And also, I provided the chart on page 2 of this thread that demonstrates that B-OHB (a ketone body maufactured from fat) can substitute for pyruvate in the manufacture of Acetyl-CoA to enter the electron transport chain.
This means I don’t need glycogen to run sprints or to perform a heavy squat routine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]The Greek wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would say burning glucose for energy in the human body is more like burning ethanol in a gasoline engine.
It can be done but it comes with all sorts of negative consequences to the machinery.
[/quote]
You do realize that glucose is your body’s preferred method of fuel, right? [/quote]
You do realize you are wrong, right?
Fat is the preferred fuel in my body because I store it really easily.[/quote]
Que?
Your brain needs glucose. It prefers it.
I have never seen pictures of you…but your advice seems to contradict that for people with a goal of being really really muscular.
[/quote]
I think there is a mix-up in everyone’s terminology here. Fat is generally treated as a more efficient storage than something like glycogen. This is because glycogen is polar, and it binds around twice its weight in water in the body. However, fats are non-polar and therefore do not bind water. Coupled with the fact that fats yield 9 calories per unit mass where carbs yield 4, someone could make the argument that fats are more efficient method of storage. I’m not sure which process is more efficient or favored between glycogenolysis or gluconeogenesis, so I’m not sure who I really agree with. Just something to think about
[quote]deepsquats220 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]The Greek wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would say burning glucose for energy in the human body is more like burning ethanol in a gasoline engine.
It can be done but it comes with all sorts of negative consequences to the machinery.
[/quote]
You do realize that glucose is your body’s preferred method of fuel, right? [/quote]
You do realize you are wrong, right?
Fat is the preferred fuel in my body because I store it really easily.[/quote]
Que?
Your brain needs glucose. It prefers it.
I have never seen pictures of you…but your advice seems to contradict that for people with a goal of being really really muscular.
[/quote]
I think there is a mix-up in everyone’s terminology here. Fat is generally treated as a more efficient storage than something like glycogen. This is because glycogen is polar, and it binds around twice its weight in water in the body. However, fats are non-polar and therefore do not bind water. Coupled with the fact that fats yield 9 calories per unit mass where carbs yield 4, someone could make the argument that fats are more efficient method of storage. I’m not sure which process is more efficient or favored between glycogenolysis or gluconeogenesis, so I’m not sure who I really agree with. Just something to think about[/quote]
Polar?
The term would be hydrophobic and hydrophillic. This means having an affinity for water vs not having one.
Either way, if your brain needs glucose, then saying it prefers it is not incorrect. Your body favors efficiency…so yes, using glucose is more “efficient” and using fat to store energy is more efficient.
Your body doesn’t care what you look like. It is simply trying to keep you alive.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your body doesn’t care what you look like. It is simply trying to keep you alive.[/quote]
This is a great quote.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]deepsquats220 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]The Greek wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would say burning glucose for energy in the human body is more like burning ethanol in a gasoline engine.
It can be done but it comes with all sorts of negative consequences to the machinery.
[/quote]
You do realize that glucose is your body’s preferred method of fuel, right? [/quote]
You do realize you are wrong, right?
Fat is the preferred fuel in my body because I store it really easily.[/quote]
Que?
Your brain needs glucose. It prefers it.
I have never seen pictures of you…but your advice seems to contradict that for people with a goal of being really really muscular.
[/quote]
I think there is a mix-up in everyone’s terminology here. Fat is generally treated as a more efficient storage than something like glycogen. This is because glycogen is polar, and it binds around twice its weight in water in the body. However, fats are non-polar and therefore do not bind water. Coupled with the fact that fats yield 9 calories per unit mass where carbs yield 4, someone could make the argument that fats are more efficient method of storage. I’m not sure which process is more efficient or favored between glycogenolysis or gluconeogenesis, so I’m not sure who I really agree with. Just something to think about[/quote]
Polar?
The term would be hydrophobic and hydrophillic. This means having an affinity for water vs not having one.
Either way, if your brain needs glucose, then saying it prefers it is not incorrect. Your body favors efficiency…so yes, using glucose is more “efficient” and using fat to store energy is more efficient.
Your body doesn’t care what you look like. It is simply trying to keep you alive.[/quote]
The brain does not need glucose if it has other energy substrates it can use.
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat.
Also, during intense exercise when glucose is being broken down it leaves behind lactate which can fuel brain function, too.
http://www.pjonline.com/blog_entry/lactic_acid_found_to_have_a_role_as_a_brain_fuel
My thought is that evolution has brought about different metabolic pathways for a reason - for different environmental constraints that we cannot control - but thanks to technology we now have 24x7 access to modern convenience which is ruining Mother Nature’s beautiful design.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat. [/quote]
That is not the most efficient way to fuel your brain. Yes, your body can do that because once again, we are designed to not die simply because one aspect of our diet is missing. That doesn’t mean you should force it in all cases and once again, this comes down to results seen and PREFERENCE. Trying to make it seem like “glucose equals bad” is simply oversimplified and incorrect.
Your body is a beautiful complex machine. What bothers me is people who ignore the complexity to come up with simple “in the box” static answers to every diet question.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat. [/quote]
That is not the most efficient way to fuel your brain. Yes, your body can do that because once again, we are designed to not die simply because one aspect of our diet is missing. That doesn’t mean you should force it in all cases and once again, this comes down to results seen and PREFERENCE. Trying to make it seem like “glucose equals bad” is simply oversimplified and incorrect.
Your body is a beautiful complex machine. What bothers me is people who ignore the complexity to come up with simple “in the box” static answers to every diet question.
[/quote]
I’m well aware of what hydrophobic and hydrophilic means. I’ve taken courses in biochem. Hydrophobicity is based off of being polar. You say your brain needs glucose. As I said before, your body can get glucose from a variety of sources, not just simply carbs. Gluconeogenesis is the formation of glucose from non-carb precursors.
Where is your proof that glyconeogenolysis is energetically favorable? You say that, yet give no proof. Show me that gluconeogenesis is not as energetically favorable as glyconeogenolysis then you will be getting somewhere. If you make a claim, you must back it up.
[quote]deepsquats220 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat. [/quote]
That is not the most efficient way to fuel your brain. Yes, your body can do that because once again, we are designed to not die simply because one aspect of our diet is missing. That doesn’t mean you should force it in all cases and once again, this comes down to results seen and PREFERENCE. Trying to make it seem like “glucose equals bad” is simply oversimplified and incorrect.
Your body is a beautiful complex machine. What bothers me is people who ignore the complexity to come up with simple “in the box” static answers to every diet question.
[/quote]
I’m well aware of what hydrophobic and hydrophilic means. I’ve taken courses in biochem. Hydrophobicity is based off of being polar. You say your brain needs glucose. As I said before, your body can get glucose from a variety of sources, not just simply carbs. Gluconeogenesis is the formation of glucose from non-carb precursors.
Where is your proof that glyconeogenolysis is energetically favorable? You say that, yet give no proof. Show me that gluconeogenesis is not as energetically favorable as glyconeogenolysis then you will be getting somewhere. If you make a claim, you must back it up. [/quote]
Go look up the Kreb Cycle.
for each glucose molecule there are two pyruvic acid molecules entering the system, two ATP molecules are formed.
Gluconeogenesis to my knowledge uses ATP to form glucose.
You asked for efficiency. The production or conservation of the most energy would be most efficient correct?
I wasn’t trying to insult you. However, fat molecyules are usually described as HYDROPHOBIC instead of “polar”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]deepsquats220 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat. [/quote]
That is not the most efficient way to fuel your brain. Yes, your body can do that because once again, we are designed to not die simply because one aspect of our diet is missing. That doesn’t mean you should force it in all cases and once again, this comes down to results seen and PREFERENCE. Trying to make it seem like “glucose equals bad” is simply oversimplified and incorrect.
Your body is a beautiful complex machine. What bothers me is people who ignore the complexity to come up with simple “in the box” static answers to every diet question.
[/quote]
I’m well aware of what hydrophobic and hydrophilic means. I’ve taken courses in biochem. Hydrophobicity is based off of being polar. You say your brain needs glucose. As I said before, your body can get glucose from a variety of sources, not just simply carbs. Gluconeogenesis is the formation of glucose from non-carb precursors.
Where is your proof that glyconeogenolysis is energetically favorable? You say that, yet give no proof. Show me that gluconeogenesis is not as energetically favorable as glyconeogenolysis then you will be getting somewhere. If you make a claim, you must back it up. [/quote]
Go look up the Kreb Cycle.
for each glucose molecule there are two pyruvic acid molecules entering the system, two ATP molecules are formed.
Gluconeogenesis to my knowledge uses ATP to form glucose.
You asked for efficiency. The production or conservation of the most energy would be most efficient correct?
I wasn’t trying to insult you. However, fat molecyules are usually described as HYDROPHOBIC instead of “polar”. [/quote]
Yeah I agree with you there. I agree that typically your body normally runs off glycogen reserves, and really gluconeogenesis takes place when you have no food. I was simply curious as to the entropy values associated with each process. I’m currently studying for a biochem exam and the values aren’t outlined anywhere in my book. It stands to reason that glycogenolysis and then glycolysis would be the more favorable pathway, seeing as they occur at a more common rate in the body than gluconeogenesis. This is a lot of interesting conservation!
In most of the books I have, polar and hydrophilic are usually used interchangeably. Anyway that doesn’t really matter.
[quote]deepsquats220 wrote:
Yeah I agree with you there. I agree that typically your body normally runs off glycogen reserves, and really gluconeogenesis takes place when you have no food. I was simply curious as to the entropy values associated with each process. I’m currently studying for a biochem exam and the values aren’t outlined anywhere in my book. It stands to reason that glycogenolysis and then glycolysis would be the more favorable pathway, seeing as they occur at a more common rate in the body than gluconeogenesis. This is a lot of interesting conservation!
In most of the books I have, polar and hydrophilic are usually used interchangeably. Anyway that doesn’t really matter. [/quote]
Hey, keep up the good work in that major. That was my minor with a biology major. Maybe they use that term more in textbooks lately.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And it does, it can use ketone bodies that are produced from fat. [/quote]
That is not the most efficient way to fuel your brain. Yes, your body can do that because once again, we are designed to not die simply because one aspect of our diet is missing. That doesn’t mean you should force it in all cases and once again, this comes down to results seen and PREFERENCE. Trying to make it seem like “glucose equals bad” is simply oversimplified and incorrect.
Your body is a beautiful complex machine. What bothers me is people who ignore the complexity to come up with simple “in the box” static answers to every diet question.
[/quote]
Glucose is not bad; however ingesting it in large doses might be.
Like Deepsquats said above, I think efficiency has more to do with it.
Fatty acid oxidation is much more efficient than glycolysis. For every molecule of fatty acid that is completely oxidized we can get:
[(n/2)*12 + (n/2 - 1)*5] - 2 molecules ATP - where n is the number of carbon atoms in the fatty acid chain.
A 18 carbon fatty acid produces 146 molecules of ATP.
One molecule of glucose can only produce 36 net molecules of ATP. Both lipolysis and glycolysis require exactly 2 molecules of ATP energy in their pathway. Fat can be 400% more efficient than glucose if we consider the 18 carbon stearic acid - on average it is only 225% greater (which is why fats have 9 calories per gram versus 4 for glucose).
Ketone bodies are just a by product of unused acetyl-coA which we get for free from oxidation of fatty acids. Acetyl-CoA also produces ATP but when fatty acids are being broken down so quickly that their resulting A-CoA cannot be utilized they go to making beta-hydroxybutyrate.
Win-win.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
I think one of the few things JF and I ended up agreeing on around here (back when he still posted) was that, at the end of the day, the only statement that can come as close to a universal truth as we want is to say that it is the degree of refinement to a macro that largely dictates its health effects. Wanna know (probably) the BIGGEST step you can take to ensure a healthful diet? Stick to unrefined foods as much as you can; once that’s taken care of, it really doesn’t matter what you eat so long as it is done sensibly and in accordance with your own unique biology and preferences.
[/quote]
love this. It’s funny how once upon a time fat was considered the most evil substance on earth, and now the focus has shifted to demonise carbohydrate. Vilifying a macronutrient appeals to people’s need for a quick fix. People like to make as little an effort as possible, and cutting carbs isn’t hard. (I’m not saying this applies to anyone in this thread, so don’t anybody get their panties in a bunch)
Cut the refined crap, and health and happiness will follow. How’s that for a quick fix![/quote]
And yet, nothing has worked as fast as carbohydrate avoidance for undoing all my health issues.
(Of course along with avoiding most carbohydrates I am also avoiding the other naughty chemicals that come with them).
Funny how sweet potatoes have become my candy.
[/quote]
did all your health issues stem from overeating rice and potatoes? Or was it processed shite?
and the use of the word “swoleness” was my fault, and was supposed to be taken lightheartedly.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
did all your health issues stem from overeating rice and potatoes? Or was it processed shite?[/quote]
Over a decade ago I would have said the carbohydrates in my diet were about 50/50 processed to whole food sources. I ate a lot of pasta and was also addicted to soft drinks.
Then when I found this site I learned about “clean bulking” and I reduced most of my junk food intake. I still relied on carbohydrate because I had been taught to fear the fat. I also probably overdid it on protein, too, having picked up an addiction to 5 precisely timed shakes per day 
At my heaviest I was a semisolid but self-admittedly very flabby 292 lbs, standing at 6’1".
wow, sounds like total calories was your enemy then, not so much carbohydrate (although I’m sure your soft drink addiction didn’t help).
How much do you weigh now?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
wow, sounds like total calories was your enemy then, not so much carbohydrate (although I’m sure your soft drink addiction didn’t help).[/quote]
Right, but my calories were only around 3000 per day and I was lifting 5 times per week.
I am currently upward in direction again at 225 having gone down to 210.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Swoleness/fatlossness.
The reason I ask is I’ve seen you defend the calories in - calories out model a few times in the past[/quote]
X2 - would be good to see your thoughts - or in the very least write out YOUR diet/recommendations for losing fat.[/quote]
Well, I am absolutely an endorser of the “calories in/calories out” concept. Of course, I imagine most everyone is, at least at some level… the divide typically starts to occur when LC advocates start espousing some sort of “metabolic advantage” to high fat dieting. Which is nonsense.
[/quote]
I thought there was a metabolic advantage to low carbs? Here’s an excerpt for Jonny Bowden’s (PhD, CNS) ‘Living Low Carb’ book (before this quote, he explains the results of studies that go into the metabolic advantage…):
“Moral of the story: calories do count–but they’re not the whole story. Low-carb diets may have a metabolic advantage, but it’s not unlimited. In fact, it’s probably pretty small (200-400 calories, suggests Mike Eades). You can’t eat 12,000 calories a day if fat and protein and think you’re going to lose weight just because you’re on a low-carb diet. You still need to pay attention to calories. But you do have a bit–and I do mean a bit–of wiggle room on low-carb.”
So, just to be clear, glucose metabolism “comes with all sorts of negative consequences to the machinery”, yet we can “non-toxically store and use” it, but “glucose is toxic in high doses”, so we have “no choice but to use it immediately” to AVOID these toxic effects (which, mind you, come with “all sorts of negative consequences to the machinery”), and that eating large amounts of carbohydrate is “definitely going to be toxic”, but really that’s nothing to worry about because “glucose is not bad” at all, and eating large amounts of carbohydrate REALLY only “might be” toxic, after all.
And, to further crystallize your point: glucose IS a toxin, but is really not, and burning it causes all sorts of negative effects, which is why our bodies make sure to burn it IMMEDIATELY upon ingestion, and yet we make it and rely on it for survival anyways, but that’s nothing to worry about because it’s really just the DIETARY carbs that are evil, and yet you can’t provide any evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that normal postprandial elevations in blood sugar result in any sort of these phantom toxic effects, which is why you keep trying to shift towards chronic hyperglycemia?
Have I missed anything? Your argument is completely nonsensical.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This means I don’t need glycogen to run sprints or to perform a heavy squat routine.[/quote]
No, what this means is that your definition of intensity wrt sprinting and lifting is completely different than that of most serious lifters and athletes.
Probably why you are still working on those abs.
Thanks, man, though I honestly feel you give me far too much credit in that regard.