Fat Attack: Carb Fate

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by marc999, Dec 13, 2002.

  1. marc999

    marc999 New Member

    hi can someone please give his opinion on this, i'm doing a CKD now, and stumbled upon this today. study suggest that eating carbs is not likely to make one fat, since there being used to restore glycogen stores in liver and muscle.

    Fat Attack: Carbohydrate Fate

    by Jerry Brainium


    The bulk of published research on the metabolic fate of carbohydrate foods shows that it’s difficult to get fat simply from eating too many carbs. Nutrition scientists point to several reasons that account for this. Carbs require more energy than fat to be metabolized, and the primary initial use of carbs is to replenish depleted glycogen stores in liver and muscle. Until those stores are completely filled, most carbs are diverted toward glycogen synthesis, which is largely controlled by insulin-activated enzymes.
    Another frequently overlooked aspect of carbohydrate metabolism involves the interaction between carbs and exercise. That was scrutinized in a recent study of the effects of rest and exercise on the intakes of pasta meals.1 Pasta is a rich source of carbohydrates. The size of the pasta meals varied from small (150 grams) to large (400 grams), or about one-third pound to nearly a pound of cooked pasta. The pasta was labeled with a metabolic tracer.
    The subjects consisted of three groups of six healthy, sedentary males who ate either the small or the large pasta meal. Some subjects didn’t exercise, while others spent 90 minutes to three hours on a stationary bike. Those doing the longer workout used a low exercise intensity, while the shorter workouts featured a higher, though not maximal, level of intensity. The subjects ate the pasta following their workouts, with the fate of the ingested carbs monitored for eight hours afterward.
    In those who didn’t exercise but ate the large pasta meal, fat oxidation was totally suppressed and a small amount of glucose was converted into four to six grams of fat. Those who engaged in exercise—either moderate or low intensity—showed significantly elevated levels of fat oxidation, or burning, despite eating the high-carb pasta meals. Glucose oxidation was similar in the group eating the small pasta meal but lower in subjects exercising at low intensity after the larger pasta meal. It was completely suppressed in those exercising at a higher or moderate level of intensity. The lack of glucose oxidation in the exercising groups shows that the extra glucose derived from the larger pasta meal was diverted to glycogen replenishment following exercise. Fat oxidation following exercise was similar in both the low- and moderate-intensity exercise groups.
    The conclusion was that fat synthesis is completely suppressed after exercise, even if you eat a huge amount of carbohydrates. Another finding was that fat oxidation after exercise didn’t differ between low- and moderate-intensity exercise. Only those who ate the pasta and didn’t exercise showed any fat synthesis, and even that was small, consisting of an average of 13.3 grams of glucose converted into four to six grams of fat, or only 4 percent of the carb load.
    On the other hand, the authors point out that carbs can be converted into bodyfat if you take in more than your body needs for energy. In addition, eating more carbs than you use for energy purposes over several days (the fate of carbs in most sedentary people) can easily result in stored bodyfat. That’s particularly true for people who are already fat and thus often show diminished thermogenesis and insulin perturbations, such as secretion of excess insulin due to insulin insensitivity, which in turn is directly related to bodyfat levels. The conversion of carbs to fat also varies with individuals, and even in this new study, some subjects did convert 35 to 45 grams of glucose derived from the pasta into 12 to 16 grams of fat. The message from the study is that you don’t have to worry about carbs you eat after an intense workout, even if you’re on a carb-restricted diet. Carbs you eat after exercise will be used mainly for glycogen replenishment. If anything, not taking in carbs and protein after a workout will blunt exercise recovery by limiting vital muscle and liver glycogen replenishment.

    1 Folch, N., et al. (2001). Metabolic response to small and large 13-C labeled pasta meals following rest or exercise in man. British J Nutr. 85:671-680.
     
  2. Calkid

    Calkid New Member

    LOL! That flies in the face of pop diet wisdom! All my female friends are like "Ewww, how can you eat so many carbs?" I just smile and pound another plate of rice & pasta.

    This corroborates something I remember Jules saying, that 3-4 hours post-workout is the window for huge eatin' without fat storage, or something of the like. My suggestion to you, Marc: Post-workout, have an enormous carb meal. But let that be it for the day's carbs. I remember hearing that the body generally places a priority on using energy for glycogen replenishment before growth. So a huge hit of carbs should be just fine for you, as it will go mostly to glycogen replenishment and you will be in ketosis for the rest of the day.

    -Calkid
     
  3. vicious

    vicious New Member

    Your body is smarter than you. Respect Lyle's wisdom. ;)

    It's just important to remember that your body is constantly gaining, burning, using, losing fat/carbs/protein. At the end of the day, you want to come out on top, but it's a give and take up to sleepy time.

    Glycogen stores and base insulin levels will affect how carbs are stored. Many people on the ABCDE diet start packing on the fat during the 2nd week because the glycogen stores are already stuffed. Generally, the higher those stores are, the less likely your body will use muscle for energy. Also, glycogen levels are, I think, the primary energy source for your muscles during protein synthesis.

    The nutrient partitioning effect is why I'm such a big fan of training everyday. Most people basically gain fat on their rest days, not on their workout days.

    cheers,
    Jules
     
  4. Phynn_Boi

    Phynn_Boi New Member

    At the end of the day, it's about calories in vs. calories out. Carbs, proteins, and fats will all make you fat if you consistently eat more calories worth of them than your body uses. Any diet that works for someone, whether it be ketogenic, low-fat, isocaloric, warrior, partitioning, or whatever, works for that reason.
     
  5. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Lipogenesis from carb (and protein for that matter) has always been classified as UNLIKELY (Well for a large number of years anyway). Of course, this is part of what what swept the high carb craze into gear, if its unlikely to happen from carbs, then you can eat all you want as long as its low-fat.
    They didnt take into account that energy intake is over what you need (excess calories) you will store the fat that you eat.

    After training is also a different ball-game as it aids in supercompensation of muscle glycogen...

    And Jules, the training everyday is an excellent point, now i just have to work out how i am going to manage it..
     
  6. vicious

    vicious New Member

    If I had a choice, I'd gladly do twice-a-day 3x-a-week over 6x-a-week. If I had a choice. :)

    What I do is 5-6x a week, same exercises, for my "odd" weeks. On the weeks where I'm approaching max, back down to 3-4x a week.

    Now you could shift down the load one workout. That is, hit your 15RM max on your first day of 10s,. your 10RM on first day of 5s . . and so on. Or hope that you can stay just ahead of the fatigue from all the strength you built.

    Besides the potential hit hormonally, you'd be surprised how quickly this sort of frequency depletes glycogen. You may seem flatter on higher frequency. To whatever bulking diet you do, I'd recommend a 500 calorie daily jump right there.

    cheers,
    Jules
     
  7. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    My problem is that I also do lower reps for the PL side, and this doesnt deplete glycogen as much.......
    I was thinking more of hiit on the off days, (and maybe a short one on the 'on' days) to deplete glycogen predominantly from the legs (cycling). As, while i am worried about leg size, I am aiming for maximum bench strength this year, and lowered glycogen ruins my strength.
    Dieting doesnt agree with me at the moment, stress drives my appetite extremely high (and my bodyweight)

    Just giving me ideas to limit weight gain..
     
  8. marc999

    marc999 New Member

    thnx for the advise guys. :)
     
  9. vicious

    vicious New Member

    Oops. Wrong post. :lol
     
  10. Determined

    Determined New Member

    Vicious,
    I like your idea of daily workouts for fat loss. But why do you repeat the same exercices 6x/week? I would have expected a scheme of alternating betweeen muscle groups, so each muscle would have the "HST-recommended" 48 hrs. recovery time. I have also read that testosterone levels diminish after 1hr. workouts, so splitting the workouts in two might help on that end as well.
     
  11. One more thing to add (why can't I keep my mouth shut sometimes?)

    Let's say your diet contains all the calories you need for the day, and you add some excess carbs. Will the carbs turn to fat? Probably not. Will you gain fat? Probably yes. Why? The body is likely to use the excess carbs for energy INSTEAD of some of the fat you ate, and that fat will get stored.

    Studies looking simply at carbs or simply at fat or simply at protien can lead us astray. . . when you roll it all together, it's more complex than the individual components.
     
  12. stevie

    stevie New Member

    one interesting thought i had....wonder if anyone has any comments.
    Most carb sources are man made!!! Pasta, bread sugar products etc These are not natural! Wheat was not a natural food of our prehistoric ansestors. Wheat became staple with the dawn of agriculture. In addition, the potato is not native to most parts of the world. It has only been eaten for the lat few centuries!! My point is that most of the carb sources we eat and have been told to eat were not eaten when our ancestors evolved. Yet they maintained a high level of daily activity!!?
    Most dietitians go on about how we require so many carbs, but do we really need them?
    Any ideas?
     
  13. BIZ

    BIZ New Member

    The people that visit this site probably need the carbs more than an obese person who sits around and does not work out. I sit at my job a lot, so I would not need as many carbs as a construction worker who works hard 10 hours a day. I guess it all depends on lifestyle.
     
  14. restless

    restless New Member

    We don't. Our bodies can make them out of anything. They are handy for a weight lifter though.
     
  15. vicious

    vicious New Member

    But to be fair, neither were vegetable oil, milk, or legumes. Plus is cooking really "natural"?

    I personally believe man subsisted mostly on fruit. It's certainly easier to pick an orange than hunt a rodent. It's possible the value of animals in the caveman diet had more to do with organs than the flesh.

    I don't think it's been established that 36 hours is necesarilly the general optimal time between workouts. Protein synthesis rates drop back into "regular" levels at about 36 hours, but they are at their peak at around 24 hours after workout. That said, one has to consider how frequent workouts would affect cortisol levels as well as fatigue, RBE, glycogen depletion, etc.

    cheers,
    Jules
     
  16. restless

    restless New Member

    Not really. Fruit was seasonal and not available year round. Makind subsisted on the typical hunther gatherer diet, around 65 % animal, the rest veggetable, fruit, nuts, etc.. . Generally low carb, but not necessarily keto.
     
  17. Lil Popa Pump

    Lil Popa Pump New Member

    Re: What early man ate

    This is one of my favorite quotes of 2002:

    "Cavemen were not pushing their bodies toward the maximum sustainable degree of muscularity they would hold, while simultaneously attempting to take body fat to near physiological starvation levels, thus one should be inclined to question the notion that their diet is ideal for such a situation." Par Deus
     
  18. Lil Popa Pump

    Lil Popa Pump New Member

    The evidence of this assertion is not as strong as you would think. In fact, some scientists think a better term for early man would be "gatherer-hunter" because there is some evidence that early lived mainly on roots, leafy greens and other vegetables, legumes, some fruit, etc. and that animal "meat" was somewhat rare (as mentioned above the organs held much higher value than flesh).
     
  19. vicious

    vicious New Member

    Good movie, Full Metal Jacket is. :)

    I've never been comfortable with some of the caveman arguments either. Heart disease didn't increase significantly until the last 100-200 years when meat became cheap and readily available. On the other hand, I can see where the proliferation of grain-based productions, dosed in partially hydrogenated oils, has caused some very nasty effects in the general health.

    I'm inclined to think that maybe the real baddie is the fatty acid content of our animal and vegetable fat. Until 200 years ago, any animal we ate had significant levels of omega-3. Until 150 years ago, we didn't have margarine. Until 50 years ago, deep fried food wasn't a staple of the American diet.
     
  20. restless

    restless New Member

    I never said the organs part wasn't correct, they probably ate the whole animal, small animals including rats, snakes, insects, some tubs, fruits, veggies and virtually no grains. More or less typical hunther gatherer diet. In the case of the Enuik with around 100 % meat and fish, in other areas less.


    Beyondveg.com is a great resource for paleo nutrition info, in my opinion.
     

Share This Page