"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(soflsun @ May 04 2008,3:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">mikey,

What about your own personal results...has being on a low/zero carb diet had an effect on your body composition, strength, etc.? This is not an insult, but I think I remember a pic of you awile back after a cut where you had eliminated carbs completely. You were definitely lean, but your muscle mass seemed quite low as well.

Also, do you believe you can gain fat without gaining muscle on a high carb/high preotein diet when in conjunction with weight training. I always thought that if I was getting fat, I must at least be putting on muscle as well.

Lastly, what about pre or post workout nutrition where an insulin spike is supposed to be beneficial. Are you against this as well?

Thanks.</div>
I've done various forms of low carb eating to reduce bodyfat, and most have worked quite well. Actually, what worked best so far I'd have to say is something tantamount to &quot;paleo&quot; eating combined with an IF scheme.

I am not the most heavily muscled guy out there, but I'm not really sure what pictures you're referring to. Here is one from last summer, where I achieved my leanest condition ever:

Me as of summer 2007.

Note that I did not eliminate carbs on that diet, though, so using any of this as a pro/con for low carb eating is a little strange.

What I have noticed in my personal experience is that keeping carbohydrate intake towards the veggies/fruit end of the spectrum does good things in terms of regulating hunger, and keeping fat too low does quite the opposite.

Beyond that, I haven't endorsed or come out against anything - I merely commented on Dan's comment in regards to research concerning satiety. I do think peri-workout nutrition is important, for reference.
 
That was going to be my next question...thanks by the way.

If carbs go to zero, you lose the ability to eat fruits and veggies.  These are healthy and provide needed fiber, which is important as well.  How do you get aroung these issues with zero carbs?  In light of this scenario, what do you consider to be good pre-post workout nutrition and do you think an insulin spike here is beneficial.  Thanks.
 
That was the picture I was referring to, by the way.  I mean, you look really lean and healthy...and most likely strong, but I feel like another 10-15 lbs of LBM wouldn't hurt either.  Did you lose much muscle on that diet?

edit: spelling, still not sure if correct though
smile.gif
 
<div>
(soflsun @ May 04 2008,4:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That was the picture I was referring to, by the way. I mean, you look really lean and healthy...and most likely strong, but I feel like another 10-15 lbs of LBM wouldn't hurt either. Did you lose much muscle on that diet?

edit: spelling, still not sure if correct though
smile.gif
</div>
Just out of curiosity, have you ever dieted to very low bodyfat?

I think a lot of people fool themselves about how much muscle they're capable of holding when very lean (say a legitimate ~8% bodyfat or whatever) and drug free, and it's something that needs to be experienced firsthand to really &quot;get.&quot; Also bearing in mind I never claimed to hold a whole lot of muscle or anything, and I'm not sure how the conversation turned in this direction since I'm not even a &quot;low carb&quot; advocate per se.

That said, it's easier for me to hold more muscle at a bit higher bodyfat (as it is for every drug free lifter), so there's a tradeoff in there somewhere. Meaning, yes, I probably did lose some muscle, but at some point, this is something any natural will run into if they want to be really lean. I certainly tried to minimize it, and, subjectively, my strength was still decent even at the tail end of that diet.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ May 04 2008,4:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That was going to be my next question...thanks by the way.

If carbs go to zero, you lose the ability to eat fruits and veggies. These are healthy and provide needed fiber, which is important as well. How do you get aroung these issues with zero carbs? In light of this scenario, what do you consider to be good pre-post workout nutrition and do you think an insulin spike here is beneficial. Thanks.</div>
I don't personally think there's any point to going lower carb than a &quot;paleo&quot; type diet, based on personal experience and bloodwork, if we're just talking about very general recomposition goals, versus specific scenarios where it may be warranted (cyclical diets ala UD2, PSMFs, etc).
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ May 04 2008,3:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2. In test meal studies the overwhelming evidence indicates that higher carb/high fiber eucaloric meals reduce subsequant snacking or next meal energy density. Whereas high fat meals tend to do the opposite in both human and rat models.</div>

If you hold calories and protein constant?  What evidence I'm aware of actually indicates the opposite, including a paper recently posted at Lyle's (I'm having trouble finding it at the moment) which held calories/protein constant and swapped out carb&lt;-->fat calories.</div>
I agree but I wasn't commenting on protein, only high fat versus high carbs replacement.
 
warning off-topic rant...
Not to get too off-topic, but in Mikeynov's defense, he is a really strong muscular guy for his genetics.
He is what some would call a natural 'ectomorph': slight-framed, small wrists etc. Before lifting, he used to be a little pixie!!
laugh.gif
But now he can bench, squat, and deadlift more than me and many guys here on this forum (all while being relatively light, I think around 170 lb.s or something) and I suspect that he is fairly close to his genetic limits without drugs as far as muscle size (while lean). I am basing this partly on his time training, and partly on his upper arm to wrist ratio which is quit impressive as I recall.
Anyway, it is very hard to look BIG while 'ripped' at the same time without drugs, and all of us have different genetics.

....end rant.
cool.gif
 
3 things:

1. I haven't ever reached a low body fat, so I defintely have no idea what amount of muscle I am capable of holding.

2. I definitely wasn't attacking you, hope it didn't come off that way...you look good in that pic.

3.  I am actually realizing I was meaning to address Martin with those questions, so while I appreciate your responses, I accidentally was asking the wrong person.  Sorry for not paying better attention!
sad.gif
That's why I was asking all those low-carb questions...
 
<div>
(soflsun @ May 04 2008,8:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">3 things:

1. I haven't ever reached a low body fat, so I defintely have no idea what amount of muscle I am capable of holding.

2. I definitely wasn't attacking you, hope it didn't come off that way...you look good in that pic.

3. I am actually realizing I was meaning to address Martin with those questions, so while I appreciate your responses, I accidentally was asking the wrong person. Sorry for not paying better attention!
sad.gif
That's why I was asking all those low-carb questions...</div>
Alright, this makes more sense, I was genuinely confused how this became a conversation about my physique (or lack thereof).

Either way, no biggie, I don't try to use my physique to &quot;prove&quot; any points, so I suppose I can get defensive when people try to bring it up in what seems like an irrelevant context.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 04 2008,8:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">warning off-topic rant...
Not to get too off-topic, but in Mikeynov's defense, he is a really strong muscular guy for his genetics.
He is what some would call a natural 'ectomorph': slight-framed, small wrists etc. Before lifting, he used to be a little pixie!!
laugh.gif
But now he can bench, squat, and deadlift more than me and many guys here on this forum (all while being relatively light, I think around 170 lb.s or something) and I suspect that he is fairly close to his genetic limits without drugs as far as muscle size (while lean). I am basing this partly on his time training, and partly on his upper arm to wrist ratio which is quit impressive as I recall.
Anyway, it is very hard to look BIG while 'ripped' at the same time without drugs, and all of us have different genetics.

....end rant.
cool.gif
</div>
I appreciate the defense, but I don't like speaking or conjecturing about genetic limits.

I really don't know what is possible. I do still have my eye on 200/300/400/500 though, I think. I'm adding the 200 as a strict press - seems a reasonable long term goal
tounge.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think a lot of people fool themselves about how much muscle they're capable of holding when very lean (say a legitimate ~8% bodyfat or whatever) and drug free, and it's something that needs to be experienced firsthand to really &quot;get.&quot;</div>
Totally agree with that. The transition from &quot;average&quot; to &quot;lean&quot; is quite enjoyable, but going from &quot;lean&quot; to &quot;leaner&quot; is a nightmare, at least for me. That's the reason I usually stop short of my goals when cutting.
sad.gif
 
Some thoughts on the topic. I believe that calories are a big part of the obesity issue. You grow fat when you ingest an excess of energy, but it depends on how the macronutrients are processed. Dietary fat is stored in adipose tissue and muscle after digestion is complete, no matter what you do. Excess dietary carbohydrates both make the carbohydrate metabolism shift into a higher gear and some carbohydrates are converted into fat and stored. Generally we do not eat an excess of protein but for the sake of argument, protein is also used as fuel. The more protein, the higher the useage as fuel.

Next, the blood glucose level is regulated by hormones such as insulin and glucagon. Insulin is a storage hormone, or anabolic hormone caused by ingested carbs and/or protein. It causes both glucose, fats and protein to be stored in different places. Protein and glucose goes primarily to muscle cells, while fat is primarily stored in fat cells (not the same as ingesting fat - that will be stored in both muscle and adipose tissue). Depending on the glycemic index of the ingested food the insulin rise is rapid or slow. As glucose is the brains primary energy source, too low levels will cause a response. Glucagon hormone levels go up. Glucagon counteracts insulin - it is a release hormone, or catabolic hormone, meaning it will cause glucose to be released from storage, and fat will also be made available as fuel primarily for type I muscle. Some protein will also be used as source for new glucose production. As long as there is ample supply of glucose stored in the liver this will be used for the various needs. When the supply becomes depleted protein degradation is increased to produce more glucose. There is some adjustments made to shift the fuel usage from mostly glucogen to ketones as these can replace some of the fuel. This adjustment takes days. In the meanwhile we need to supply some extra protein to save our precious muscles. Adipose tissue is slowly being emptied (this takes time due to the energy density) as fat is used as primary fuel. When we engage in more intense work, such as lift heavy weights, type II muscle will depend on ATP and phosphocreatine. Glucose stored in these muscles will be the major fuel source for intense work. Lactate produced during anaerobic work will be transported to the liver to be used again as glucose. When the glucose stores in the type II muscles are becoming depleted we will not have strength enough to work hard. We must decrease intensity. We may be able to run some marathons on the remaining fat stores, but no more heavy work unless we provide more carbs or proteins that can be used to refill the glucogen stores. Normally we eat every now and then, especially after a taxing workout.

During the recovery phase muscles are hungry to replenish energy stores so both carbs and fat will be routed into muscles and very little will be stored elsewhere. As the muscles are becoming fed this will change. It will return to normal. Fat will be stored in adipose tissue and carbs will be stored in the liver.

Now, what do different eating regimes do to our body?
- Eating only low carb, high fat will cause glucagon to be more prominent. The body is more catabolic. Eating too much fat will still make you fat. Every time you eat fat it is stored. One difference is that the body uses more fat as energy when carbs are not ingested.
- Eating only low fat, high carb on the other hand will cause insulin to be prominent during time of feeding. The liver and muscles will be well fed and the body will use glucose as fuel to a larger extent. Whatever fat stored in adipose tissues will not be used as fuel as much. It stays put. If we eat below maintenance calories we will have to use some fat as fuel to make up for the difference. That is traditional weight loss. If we eat above maintenace there are some fat gain but not that much. If we limit ingested fats we should be able to limit fat gain. However, the greater the excess calories the more fat is gained. It is the most economical way to get rid of excess energy. Store it in energy dense form = fat. Either way - too much carbs = fat gain - too much fat = fat gain.
- What happens if we eat normal? Both fat and carbs. Well, fat is stored, carbs are used as fuel. When insulin drops, yeah, you know the rest. But what happens if we eat every now and then? An apple here, a coke there. A banana, a mars bar, some candy, etc. Then the insulin levels will on average be above normal and stored fat will stay stored. Most of the dietary fat will be stored (I say most as there is always some circulation of fats). A high fat, high carb diet can be a recepie for disaster. The thing that makes a difference is how much calories that goes in versus goes out (if we also take termogenic effect and such into account). Overeating will make us fat. Overeating on high fat, high carb will speed up the process.

I eat carbs and protein directly after workout (afternoon) at a caloric surplus to make sure there is an energy surplus for the recovery phase. Then I begin an intermittant fast (IF) that will last until after lunch the next day to make sure some fat are used as fuel as well. Then I eat protein and fat below maintenance to just keep the wagon rolling. I could eat low GI carbs if I wanted to, it doesn't matter as long as I don't eat them all day long. Next day I repeat the process.

Now, have I missed something? Else, this is the framework.
 
nkl, the framework you outlined assumes that glucose is the primary fuel for the brain. This is incorrect. The brain can and will use ketones for fuel much more efficiently than it will use glucose. I won't go into the problems associated with glucose as fuel for the brain because it's outside the scope of this thread. But bear in mind that those problems can be used as strong arguments against glucose as the primary fuel for the brain. The point is that the need for glucose just dropped from whatever it was to minus 130g per day. This number comes from some recommendation or other that says that the brain uses about 130g of glucose per day.

It also assumes that glucose is the primary fuel for lean tissue including muscles. This is also incorrect. For similar reasons, glucose is just as toxic for lean tissue, including muscles, as it is for the brain. As with any other substance that can be toxic, toxicity is a function of quantity. Thus, glucose is toxic in quantities above that which we absolutely need. This need is fulfilled by gluconeogenesis which, as it turns out, doesn't need protein to continue once it's well established as the primary method to supply the needed glucose to those organs and tissues that can't use anything else but glucose as fuel. For instance, the retina and lens of the eye require glucose as fuel. Incidentally, this could be why diabetics become blind and/or develop cataracts once those tissues have become highly insulin resistant: Since they can only use glucose, being insulin resistant means there is no fuel to use and so cells probably die off with the obvious result.

It assumes as well that gluconeogenesis in itself is a catabolic pathway. This is incorrect. Dietary fat, triglycerides, contain a molecule called alpha glycerol phosphate. This molecule is critical both for gluconeogenesis in a lipolitic state and lipogenesis in a glycolitic state. In gluconeogenesis, it is used to create glucose. In lipogenesis, it is used to create triglycerides and/or recombine fatty acids into triglycerides inside fat cells. But the point here is that this molecule allows dietary fats, which mostly come in the form of triglycerides, to supply a fresh source of glucose. Also, as you mentioned, the by-product of burning glucose; lactic acid, is sent back to the liver to be converted back into glucose. These two pathways spare protein which means gluconeogenesis is not in fact catabolic.

It assumes that glucagon is the only hormone to cause blood glucose to rise. This is incorrect. There are many more hormones that have the ability to raise blood sugar. Glucagon is the main one while epinephrine, norepinephrine and adrenaline are all fat moblizing hormones and gluconeogenetic hormones. Incidentally, this is also an argument against glucose as the primary fuel even though we have more mechanisms to raise blood glucose than we have to lower it. In fact, it is because we have more mechanisms to raise blood glucose that glucose can't have been our primary fuel at any time during our evolution. The argument goes like this. If glucose was our primary fuel, then this implies the abundance of glycemic foods (carbohydrates) which in turn implies the lack of need for so many mechanisms to raise blood glucose. The opposing argument is this: That we have so many mechanisms to raise blood glucose implies that there was a lengthy and definitive lack of glycemic foods that warranted those same mechanisms. And/or that by extension we have evolved as fat burning machines. Granted, it's hypothetical but the logic follows adaptation and natural selection principles.

It assumes that insulin is anabolic when ingesting carbs. This is incorrect. It is anabolic when ingesting protein. But not when ingesting carbs. It is like this because carbs cause significant insulin resistance over time and according to the quantity of carbs ingested. This means that ingesting enough carbs over enough time will render lean tissue highly resistant to insulin and thus prevent the otherwise anabolic response that would be gotten when ingesting only protein. The reason cells grow resistant is because of glucose. Glucose is toxic in quantities greater than our absolute basic need. Since protein doesn't cause a blood glucose increase, cells don't become insulin resistant. Or at least, if they do in this case, do so over a much much longer period of time. Granted, the anabolic boost from carbs may work for a short while but not for very long.

On principle, I still disagree with the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis.
 
I did leave out all sorts of stuff to make the post shorter. I will address your post as far as I'm able.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">nkl, the framework you outlined assumes that glucose is the primary fuel for the brain. This is incorrect. The brain can and will use ketones for fuel much more efficiently than it will use glucose.</div>Actually I do mention the shift, although I do not specifically name the brain:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is some adjustments made to shift the fuel usage from mostly glucogen to ketones as these can replace some of the fuel. This adjustment takes days.</div>The brain will still rely on glucose but ketones can also be used. (I meant glucose in the quote, not glucogen).

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It also assumes that glucose is the primary fuel for lean tissue including muscles. This is also incorrect. </div>I do not say so. For example, I said: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...fat will also be made available as fuel primarily for type I muscle.</div>Muscles use different fuels depending on type. We use type I muscle all day long. They are what keeps our limbs positioned while standing or sitting. For heavier work different types of II muscles kicks in and they depend more on glucose.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It assumes as well that gluconeogenesis in itself is a catabolic pathway. This is incorrect.</div>Perhaps not entirely catabolic but that element is also present. That is why it is recommended we supplement with protein. A ketogenic diet is protein sparing, but that is after the fuel adjustment has taken place. But still after adjustment we need to supplement protein. And if we are looking for hypertrophy that is essential.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It assumes that glucagon is the only hormone to cause blood glucose to rise. This is incorrect. </div>Again, I did simplify to make the comparison a little easier. Catecholamines will stimulate fat mobilisation from adipose tissue and muscle uptake of fats. Insulin do the opposite. Cortisol trigger storage of fats into adipose tissue. I quote Exercise Endocrinology here: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The catecholamine role in plasma glucose counter-regulation is therefore secondary to their role in lipolysis and auxiliary to pancreatic glucagon but becomes more important during exercise than at rest and dominant at very high exercise intensities.</div>As for reasons why certain mechanisms are used in the human organism that is a matter of faith.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It assumes that insulin is anabolic when ingesting carbs. This is incorrect. </div>The reasoning behind me saying that it is a storage hormone is based on the following, again from Exercise Endocrinology: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The chief functions of insulin, in order of decreasing sensitivity to its actions, are inhibition of lipolysis ..., inhibition of hepatic glucose release ..., and stimulation of cellular uptake of carbohydrates... At much higher concentrations it will inhibit lipid oxidation... It inhibits hepatic glucose production... Insulin also directs cellular metabolism toward utilization of carbohydrates by stimulating glycolysis and glucose oxidation... Insulin facilitates de novo fat synthesis in the liver... Insulin routes plasma lipids into adipose tissue rather than into skeletal or cardiac muscle by stimulating adipose tissue LPL and by inhibiting muscle LPL... The final anabolic insulin action is stimulation of protein synthesis through increased transport of amino acids into muscle and other cells, initiation of protein translation, and inhibition of protein degradation.</div>
As I see it nothing have changed.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1. If energy excess causes us to grow fat and if carbs make us eat more then eating carbs makes us fat. 2. But eating carbs by itself makes us fat anyway so it's a double whammy when we do eat carbs. At least if we believe that eating in excess makes us fat.</div>

1. This sort of logic isn't necessarily true, causality arguments can run wild in that sense, you could say that my foot hurts because i dropped this object onto it. I dropped this object onto my foot because my hand released it. My hand released it because I have a hand that i can control. I have a hand i can control because i was born with this hand. I was born with this hand because my parents gave birth to me. THEREFORE my foot hurts BECAUSE my parents gave birth to me. Not ideally true as it's not a direct cause, but then you went on to say:
But eating carbs by itself makes us fat anyway

but are you saying that every gram of carbohydrate i ingest is being converted to fat? I don't think so, or are you saying that the reason people gain weight is because of TOO many carbohydrates? (which would probably just end up being a positive energy balance hence the weight gain). I don't understand.

P.S. thanks for the b-day wish Dan! 21, gettin older ;)
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ May 08 2008,2:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1. If energy excess causes us to grow fat and if carbs make us eat more then eating carbs makes us fat. 2. But eating carbs by itself makes us fat anyway so it's a double whammy when we do eat carbs. At least if we believe that eating in excess makes us fat.</div>

1. This sort of logic isn't necessarily true, causality arguments can run wild in that sense, you could say that my foot hurts because i dropped this object onto it. I dropped this object onto my foot because my hand released it. My hand released it because I have a hand that i can control. I have a hand i can control because i was born with this hand. I was born with this hand because my parents gave birth to me. THEREFORE my foot hurts BECAUSE my parents gave birth to me. Not ideally true as it's not a direct cause, but then you went on to say:
But eating carbs by itself makes us fat anyway

but are you saying that every gram of carbohydrate i ingest is being converted to fat? I don't think so, or are you saying that the reason people gain weight is because of TOO many carbohydrates? (which would probably just end up being a positive energy balance hence the weight gain). I don't understand.
...</div>
I'm saying eating carbs makes us fat regardless of how it does so. Either indirectly by making us eat more thereby invoking the PCB hypothesis, or directly by causing fat to accumulate thereby refuting the PCB hypothesis. It's 'either or' only for the sake of argument when in fact eating carbs does both: It makes us eat more and it causes fat to accumulate simultaneously.

As for further cause and effect. We could say it makes us eat more because it causes fat to accumulate. We could also say it causes fat to accumulate because it makes us eat more.
 
I'm all for low carb diets, use one myself and recommend it to all of my clients for weight loss or improving health. But we need to get our facts strait...

De Novo Lipogenesis is the conversion of other energy substrates, mainly carbohydrates or protein, to fat.

De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.
Hellerstein MK.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, 94270-3104, USA.

The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, whereas the capacity to convert fats into CHO does not exist. Here, the quantitative importance of DNL in humans is reviewed, focusing on the response to increased intake of dietary CHO. Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. 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. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans. Under most dietary conditions, the two major macronutrient energy sources (CHO and fat) are therefore not interconvertible currencies; CHO and fat have independent, though interacting, economies and independent regulation. The metabolic mechanisms and physiologic implications of the functional block between CHO and fat in humans are discussed, but require further investigation.

No common energy currency: de novo lipogenesis as the road less traveled1,2
Marc K Hellerstein

1 From the Department of Nutritional Sciences &amp; Toxicology, University of California, Berkeley, and the Department of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco.

2 Address reprint requests to MK Hellerstein, Department of Nutritional Sciences, 119 Morgan Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3104. E-mail: [email protected].

See corresponding article on page 737.

Bees make wax (lipid) from honey (carbohydrate). Pigs fatten on a grain diet. Indeed, all organisms, from bacteria to mammals, have the enzymes of de novo lipogenesis. The physiologic function of de novo lipogenesis has therefore seemed obvious to biochemists: the de novo lipogenesis pathway links carbohydrates and fats, the 2 most important forms of chemical energy for most organisms.

Because storage of energy as lipid is much more efficient than storage as carbohydrate, the presumption has been that animals use de novo lipogenesis as a metabolic safety valve for storage of carbohydrate energy present in excess of carbohydrate oxidative needs (ie, carbohydrate energy surplus). On the basis of this presumed role, inhibitors of de novo lipogenesis [such as (–)hydroxycitrate, an inhibitor of ATP citrate (pro-S)-lyase] have received attention as potential therapeutic agents for obesity and hyperlipidemia.

Most experimental data in humans, however, contradict this view of the function of de novo lipogenesis. Initial studies in which indirect calorimetry was used showed little or no net de novo lipogenesis after short-term carbohydrate overfeeding (1). Subsequent isotopic studies confirmed the absence of quantitatively significant flux through hepatic de novo lipogenesis under most conditions of carbohydrate energy surplus (2,3).

In this issue of the Journal, McDevitt et al (4) contribute useful data relevant to this topic. In a well-designed study, these investigators combined whole-body room indirect calorimetry (to measure net fuel oxidation and de novo lipogenesis) with isotopic measurement of hepatic de novo lipogenesis (by isotope incorporation from deuterated water into triacylglycerol of circulating VLDL). McDevitt et al report that hepatic de novo lipogenesis was stimulated by 4 d of surplus carbohydrate energy in women, that this stimulation was not significantly different when the surplus carbohydrate was in the form of glucose or sucrose, and that the de novo lipogenesis values reached were similar for lean and obese women. Additionally, McDevitt et al report that, in all settings, the total de novo lipogenesis flux represented a small fraction of both the surplus carbohydrate energy ingested and the total fat stored in the body. The authors calculated that between 3 and 8 g fat/d was produced through de novo lipogenesis compared with 360–390 g carbohydrate ingested/d and 60–75 g body fat stored/d. Thus, the addition of excess carbohydrate energy to a mixed diet so that total energy intake exceeded total energy expenditure (TEE) increased body fat stores, but not by conversion of the carbohydrate to fat. Instead, the oxidation of dietary fat was suppressed and fat storage thereby increased.

Several points regarding the experimental design of McDevitt et al should be noted. First, the overfeeding protocol provided less total carbohydrate energy than daily TEE. It was therefore energetically possible to substitute carbohydrate for other fuels without changing TEE or breaking any laws of thermodynamics. The few exceptions to the rule that de novo lipogenesis is quantitatively minor have been when carbohydrate energy intake massively exceeds TEE, eg, the Guru Walla overfeeding tradition in Cameroon, wherein adolescent boys ingest &gt; 29.3 MJ (7000 kcal) carbohydrate/d and gain 12 kg body fat over 10 wk while eating only 4 kg fat (5). Thus, de novo lipogenesis does become a quantitatively major pathway when carbohydrate energy intake exceeds TEE, but this circumstance is unusual in daily life.

Second, the period of overfeeding used by McDevitt et al (4) was relatively brief and included substantial dietary fat. Total body stores or proportions of different fatty acids would not have been altered by the 4-d protocol. If fatty acids themselves inhibit de novo lipogenesis, we cannot extrapolate the results to longer periods of surplus-carbohydrate, low-fat diets.

Third, the authors measured only hepatic, not adipose, de novo lipogenesis. Indeed, there is an element of tautology in the authors' argument that hepatic de novo lipogenesis is not quantitatively significant. McDevitt et al assumed a fixed VLDL-triacylglycerol production rate (30 g/d, or 300 mg•kg-1•d-1) on the basis of values published in the literature. Even if de novo lipogenesis were 100%, the maximum quantitative contribution would be 30 g/d (compared with a carbohydrate intake of 350 g/d). It would have been preferable to measure VLDL-triacylglycerol production rates directly under the conditions of overfeeding to exclude the possibility of VLDL-triacylglycerol production rates of 100 g/d, for example.

Some experimental evidence for a potential role of adipose de novo lipogenesis has emerged. Aarsland et al (6) administered glucose to human subjects at rates greatly above TEE. After 4–7 d of overfeeding, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (measured isotopically) was stimulated 10-fold above baseline values but remained &lt;3% of whole-body net de novo lipogenesis according to indirect calorimetry. These authors concluded that adipose de novo lipogenesis must be occurring. Using very-long-term labeling protocols with 2H2O, we recently observed considerably more de novo lipogenesis in adipose tissue than in liver in rodents (S Turner, E Murphy, MK Hellerstein, unpublished observations, 2001). Studies in which adipose lipids of humans consuming euenergetic diets were labeled with 2H2O have not shown high rates of de novo lipogenesis (7; F Antelo, A Strawford, MK Hellerstein, unpublished observations, 2001), but these techniques have not yet been used under conditions of carbohydrate overfeeding. This is an area that needs further investigation.

Finally, technical factors are unlikely to explain the low rates of de novo lipogenesis reported by McDevitt et al. If anything, their method somewhat overestimates de novo lipogenesis because incorporation of deuterium into the glycerol moiety of triacylglycerol will result in an artifactual 6–7% de novo lipogenesis and elongation of fatty acids might add a further slight overestimation of de novo lipogenesis.

The model of the human macronutrient energy economy that emerges from the study of McDevitt et al is consistent with previous work (2,3,8,9). In the hierarchy of fuels, dietary carbohydrate appears to have a higher priority for oxidation than does dietary fat; when both are present, carbohydrate is chosen. The 2 major macronutrient energy sources (carbohydrates and fats) are not, however, interconvertible energy currencies. Fat cannot be converted to carbohydrate in animals because animals lack the enzymes of the glyoxylate pathway, and carbohydrate is not converted to fat because of a functional block of uncertain cause.

What are the implications of this model? Some conclusions should not be drawn. First, these results do not mean that extra carbohydrate energy represents &quot;free&quot; energy in terms of body fatness. By sparing fat in the body's fuel mixture, surplus carbohydrate energy will make people fatter, even though it is not directly converted to fat. The absence of significant de novo lipogenesis is bad news for high-carbohydrate dieters for another reason, in that the high thermogenic cost of de novo lipogenesis cannot be invoked as an energy-dissipating feature of such diets. Second, the effects of carbohydrate-rich diets on macronutrient balances should not be confused with their potential effect on plasma lipids and atherogenesis. High-carbohydrate euenergetic or hyperenergetic diets consistently induce hypertriglyceridemia, the public health consequences of which remain controversial (10).

The implications of not having a single interconvertible energy currency, but instead having 2 independent, although interacting, macronutrient economies (8), remain intriguing and incompletely explored. Does the rule that carbohydrate availability to tissues controls whole-body fuel selection also apply to endogenous glucose production by the liver (9)? It might then be concluded that hepatic metabolism and hepatic genes are more likely to contribute to obesity through effects on glucose production than through effects on fat synthesis (11). Also, are there regulatory, as opposed to quantitative, functions of the de novo lipogenesis pathway? Certainly, malonyl-CoA, the first committed metabolite in the de novo lipogenesis pathway, has several known regulatory actions. In addition to well-established antiketogenic actions in liver, malonyl-CoA concentrations are believed to influence fuel selection in muscle, fuel sensing and insulin secretion in the pancreatic ß cell, and perhaps fuel sensing and appetite regulation by the brain (12). The fate of tissue malonyl-CoA generated for regulatory functions is a related, unanswered question (eg, is disposal of regulatory malonyl-CoA an unrecognized function of the de novo lipogenesis pathway?).

Finally, what is the role of de novo lipogenesis in human disease? Recent studies (13) have identified different insulin signaling pathways for de novo lipogenesis and cholesterol synthesis, on the one hand, and carbohydrate metabolism, on the other, as well as co-induction of de novo lipogenesis with cholesterogenesis by overexpression of the sterol response element binding protein. Thus, is de novo lipogenesis involved in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance or hypercholesterolemic syndromes? Or does de novo lipogenesis influence intracellular signaling pathways involving myristoylation, palmitoylation, or membrane fatty acids? These questions and more arise from the observation that de novo lipogenesis is the pathway of last resort and that, at least regarding converting carbohydrates to fats, humans are neither bees nor pigs.

REFERENCES

1. Acheson KJ, Flatt JP, Jequier E. Glycogen synthesis versus lipogenesis after a 500 gram carbohydrate meal in man. Metabolism 1982;31:1234–40.[Medline]
2. Hellerstein MK, Schwarz JM, Neese RA. Regulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis in humans. Annu Rev Nutr 1996;16:523–57.[Medline]
3. Hellerstein MK. De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. In: Proceedings of FAO/IDECG Workshop, Lower and Upper Limits of Adaptation to Energy Intake and its Principal Substrates, Carbohydrates and Lipids. Eur J Clin Nutr 1999;53:S53–65.
4. McDevitt RM, Bott SJ, Harding M, Coward WA, Bluck LJ, Prentice AM. De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;74:737–46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Pasquet P, Brigant L, Froment A, et al. Massive overfeeding and energy balance in men: the Guru Walla model. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;56:483–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Aarsland A, Chinkes D, Wolfe RR. Contributions of de novo synthesis of fatty acids to total VLDL-triglyceride secretion during prolonged hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia in normal man. J Clin Invest 1996;98:2008–17.[Medline]
7. Guo ZK, Cella LK, Baum C, Ravussin E, Schoeller DA. De novo lipogenesis in adipose tissue of lean and obese women: application of deuterated water and isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Int J Obes 2000;24:932–7.[Medline]
8. Flatt JP. Dietary fat, carbohydrate balance, and weight maintenance: effects of exercise. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;45:296–306.[Free Full Text]
9. Schwarz JM, Neese RA, Turner S, Dare D, Hellerstein MK. Short-term alterations in carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic glucose production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel selection. J Clin Invest 1995;96:2735–43.
10. Parks EJ, Hellerstein MK. Effects of low-fat, high carbohydrate diets on serum lipids in humans: a review of the literature. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:412–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Pagliassotti MJ, Horton TJ, Gayles EC, Koppenhafer TA, Rosenzweig TD, Hill JO. Reduced insulin suppression of glucose appearance is related to susceptibility to dietary obesity in rats. Am J Physiol 1997;272:R1264–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Ruderman NB, Saha AK, Vavvas D, Witters L. Malonyl-CoA, fuel sensing, and insulin resistance. Am J Physiol 1999;276:E1–18.
13. Shimomura I, Matsuda M, Hammer RE, Bashmakov Y, Brown MS, Goldstein DL. Decreased IRS-2 and increased SREBP-1c lead to mixed insulin resistance and sensitivity in livers of lipodystrophic and ob/ob mice. Mol Cell 2000;6:77–86.[Medline]
 
<div>
(pete69 @ May 08 2008,12:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm all for low carb diets, use one myself and recommend it to all of my clients for weight loss or improving health. But we need to get our facts strait...
...
Several points regarding the experimental design of McDevitt et al should be noted. First, the overfeeding protocol provided less total carbohydrate energy than daily TEE. It was therefore energetically possible to substitute carbohydrate for other fuels without changing TEE or breaking any laws of thermodynamics. The few exceptions to the rule that de novo lipogenesis is quantitatively minor have been when carbohydrate energy intake massively exceeds TEE, eg, the Guru Walla overfeeding tradition in Cameroon, wherein adolescent boys ingest &gt; 29.3 MJ (7000 kcal) carbohydrate/d and gain 12 kg body fat over 10 wk while eating only 4 kg fat (5). Thus, de novo lipogenesis does become a quantitatively major pathway when carbohydrate energy intake exceeds TEE, but this circumstance is unusual in daily life.
...</div>
Indeed, let's get our facts strait.

If proposition A &quot;eating carbohydrates makes us fat&quot; is true,
And if proposition B &quot;two thirds of US adults are overweight&quot; is true,
Then proposition C &quot;...this circumstance is unusual in daily life.&quot; must be false.

Is the total quantity of carbohydrates the cause of that weight gain in the Guru Walla adolescent boys? Or is it the proportion of carbohydrates to fat that is the cause? In either case, it's easy to point to a reduction of carbohydrates as the solution. And it still brings us back to carbohydrates, not dietary fat, as the cause of obesity.
 
It is an inflated total caloric intake (i.e. improper nutrition) without a care about exercise that has made countries like the United States fat? Simply put, people are eating too much and not exercising enough. I cannot understand why this is being debated.

Blame carbs, blame dietary fat, blame protein and blame alcohol. Blame them all...

4C+4P+9F+7A + 0*EXERCISE = OBESITY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top