"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">figure it out.- </div>

I figured it out. You are fat because you ate the carbs. You trapped the fat and there is no escape and now it's stuck and you're a fat 8% bodyfat. If you cut out the berries and subbed in pork rinds and bacon grease all your fat would fall off and you'd be an anatomy chart.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
I burned abut 5000 cals from the ride plus the baseline of 3600 cals (1800 per day)
...</div>
You can't possibly know how many calories you used up during the ride. Unless you were hooked up to a Vo2Max. Were you hooked up to a Vo2Max? The only possible explanation then is that you assume to have spent those calories and you base this assumption on the amount of calories you ate and the amount of weight you lost during the ride.
 
1. I know roughly how many calories I burn as I have been tested three times so far this year with spirometry during my endurance tests. based on heart rate I achieve an good estimate of how many calories I burn.

2. It was not based on an assumption as I have a heart rate monitor.

3. The best way I have found to lose fat is to eat alot of fat and protein and carbs from veggies and fruit. I ma forced to eat things like cake and snickers bars when I train as that is all that is mostly what is available at the small stores along they way and I don´t wear a back pack to lug around fruit. During training it needs to be dense carbs. When I looked back over my last years weight lose when I lost 20 kg in 6 months, other than no grain derived carbs, the decisive factor was a negative energy balance of about 1000 calories per day. If you are serious body building and pumping T and what not, you probably can get away with eating anything, other wise avoid bulking and stay in a negative energy balance with lots of protein and fat.

4. there is a saying in the bike training world: Fat burns in a fire of Carbohydrates.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
My weight has gone from 78 to 76 kg. (I´m 8% body fat)
...</div>
You'd be leaner if you ate no carbs. Also, your weight would not fluctuate so much. Also also, your performance, whatever it is now with carbs, would improve. It would improve especially since riding is a highly aerobic activity while using carbs is an anaerobic process.
 
<div>
(pete69 @ May 25 2008,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">figure it out.- </div>

I figured it out. You are fat because you ate the carbs. You trapped the fat and there is no escape and now it's stuck and you're a fat 8% bodyfat. If you cut out the berries and subbed in pork rinds and bacon grease all your fat would fall off and you'd be an anatomy chart.</div>
lol
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
My weight has gone from 78 to 76 kg. (I´m 8% body fat)
...</div>
You'd be leaner if you ate no carbs. Also, your weight would not fluctuate so much. Also also, your performance, whatever it is now with carbs, would improve. It would improve especially since riding is a highly aerobic activity while using carbs is an anaerobic process.</div>
this is getting funny. The weight may fluctuate, but it is still a slow lose of fat.
at 8% body fat, 184 cm height and 42 years of age, fat lose is going to be very slow.
but you wouldn´t realize this as your concept of metabolism is tangential to reality at best.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(pete69 @ May 25 2008,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">figure it out.- </div>

I figured it out. You are fat because you ate the carbs. You trapped the fat and there is no escape and now it's stuck and you're a fat 8% bodyfat. If you cut out the berries and subbed in pork rinds and bacon grease all your fat would fall off and you'd be an anatomy chart.</div>
lol</div>
That made me laugh too. 8% bodyfat is fat for a cyclist.
 
I eat far less carbs than most cyclist. And noone is going to climb, or ride, without carbs.
Very few cyclist at my age are 8% body fat.
The pro tour riders are all below 40 year sof age, and only the climbers are really that much below 8%.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The weight may fluctuate, but it is still a slow lose of fat.
...</div>
Your weight fluctuates wildly now because you carb up and deplete. This is accompanied with an appropriate water uptake and excretion as glycogen is stored and used up.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
My weight has gone from 78 to 76 kg. (I´m 8% body fat)
...</div>
You'd be leaner if you ate no carbs. Also, your weight would not fluctuate so much. Also also, your performance, whatever it is now with carbs, would improve. It would improve especially since riding is a highly aerobic activity while using carbs is an anaerobic process.</div>
go get yourself 10 riders and do the experiment with and without carbs.

then talk to me about about it.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The weight may fluctuate, but it is still a slow lose of fat.
...</div>
Your weight fluctuates wildly now because you carb up and deplete. This is accompanied with an appropriate water uptake and excretion as glycogen is stored and used up.</div>
duhhhhh!
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I eat far less carbs than most cyclist. And noone is going to climb, or ride, without carbs.
Very few cyclist at my age are 8% body fat.
The pro tour riders are all below 40 year sof age, and only the climbers are really that much below 8%.</div>
They too would be leaner if they ate no carbs regardless of their age. If they won't ride without carbs, maybe it's because they are too dependent on carbs. Then maybe it's because when they try no/low carb, they don't take the time to adapt fully to a high fat diet and so are not efficient at using fat as fuel. Or they just don't eat enough fat. There is a period of adaptation from a high carb diet to a no/low carb high fat diet. It can take upward of 20 weeks. Or it can be very short as stevejones has reported in his experiment log.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
My weight has gone from 78 to 76 kg. (I´m 8% body fat)
...</div>
You'd be leaner if you ate no carbs. Also, your weight would not fluctuate so much. Also also, your performance, whatever it is now with carbs, would improve. It would improve especially since riding is a highly aerobic activity while using carbs is an anaerobic process.</div>
go get yourself 10 riders and do the experiment with and without carbs.

then talk to me about about it.</div>
You're the cyclist. With a Ph.D. no less.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">riding is a highly aerobic activity while using carbs is an anaerobic process.</div>
Riding at or below 75% max heart rate is mostly aerobic.
ABove this, it is mostly anerobic.

this is another discussion and I am not going to get into here.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I eat far less carbs than most cyclist. And noone is going to climb, or ride,  without carbs.
Very few cyclist at my age are 8% body fat.
The pro tour riders are all below 40 year sof age, and only the climbers are really that much below 8%.</div>
They too would be leaner if they ate no carbs regardless of their age. If they won't ride without carbs, maybe it's because they are too dependent on carbs. Then maybe it's because when they try no/low carb, they don't take the time to adapt fully to a high fat diet and so are not efficient at using fat as fuel. Or they just don't eat enough fat. There is a period of adaptation from a high carb diet to a no/low carb high fat diet. It can take upward of 20 weeks. Or it can be very short as stevejones has reported in his experiment log.</div>
how much leaner does a 5% body fat rider need to get?
6% is about the level before performance suffers.
At about 8% body fat and below, further fat lose it is almost irrelevant as performance is then mostly a question of heart function efficiency and the the ability to ride at the anaerobic threshold and above.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,1:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 25 2008,12:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,12:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I eat far less carbs than most cyclist. And noone is going to climb, or ride, without carbs.
Very few cyclist at my age are 8% body fat.
The pro tour riders are all below 40 year sof age, and only the climbers are really that much below 8%.</div>
They too would be leaner if they ate no carbs regardless of their age. If they won't ride without carbs, maybe it's because they are too dependent on carbs. Then maybe it's because when they try no/low carb, they don't take the time to adapt fully to a high fat diet and so are not efficient at using fat as fuel. Or they just don't eat enough fat. There is a period of adaptation from a high carb diet to a no/low carb high fat diet. It can take upward of 20 weeks. Or it can be very short as stevejones has reported in his experiment log.</div>
how much leaner does a 5% body fat rider need to get?
6% is about the level before performance suffers.
At about 8% body fat and below, further fat lose it is almost irrelevant as performance is then mostly a question of heart function efficiency and the the ability to ride at the anaerobic threshold and above.</div>
Well then, I think heart function efficiency would improve on a no/low carb high fat diet. The brain is about 30% more fuel efficient when it runs on ketones instead of glucose.

Have you ever seen a study or any paper showing a real comparison between a high carb diet and a no/low carb high fat diet with trained athletes? I haven't. I've seen pseudo-studies showing how inefficient switching to a low carb is when the rider is fully adapted to a high carb diet and hasn't been given enough time to adapt to the switch. The point is that I think there is no data for the no/low carb high fat diet to which a high carb diet can be compared to reach a definitive conclusion. So when you, or anybody else, say that riders need a high carb diet, I say they just don't know the facts about the alternative to make an informed decision on the matter.
 
you think it would improve or you know it would improve? I have the latest textbooks on cardiology- general, disease and sports related. I will go through them to find the appropriate data.

1. A heart working at or near max, for hours on end might not be that happy during ketosis.
2. Fat enters the electron transport chain AFTER complex I, yielding only 2 molecules of ATP.
3. Sugar enters before complex 1 yielding 3 molecules of ATP.



What is your body fat %?
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 25 2008,2:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
2. Fat enters the electron transport chain AFTER complex I, yielding only 2 molecules of ATP.
3. Sugar enters before complex 1 yielding 3 molecules of ATP.
...</div>
One molecule of fatty acid, for example palmitic acid, yields between 108 and 126 ATPs depending on who you listen to. One molecule of glucose yields 36 ATPs. Fat is a more efficient fuel per molecule.

Fat, measured in a bomb caloriemeter, contains twice the calories of glucose by weight. We don't use fuel the same way we measure it yet I think when we measure it, we actually measure the number of carbon atoms and I think carbon atoms is what makes it usable as fuel by our bodies anyway. So it would be a reasonable assumption to say that fat is a more efficient fuel per weight.

Because of fuel partitioning caused by ingestion of carbs, then by release of insulin then by locking of said fuel in adipose tissue, fat which doesn't cause this would be more efficient at delivering fuel to lean tissue.

The processing cost of fat is about 2-3%. The processing cost of carbs is about 5-7%. Fat is a more efficient fuel to process.

The brain uses about 30% less fuel when fueled by ketones than when fueled by glucose. Fat is a more efficient fuel when used by the brain. I think it's the same for any tissue or organ that can use ketones as fuel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top