Dr. Clay Hyght's Free E-book

Nutrition
41

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
MODOK wrote:
I think we’ve all made the intellectual leap to understand that their isn’t storage vessicles full of table sugar and maple syrup in our love handles. Most everyone on here understands lipogenesis.

Well maybe you and I have this understanding, but Jmo seems to think that in “the real world” carbs are not turned into fat. And while I KINDA understand where he is coming from, what I think he meant to say was, if your diet is perfect, and you workout, carbs are not turned to fat.

However, for 90% of the population, Carbs most likley do convert quite readily to body fat on a regular basis. For people who might not understand how or why, I think it’s pretty stupid to claim that carbs do not convert to fat. Real world or otherwise. Hopefully his silence after my post means he understands his mis-statement.

V

My silence isn’t due to any misstatement I’ve made, but rather it’s due to my speechlessness at just how deep your stupidity seems to run.

Read this sentence very, VERY carefully: Under almost all circumstances, dietary carbohydrates ARE NOT converted to fat and stored in adipose tissue.

Read that sentence again, just so we’re both on the same page. Got it? OK, now see if you can follow this: When one ingests carbohydrates, the body switches over from burning bodyfat for fuel (such as under fasting conditions) to burning the ingested carbohydrates. This, in turn, causes the body to temporarily shut down lipolysis until the ingested carbohydrate is metabolized, when lipolysis can begin once again.

Understood? Carbs DO NOT turn into fat; they just prevent the body from burning fat.

Dietary fat, on the other hand, DOES get stored as bodyfat; BUT it doesn’t prevent the burning of adipose tissue for fuel.

See the difference? I sure hope so, it isn’t a very difficult concept to grasp.[/quote]

Dude, Lipogenesis, seriously, you are claiming with absolutely nothing to support your side of the story that a common and frequent biological process doesn’t occur. You are a fucking tool.

Here some articles which prove that carbs turn into fat, and that eating a lot of carbs increases the rate at which they do. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that possibly, when consuming carbs, the metabolism ramps up and burns some more, BUT it seems as if you are dead wrong and the more carbs you eat, the more insulin is produced and the more the body is spurred to preform lipogenesis, or turning carbohydrates (glucose) into bodyfat for storage.

Wiki - Lipogenesis - Wikipedia

wisegeek - What is Lipogenesis? (with pictures)

Medical Dictionary - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O62-lipogenesis.html

V

42

Nothing JMo? I’m patiently waiting for either a reference to your position or your withdrawl of your position. Either will do.

V

43

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Nothing JMo? I’m patiently waiting for either a reference to your position or your withdrawl of your position. Either will do.

V[/quote]

I’m sorry that I can’t pander to the babbling of idiots on the internet 24/7, though I do enjoy it.

But OK, if you insist. Read this: : http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/45/1/78

“In young, lean subjects, ingestion of very large carbohydrate loads (ie, 500 g) is accommodated primarily by increases in the bodyâ??s glycogen stores, without any increment in the bodyâ??s fat content”

and this: Minor importance of de novo lipogenesis on energy expenditure in human | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core

The subjects in our study were not overfed
carbohydrate, but received a breakfast containing 8·37 MJ
(2000 kcal) in the form of carbohydrate (approximately
equal to their daily resting energy requirements). The results
obtained by indirect calorimetry measurements during the
following 9 h demonstrated that very little de novo
lipogenesis took place. We therefore concluded that only
negligible amounts of de novo lipogensis would occur under
normal dietary conditions, when a mixed diet is consumed.
These conclusions have since been supported by a series of
studies by Hellersteinâ??s group, who measured fractional
turnover rates by labelling the hepatic fatty acid precursor
pool (Hellerstein et al. 1991; Hellerstein, 1999).

and this: De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects - PubMed

“Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy”

Finally, humans aren’t rats. In rat studies, overfeeding carbohydrates does lead to a substantial amount of conversions to fat; not so in humans.

But tell me, how does it feel to be wrong all the time? I’d really like to know…

44

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Nothing JMo? I’m patiently waiting for either a reference to your position or your withdrawl of your position. Either will do.

V

I’m sorry that I can’t pander to the babbling of idiots on the internet 24/7, though I do enjoy it.

But OK, if you insist. Read this: : http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/45/1/78

“In young, lean subjects, ingestion of very large carbohydrate loads (ie, 500 g) is accommodated primarily by increases in the bodyâ??s glycogen stores, without any increment in the bodyâ??s fat content”

and this: Minor importance of de novo lipogenesis on energy expenditure in human | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core

The subjects in our study were not overfed
carbohydrate, but received a breakfast containing 8�·37 MJ
(2000 kcal) in the form of carbohydrate (approximately
equal to their daily resting energy requirements). The results
obtained by indirect calorimetry measurements during the
following 9 h demonstrated that very little de novo
lipogenesis took place. We therefore concluded that only
negligible amounts of de novo lipogensis would occur under
normal dietary conditions, when a mixed diet is consumed.
These conclusions have since been supported by a series of
studies by Hellersteinâ??s group, who measured fractional
turnover rates by labelling the hepatic fatty acid precursor
pool (Hellerstein et al. 1991; Hellerstein, 1999).

and this: De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects - PubMed

“Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy”

Finally, humans aren’t rats. In rat studies, overfeeding carbohydrates does lead to a substantial amount of conversions to fat; not so in humans.

But tell me, how does it feel to be wrong all the time? I’d really like to know…[/quote]

It will take me a little time to read and digest these studies. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and giving me something other than conjecture to argue against. That wasn’t so hard now was it. Oh and you still haven’t refuted anything I have provided, so maybe while I go and pick these studies apart or show you where you are misinterpereting them, you could do the same to the links I provided.

V

45

Your second link doesn’t work.

V

46

Your studies were vague and hard to understand. However, searching for counter studies or anything really which clearly stated in english either of our positions I came across this study.

I need to re-read it and digest it more, but it seems to strongly support your statements and is clear and easy to read. Until further notice, I am going to withdraw my previous statements. I can only say that hopefully this will allow you to see that I am not in fact an idiot, but instead was indoctrinated to my previous position by out of date information. Apparently this is something new that is just being discovered. My only regret is that we could not have been more civil with eachother throughout this exchange. Thank you though for turning me onto new information. I’m always willing and attempting to learn.

V

47

[quote]Vegita wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Nothing JMo? I’m patiently waiting for either a reference to your position or your withdrawl of your position. Either will do.

V

I’m sorry that I can’t pander to the babbling of idiots on the internet 24/7, though I do enjoy it.

But OK, if you insist. Read this: : http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/45/1/78

“In young, lean subjects, ingestion of very large carbohydrate loads (ie, 500 g) is accommodated primarily by increases in the bodyÃ?¢??s glycogen stores, without any increment in the bodyÃ?¢??s fat content”

and this: Minor importance of de novo lipogenesis on energy expenditure in human | British Journal of Nutrition | Cambridge Core

The subjects in our study were not overfed
carbohydrate, but received a breakfast containing 8�?�·37 MJ
(2000 kcal) in the form of carbohydrate (approximately
equal to their daily resting energy requirements). The results
obtained by indirect calorimetry measurements during the
following 9 h demonstrated that very little de novo
lipogenesis took place. We therefore concluded that only
negligible amounts of de novo lipogensis would occur under
normal dietary conditions, when a mixed diet is consumed.
These conclusions have since been supported by a series of
studies by Hellerstein�¢??s group, who measured fractional
turnover rates by labelling the hepatic fatty acid precursor
pool (Hellerstein et al. 1991; Hellerstein, 1999).

and this: De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects - PubMed

“Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy”

Finally, humans aren’t rats. In rat studies, overfeeding carbohydrates does lead to a substantial amount of conversions to fat; not so in humans.

But tell me, how does it feel to be wrong all the time? I’d really like to know…

It will take me a little time to read and digest these studies. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and giving me something other than conjecture to argue against. That wasn’t so hard now was it. Oh and you still haven’t refuted anything I have provided, so maybe while I go and pick these studies apart or show you where you are misinterpereting them, you could do the same to the links I provided.

V[/quote]

vegita, i can’t believe you’re being so civil to such an abrasive zealot. kudos.

i read the first paper. the study participants were fed 500g of carbs in 3 doses throughout one day and a bunch of stuff was measured. they conclude, among other things:

[quote]The present results indicate that accumulation
of adipose tissue fat is not due to an
increase in de novo fat synthesis from carbohydrate
in moderately obese subjects consuming
a high-carbohydrate meal; hence, a mixed
diet is even less likely to increase de novo fat
synthesis.[/quote]

but i don’t see how they can conclude that a mixed diet is even less likely to increase fat synthesis. it seems they were eating 100% carbs for a day, and only 500g at that. sounds like starvation to me. why would your body store anything as fat if you’re starving? and if they are going to draw conclusions about the results of a high-carb mixed diet, why not test a high-carb mixed diet?

interesting, but i don’t think these conclusions are nearly as absolute as our fanatic preaches.

48

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Your studies were vague and hard to understand. However, searching for counter studies or anything really which clearly stated in english either of our positions I came across this study.

I need to re-read it and digest it more, but it seems to strongly support your statements and is clear and easy to read. Until further notice, I am going to withdraw my previous statements. I can only say that hopefully this will allow you to see that I am not in fact an idiot, but instead was indoctrinated to my previous position by out of date information. Apparently this is something new that is just being discovered. My only regret is that we could not have been more civil with eachother throughout this exchange. Thank you though for turning me onto new information. I’m always willing and attempting to learn.

V[/quote]

I was wrong about you Vegita. A lesser man would’ve by now resorted to sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalala I can’t hear you”…or worse, saying that science doesn’t have all the answers and telling me to post my pics or asking me how much I bench.

But you didn’t do any of that, you took your lumps like a man and instead of stubbornly sticking to your preconceived notions of how things ought to be, you took this as an opportunity to learn more. Kudos to you.

I’ll admit that I believed a lot of dumb stuff too not too long ago (much of it from reading some of the articles on this site), but instead of closing my eyes to contradictory evidence, I began to look at some of the information I read with a critical mind.

If you want to expose yourself to some solid, EVIDENCE BASED nutrition info (rather than the opinions of some internet nutrition guru) I HIGHLY suggest checking out “Girth Control: The Science of Fat Loss and Muscle Gain” by Alan Aragon.

49

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Your studies were vague and hard to understand. However, searching for counter studies or anything really which clearly stated in english either of our positions I came across this study.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/707.pdf

I need to re-read it and digest it more, but it seems to strongly support your statements and is clear and easy to read. Until further notice, I am going to withdraw my previous statements. I can only say that hopefully this will allow you to see that I am not in fact an idiot, but instead was indoctrinated to my previous position by out of date information. Apparently this is something new that is just being discovered. My only regret is that we could not have been more civil with eachother throughout this exchange. Thank you though for turning me onto new information. I’m always willing and attempting to learn.

V

I was wrong about you Vegita. A lesser man would’ve by now resorted to sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalala I can’t hear you”…or worse, saying that science doesn’t have all the answers and telling me to post my pics or asking me how much I bench.

But you didn’t do any of that, you took your lumps like a man and instead of stubbornly sticking to your preconceived notions of how things ought to be, you took this as an opportunity to learn more. Kudos to you.

I’ll admit that I believed a lot of dumb stuff too not too long ago (much of it from reading some of the articles on this site), but instead of closing my eyes to contradictory evidence, I began to look at some of the information I read with a critical mind.

If you want to expose yourself to some solid, EVIDENCE BASED nutrition info (rather than the opinions of some internet nutrition guru) I HIGHLY suggest checking out “Girth Control: The Science of Fat Loss and Muscle Gain” by Alan Aragon.[/quote]

So what success have you had with your approach on both yourself and your clients? (I’m assuming you are a fitness/nutrition proffessional?)

50

who said anything about clients? you don’t have to train or have clients to know how to tell fact from fiction.

Edit: and why would you make such a idiotic ASSumption?

51

Just to add fuel to this fire - I would like to hear people’s input on this concept.

To my knowledge, carbohydrates supply glucose to cells which, upon entering adipocytes, is converted to glycerol or at least at some point (kinda rusty here) at least maintains intracellular glycerol levels. Glycerol is the backbone of a triglyceride, the main form of fat storage in the body.

Insulin upregulates/activates an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase, which transports fatty acids from chlyomicrons circulating in the bloodstream into adipocytes. Once inside, these fatty acids can combine with the abundant glycerol (from the carbohydrates) to form a triglyceride and be stored.

Would it not be reasonable to assume that a diet low in carbohydrates and higher in fat, would hinder lipogenesis not only via insulin control and the other associated factors, but also via downregulation of lipoprotein lipase (reducing fatty acid transport into adipocytes) and an undersupply of glycerol to combine with fatty acids and be stored as triglyceride?

Perhaps these fatty acids slip in and out of cells but ultimated due to a reduced storage ability end up being oxidized?

Not trying to start arguments, I have not read or studied this in detail and would like to know y’alls thoughts on the above scenario.

52

EDIT: In retrospect this reply was a bit mean. To JMO12387120938120 or whatever your name was -I was actually paying you a compliment but never mind.

53

[quote]benmoore wrote:
EDIT: In retrospect this reply was a bit mean. To JMO12387120938120 or whatever your name was -I was actually paying you a compliment but never mind.[/quote]

benmoore, if you indeed meant it as a compliment, then thank you; but I’m no professional, just someone who likes to talk nutrition.

you have to understand though, 99% of the time a response such as “who have you trained?” (or something similar) is usually meant to challenge the other person, without actually presenting a valid counter-argument.

I suppose after a while I’ve come to expect that kind of half-brained “argument”. If that was not your intent, then pay my response no mind.

54

Who is the angel in totti13’s avatar?

55

PS: I’m reading the book. It’s a very simple read. He seems to be pretty much against fat.

56

ive read the book and enjoyed it. Im going to try his eating plan and see how well it works.

57

I just wanted to follow up, Thanks JMo for taking the time to give me the studies to back up your position. This has been an eye opening process for me and there is no better feeling in life than learning something new. It excites me.

Now, this new knowledge seems to really hammer home JB’s P&F & P&C meal split theory. I think I may have hindered my progress in the past my trying too hard to avoid substantial amounts of carbs. I’m going to be working on a new eating strategy that will be P&C in the AM leading up to my workouts, one more P& C after (Surge) and then Switch off to a P&F for the rest of the evening, usually 2 or 3 meals after my workout. This is perhaps a little bit simplistic, but I’m not trying to be a bodybuilder, just want to train, look good and perform good in any of the extracurriculars I happen to engage in. Over this week, I’ll build some menus, search around for good P&C and P&F meals and recipies and then Sept 1st launch it in earnest. I do need to hit the weights a little hared I think, I have been doing a little too much “cross training” recently.

Also I think i’ll start a new thread, this is really good info and I feel it may be buried deep in this thread and the title of the thread would never lead anyone to this info.

V

58

You just described a basic carb cycling diet. If you’re working on improving your body composition, it’s a winning method. Good luck.

BTW, there’s a long thread you might have to dig up that has tons of great info on Carb cycling. IMO, Dr. Clay’s article on Macronutrient Cycling (posted here recently) is one of the best released in a long time.

59

[quote]Vegita wrote:

Now, this new knowledge seems to really hammer home JB’s P&F & P&C meal split theory. I think I may have hindered my progress in the past my trying too hard to avoid substantial amounts of carbs.

V[/quote]

I think I’m in the same boat. Actually that’s a silly thing to say, I know I have become too carb-phobic. I’ll look forward to the log you mentioned.