Energy equation - the best article I've ever read

13»

Replies

  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    edited December 2017
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    For two people eating the same calories and having identical bodies, the person fasting will absolutely perform more gluconeogensis that the person that is not fasting. I don't see how you cannot understand that!

    Let's take it to two extremes where reality is somewhere in the middle. The first extreme is a person having a glucose drip or something that will provide calories at the exact same rate as the persons TDEE rate. No gluconeogensis is going to happen. The second extreme is a person eating the same calories in an instant. That person will have a large temporary surplus. Some of the extra will be turned to fat to then later be turned back into glucose/keytones to provide the bodies energy needs while fasted. That person will perform a lot of gluconeogensis. Does that not make sense to you? In reality, the person eating a lot of meals is closer to the glucose drip example and the person fasting 20-hrs is closer to the second example. When fasting the person will be undergoing more gluconeogenesis and because that is inefficient, they will burn more calories!
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    edited December 2017
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    For two people eating the same calories and having identical bodies, the person fasting will absolutely perform more gluconeogensis that the person that is not fasting. I don't see how you cannot understand that!

    Let's take it to two extremes where reality is somewhere in the middle. The first extreme is a person having a glucose drip or something that will provide calories at the exact same rate as the persons TDEE rate. No gluconeogensis is going to happen. The second extreme is a person eating the same calories in an instant. That person will have a large temporary surplus. Some of the extra will be turned to fat to then later be turned back into glucose/keytones to provide the bodies energy needs while fasted. That person will perform a lot of gluconeogensis. Does that not make sense to you? In reality, the person eating a lot of meals is closer to the glucose drip example and the person fasting 20-hrs is closer to the second example. When fasting the person will be undergoing more gluconeogenesis and because that is inefficient, they will burn more calories!

    Please go educate your self on GNG.. you can start with this. You fail to recognize people have stored glycogen and fat to provide energy. Thinking you are going to experience GNG because you fasted, its the equivalent of saying your will produce ketones from eating a bunch cream cheese.

    http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1

    If your eating at maintenance or below, you will use stored glycogen. If fasted, you will also attempt to replace it with.....gluconeogensis. No?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    edited December 2017
    blambo61 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    For two people eating the same calories and having identical bodies, the person fasting will absolutely perform more gluconeogensis that the person that is not fasting. I don't see how you cannot understand that!

    Let's take it to two extremes where reality is somewhere in the middle. The first extreme is a person having a glucose drip or something that will provide calories at the exact same rate as the persons TDEE rate. No gluconeogensis is going to happen. The second extreme is a person eating the same calories in an instant. That person will have a large temporary surplus. Some of the extra will be turned to fat to then later be turned back into glucose/keytones to provide the bodies energy needs while fasted. That person will perform a lot of gluconeogensis. Does that not make sense to you? In reality, the person eating a lot of meals is closer to the glucose drip example and the person fasting 20-hrs is closer to the second example. When fasting the person will be undergoing more gluconeogenesis and because that is inefficient, they will burn more calories!

    Please go educate your self on GNG.. you can start with this. You fail to recognize people have stored glycogen and fat to provide energy. Thinking you are going to experience GNG because you fasted, its the equivalent of saying your will produce ketones from eating a bunch cream cheese.

    http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1

    If your eating at maintenance or below, you will use stored glycogen. If fasted, you will also attempt to replace it with.....gluconeogensis. No?

    Your body has a pretty amazing ability to store glycogen... upwards of 700g in active people and 500g in non active. So if you consume carbs, it will be replenished.

    And even if GNG, its not going to occur at high rates, especially have a higher impact that a higher protein diet would have.... one that would be difficult to achieve with long fast. So any increase in GNG would then be reversed by lack of protein....

    And this doesnt even consider the impacts on metabolism when amino acids are required to convert to energy (btw, not all amino acids are glucogenic).

    So sure, even if fasting will increase EE through GNG, it will subsequently be reduced by lack of protein and/or loss of muacle from inadequate protein turnover.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited December 2017
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Did you not read what I said? It's been studied.

    You can reason all you want, in practice, it's offset by some other factor (probably stored fat and glycogen) apparently and provides no advantage. The theoretical advantage of it has occurred to other people, you know. It's been demonstrated not to have any metabolic advantage.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    And even that is so small you can basically ignore it unless you were starting out as a 90/5/5 vegan.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    And even that is so small you can basically ignore it unless you were starting out as a 90/5/5 vegan.

    While the TEF may be small, the impact of high protein diets is significant.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    How high?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    blambo61 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Le sigh. Every quickly googled resource on gluconeogenesis shows that it's 53-57% efficient.

    Additionally, everything states that it's THEORETICALLY metabolically advantageous, but no studies have demonstrated any such thing actually happening in practice.

    This is why it's being dismissed.

    By simple reasoning it is advantageous. You only get, by your numbers, 53-57% of the calories out of fat available for body energy needs so more than 1kcal of fat is used to provide 1kcal of energy for the body. If you know it's not 100% efficient, how can you argue that it makes no difference. A person who fasts 20+ hours a day is probably doing gluconeogenesis or producing keytones from fat to supply for probably 16-hrs a day. That is significant. Mice have been shown to lose more weight fasting when eating the same cals as a non-fasting group. I know their physiology is different than ours but from a thermodynamics / energy balance equation perspective, explain that! Human experiments are hard to control and the variation in the humans is a lot greater than genetically bred mice so you can see results easier in the mice.

    Except you continously fail to recognize that GNG is a demand driven process, not a supply driven process. It doesn't just occur because you fast. That is literal nonsense to believe it does. It occurs when the body is forced to create glucose from proteins or fats. And even in the one human study that you provided, the increase in EE was minimal, and that doesn't even equate for the fact that protein was increased.

    If you are going to make for an argument for anything that will increase EE, eat more protein.

    Also, the TEF of fat is almost nothing... literally 1%. Carbs are 5 to 6% and protein is 20 to 30%.

    For two people eating the same calories and having identical bodies, the person fasting will absolutely perform more gluconeogensis that the person that is not fasting. I don't see how you cannot understand that!

    Let's take it to two extremes where reality is somewhere in the middle. The first extreme is a person having a glucose drip or something that will provide calories at the exact same rate as the persons TDEE rate. No gluconeogensis is going to happen. The second extreme is a person eating the same calories in an instant. That person will have a large temporary surplus. Some of the extra will be turned to fat to then later be turned back into glucose/keytones to provide the bodies energy needs while fasted. That person will perform a lot of gluconeogensis. Does that not make sense to you? In reality, the person eating a lot of meals is closer to the glucose drip example and the person fasting 20-hrs is closer to the second example. When fasting the person will be undergoing more gluconeogenesis and because that is inefficient, they will burn more calories!

    Please go educate your self on GNG.. you can start with this. You fail to recognize people have stored glycogen and fat to provide energy. Thinking you are going to experience GNG because you fasted, its the equivalent of saying your will produce ketones from eating a bunch cream cheese.

    http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html?m=1

    If your eating at maintenance or below, you will use stored glycogen. If fasted, you will also attempt to replace it with.....gluconeogensis. No?

    "If your eating at maintenance or below, you will use stored glycogen." Yes - to a degree, just like everyone does whatever their calorie balance. Largely dependant on activity and exercise intensity as to what proportion. But you are also replenishing those stores when you eat carbs.

    "If fasted, you will also attempt to replace it with.....gluconeogensis. No?"
    In a word - no.
    It's why people have a glycogen/water whoosh of weight loss out of proportion to their calorie or carb reduction when they start out and why low carb diets are sub-optimal for exercise performance. Low carbers will have simply have lower glycogen levels long term, it's part of the reason for CKD protocols.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    So what percent carbs ar optimal for good excersize performance?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    Gamliela wrote: »
    So what percent carbs ar optimal for good excersize performance?

    It dependa on the exercise, duration and many other factors. 1 to 2x bw in grams might not be a bad place to start. For me its around 1.5 to 2g/bw but i mainly lift. Others need higher and some do well on ketogenic.

    What interesting is the individualistic variation on keto is fairly interesting.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    edited December 2017
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    So what percent carbs ar optimal for good excersize performance?

    It dependa on the exercise, duration and many other factors. 1 to 2x bw in grams might not be a bad place to start. For me its around 1.5 to 2g/bw but i mainly lift. Others need higher and some do well on ketogenic.

    What interesting is the individualistic variation on keto is fairly interesting.

    I'm ending up with days where carbs and protiens are around the same amount of grams lately. Its working as far as my hunger goes, and energy is pretty good most days. I was going more lower carbs, this range of equal protien and carbs seems better. Its about the same as my body weight in pounds in grams of carbs, protien a bit lower. I'm not much into cardio atm.

    edited for clarity
This discussion has been closed.