Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
Carbs vs Prot vs Fat--which turns to fat more easily?
I read this and it seemed to contradict what you hear a lot about carbs being converted into fat more easily. Is this accurate or am I understanding it wrong?
"carbohydrates are very expensive to turn into fat. It is expensive to convert glucose to fat – it takes about 25% the energy in the CHO to do so. Protein is less expensive at 8-25% and fat is only 5%. Lesson: If you’re going to consume anything in EXCESS, make it be carbohydrates, not fat!"
Leigh Peele touches on this in her excerpt from "Body By Eat" preview. "You can store fat at any given moment with any given macro. Whenever you eat, you probably won't have time to use all of that new energy before your body can store some of it, and your body can store energy from fat, carbs or protein, by the way...At the end of the day, how much energy you store will depend on how much you've expended."
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
Yes that is the blog where I read it and it made me confused because it seemed to contradict what I thought but I am certainly no expert on the matter and was curious.
That Free Library article reinforces what was written on the Blog. Is that an accurate article?
I know that bottom line it does come down to calories in vs calories out but I am also aware of many of the "debates" about whether or not all calories are created equal and all the info about excess carbs being more of a culprit for fat gain than fat, etc. This topic just interests me a lot and always tyrying to figure out what is true vs what is "bro logic"
Whatever you eat that is in excess. If you eat more than you expend, then it is going to be stored.
I know that may sound dismissive of your question, but the question you are proposing sounds like it is looking for an excuse to eat more of one macro than another..... and perhaps a reason to avoid one all together.
And frankly, different lifestyles lean more heavily on different macros.
Whatever you eat that is in excess. If you eat more than you expend, then it is going to be stored.
I know that may sound dismissive of your question, but the question you are proposing sounds like it is looking for an excuse to eat more of one macro than another..... and perhaps a reason to avoid one all together.
And frankly, different lifestyles lean more heavily on different macros.
oh definitely not looking for an "exuse" to eat something or not....just was genuinely curious about the accuracy of that statement. And obviously the author should not be telling people "it is better to overeat on carbs than fat" because I know there are people who will take that to heart and act on it. Not me.
it's true that the body isn't very good at making fat from carbs. It rather uses the carbs and stores the dietary fat as fat. But from that information all sorts of crazy stuff has risen. Say your maintenance is 3000kcal, then you eat 2000kcal fat and 2000kcal carbs. you'll use up the carbs and 1000kcal of the fat, and 1000kcal of the fat will be stored. Reduce your carbs to 1000, you'll use 1000 of the carbs and 2000 of the fat.
I omitted protein for clarity and of course, this is just the conceptual side of it, it's not written in stone, sure, some of the carbs will probably be stored, etc, but in the big picture you will usually use the carbs you ingest because de novo fat synthesis (making fat from carbs) in humans isn't very good. So if you eat more carbs, you'll store more of the fat you eat (assuming you're in a calorie surplus). If you were to eat only carbs, then maybe your maintenance would go up a bit (maybe your systems would drive your body to more activity to burn off the extra carbs, or what ever... maybe de novo fat synthesis would shoot through the roof in a situation like that, I dunno, but no one eats only carbs. If you do that, you die.
oh definitely not looking for an "exuse" to eat something or not....just was genuinely curious about the accuracy of that statement. And obviously the author should not be telling people "it is better to overeat on carbs than fat" because I know there are people who will take that to heart and act on it. Not me.
I agree Lara and did you see every response praised her and thanked her. Same old story-people being sheeple and not researching before believing just cause they read it on the Net.
I agree Lara and did you see every response praised her and thanked her. Same old story-people being sheeple and not researching before believing just cause they read it on the Net.
yup, people throughout the "blog world" seem to think what they read on their favorite bloggers site as the "gospel". NOw if a blogger is a recognized expert in a certain field that might be one thing, but if it is a "lay person", reader beware.
That's cause I busted her-I posted the link to the free article she copied almost verbatim (and did not give credit).
I thought your comment was repectful. I hate when bloggers delete comments that contradict what they write (unless of course it is spammy or offensive of coures)
I guess some people can't handle the truth
I noticed the free article credits Thomson Learning so I assume the info might come from a nutrition textbook? The wording was the same so it had to come from either the article or maybe a textbook.
I gave her the link to Alan Aragon's website (& several others) and I noticed he posted on her blog. Wonder if she emailed him? I liked his response & advice to her-very professional & polite.
I gave her the link to Alan Aragon's website (& several others) and I noticed he posted on her blog. Wonder if she emailed him? I liked his response & advice to her-very professional & polite.
I also apologized by email if I offended her-did not mean to do that.
that was a nice gesture but I didn't find anything in your comment to be offensive. Bloggers have to be able to take criticism/feedback about what they write, especially when they write about something "factual" as opposed to an opinion.
it's true that the body isn't very good at making fat from carbs. It rather uses the carbs and stores the dietary fat as fat. But from that information all sorts of crazy stuff has risen. Say your maintenance is 3000kcal, then you eat 2000kcal fat and 2000kcal carbs. you'll use up the carbs and 1000kcal of the fat, and 1000kcal of the fat will be stored. Reduce your carbs to 1000, you'll use 1000 of the carbs and 2000 of the fat.
I omitted protein for clarity and of course, this is just the conceptual side of it, it's not written in stone, sure, some of the carbs will probably be stored, etc, but in the big picture you will usually use the carbs you ingest because de novo fat synthesis (making fat from carbs) in humans isn't very good. So if you eat more carbs, you'll store more of the fat you eat (assuming you're in a calorie surplus). If you were to eat only carbs, then maybe your maintenance would go up a bit (maybe your systems would drive your body to more activity to burn off the extra carbs, or what ever... maybe de novo fat synthesis would shoot through the roof in a situation like that, I dunno, but no one eats only carbs. If you do that, you die.
I'm not sure why it matters. If you're eating in excess of maintenance then the excess will be turned in fat. It doesn't matter if the excess is C/P/F. The body is a pretty efficient machine so if some of the excess is already dietary fat, well it makes sense that it's easier to go ahead and us it as is. If the rest of the excess is carbs then if will turn that into fat for storage. There is probably some energy usage in turning carbs into fat, but I doubt it's enough to worry about.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
The simple breakdown of it is that it is almost impossible to store protein as fat, it's hard to store carbs as fat & it's extremely easy to store fat as fat.. it doesn't even need insulin to get it done.
Within fats, saturated fats get stored the easiest, with the exception again for short/medium chain saturated fatty acids which are easy sources of energy.
In the end it is all about energy balance: calories in versus out..
However, as we all know by now, things aren't as simple as it sounds like: some people are very insulin resistant and when they eat too many carbs, their maintenance is much lower than when they barely eat carbs.
On the other end of the spectrum are what you can call 'carb machines' who thrive on carbs and see their maintenance plummet on too low carb intake, since they become too sluggish on them..
So, while the answer re the macronutrients themselves is easy enough: fats being stored very easily & carbs not as easily & protein not at all (protein needs to be converted to carbs first), the final result can be different.
Too many of us assume maintenance is static, which it isn't.. go & read that incredibly long 'fierce conversation' thread if you have time for it.
Carbs vs Prot vs Fat--which turns to fat more easily?
Linear Mode
