We produce sex and stress hormones by altering its structure a little bit. With help from sunlight you skin transforms it into vitamin D. Infact, it is so important every cell in the body can produce it on its own. The importance of cholesterol is apparent in the egg. It is the richest source of cholesterol and because this compound is necessary to produce a healthy, living, warmblooded creature. Your liver produces far more then you could ever consume in a day and regulates how much it produces depending on how much you eat. Why would we evolve a system that kills us through heart attack?
[/quote]

Your wording was confusing along with my drinking beer tonight so apologies if I quoted you out of context :wink:

73

Anaerobic (short burst) activity is mostly ATP though. Dr Greg is looking larger picture I believe. Not just what fuel source is used during exercise which is still a small amount of total caloric energy expenditure.

74

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Honestly, I am only interested if the people eating like that to gain most of their muscle look the way I want to look.

For performance reasons, I would not eat that way.

For optimal muscle growth I would not eat that way.

It is a possibility for fat loss…but I fail to see how this is ideal for gaining muscle at a rate that would stand out to those of us serious.

This is not the Curves website.[/quote]

Boom! Those statements are all that matter. Not the best for max size, or performance. That is what the majority on this site are here for. This is a bodybuilding site. Not saying health is not important but there is no reason that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Yep i think that fits perfect here.

Fat loss can still occur with carbs. And its not muscle wasting as the OP has tried to point out here and in other threads. Just go ask the mighty stu if he using carbs as muscle sparing or muscle wasting in his contest prep.

75

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

Anaerobic (short burst) activity is mostly ATP though. Dr Greg is looking larger picture I believe. Not just what fuel source is used during exercise which is still a small amount of total caloric energy expenditure.[/quote]

The main way ATP is formed is through glycolysis which obviously uses glucose.

Did you read his other thread? He is pretty much saying that the majority of caloric burning comes during exercise, and nothing significant afterward. Which is opposite of what you are saying here.

76

[quote]schanz_05 wrote:

[quote]Gl;itch.e wrote:

Anaerobic (short burst) activity is mostly ATP though. Dr Greg is looking larger picture I believe. Not just what fuel source is used during exercise which is still a small amount of total caloric energy expenditure.[/quote]

The main way ATP is formed is through glycolysis which obviously uses glucose.

Did you read his other thread? He is pretty much saying that the majority of caloric burning comes during exercise, and nothing significant afterward. Which is opposite of what you are saying here.[/quote]
He probably means caloric burning beyond your BMR. I think people probably overestimate how much glucose and glycogen is needed for anaerobic exercise

77

There’s some interesting info there for sure.

The one way of eating i have NOT tried was 70%+ fats, the rest protein and veg.

I have done Keto 50/50, RFL (almost all protein), Carbs (current with indigo) and Zone 40/30/30.

For fat loss no doubt keto 50/50, for performance all diets worked well, and For muscle gain + fat gain cannot beat carbs.

But Curious as to what would happen with Peri workout only carbs, and the rest of the day 70/30 fat and pro.

Good discussions

78

Hi Dr Ellis. For a while I have been following this type of diet and seen some great results in terms of health and strength.
I have also been diagnosed with hashimoto’s and this diet significantly improved my symptoms (mental fog etc).

It is interesting to see and understand the biochemical principles behind this phenomena more clearly. Through basic dedicatory skills I have been able to figure out some principles but not as in depth as i would like to (hopefully I will be able to attend grad school in the future with this specific topic in mind). I find it very frustrating talking to the general population and explaining why a constant stream of carbohydrates for “energy” is severely detrimental to our health only to be told “but the government says so…”

79

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
Hi Dr Ellis. For a while I have been following this type of diet and seen some great results in terms of health and strength.
I have also been diagnosed with hashimoto’s and this diet significantly improved my symptoms (mental fog etc).

It is interesting to see and understand the biochemical principles behind this phenomena more clearly. Through basic dedicatory skills I have been able to figure out some principles but not as in depth as i would like to (hopefully I will be able to attend grad school in the future with this specific topic in mind). I find it very frustrating talking to the general population and explaining why a constant stream of carbohydrates for “energy” is severely detrimental to our health only to be told “but the government says so…”[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re asking for a further reference, but I found this book to be very helpful. It goes into the science quite in-depth and the authors have done primary research in the field.

80

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
Hi Dr Ellis. For a while I have been following this type of diet and seen some great results in terms of health and strength.
I have also been diagnosed with hashimoto’s and this diet significantly improved my symptoms (mental fog etc).

It is interesting to see and understand the biochemical principles behind this phenomena more clearly. Through basic dedicatory skills I have been able to figure out some principles but not as in depth as i would like to (hopefully I will be able to attend grad school in the future with this specific topic in mind). I find it very frustrating talking to the general population and explaining why a constant stream of carbohydrates for “energy” is severely detrimental to our health only to be told “but the government says so…”[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re asking for a further reference, but I found this book to be very helpful. It goes into the science quite in-depth and the authors have done primary research in the field.

[/quote]

thanks!
Any information is always good. It’s always good to know how to argue on a scientific basis which requires cold hard facts