Energy equation - the best article I've ever read
Options
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Many people on MFP assume all calories in the mouth is equal to all the calories either stored or all the calories used for energy demands of the body. That is how most people I've come across here have interpreted CICO. On the CI-side, they do not take into account excretion, they do not take into account the various energy required between directly using the calories consumed, storing the energy as glycogen, or storing the energy as fat (all three of these use up different amounts of energy and are dependent on what is eaten and also if the body is in a fasted or depleted state or not). On the CO-side, the differences in using the stored energy in the blood, in using glycogen, using fat by performing gluconeogenesis, or producing keytones are also ignored. Also thermogenic effecs of fat being liberated not due to an energy demand are also ignored. I could dig out hundreds of peoples posts that ignore all those things. These people just say the bmr isn't known and lump all the effects into that term. Tell me what is wrong with the paper referenced!
So enlighten us, how does one implement all those factors if not by, as is advised here, to start with a number and adjust via results? This is a classic case of majoring in the minors. Results are what matter. CICO works for everyone, whether you understand the minutiae or not.
Of course CICO works because it assumes all CI the mouth are used as meeting energy demands or fat storage even when they are not. That is a worst case estimate. Same thing with the CO side. The idea that CO is only due to bodies energy demands is worst case also. If you go by CICO, it will work. The only danger I see by looking at it that way is the possibility of driving down the metabolism low by always eating at a deficit.
To model what is happening to a dynamic system, you can't just average stuff over a day or a week to see what is happening, you need to model instantaneous effects. Eating the same calories over the whole day or eating them in a short window should have some different effects. If a person always consumes at an instantaneous rate that is less than the TDEE rate, that person is always in a deficit. If a person eats the same amount of calories as the example just mentioned but does it in a short window, then that person will have a short term temporary surplus. That should drive metabolism effects differently than the person that rarely or barely has a surplus. Anyone who has modeled dynamic systems looks at instantaneous effects because in real systems, everything has saturation and rate limits on what it can do. Those effects are significant in real-life dynamic systems.
Still haven't answered the question. How do you identify and implement all of the factors you want to hang your hat on as pivotal to weight management if not by self testing your own CICO balance?
That's it. That's what I asked. Tell me how to track and work out what my needs are to lose, maintain and gain.
The answer is simple... you cant. We do not live in metabolic chambers. We cant measure to the minute level or anything else. Where he continues to fail on this argument, is that at best we can only estimate. What he also doesn't understand is that if you track the same way over a given time, one can form a rough estimate of tdee; its no different than how he eats 20:4 to lose weight and 16:8 to maintain. Its a basic natural mechanism to account for calories.
And lol at the wholw glucenogenisis argument thrown in there.
You are averaging everything into a bmr doing that. You can get an average doing that by your observation but that doesn't mean you can't change it by what and when you eat. Your dismissiveness on the gluconeogenesis is just that. Studies show it is 67% efficient. If your fasting for long periods (20:4) you do a lot more of it therefore you will burn more calories due to that vs directly using the calories as they come in.
Do you count lack of small anabolic windows during the day that are part of more frequent eating and compare them to the extra spike you get from your big meal?
How do you know your big meal is more lean muscle sparing than 3-6 smaller ones?
Have you compared your daily RMR during your fasting hours with a continuous eating model of RMR? What is the % difference in an isocaloric same macro situation?
Does your way of eating promote better fat to lean mass loss ratios? How did you test this? Is it true for men, women, young, middle aged, elderly, trained, untrained, and up to what size of deficit? What about an overage? If it is not better during an overage why is it better during deficits?
I think that everyone you are arguing with will grant you that if your way of eating ensures you achieve your goals...A1, go for it. It is the best one for you
But when you claim that your way of eating is intrinsically better/more productive and as such worth pursuing independent of whether another way of eating would facilitate compliance for an individual (because that's what you're doing when you proclaim it to be a BETTER solution for everyone), well, guess what, I think compliance and increasing the odds of compliance is more important.
Even if nothing is optimized when it comes to one's way of eating overall compliance with CISCO trumps any marginal hack.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Many people on MFP assume all calories in the mouth is equal to all the calories either stored or all the calories used for energy demands of the body. That is how most people I've come across here have interpreted CICO. On the CI-side, they do not take into account excretion, they do not take into account the various energy required between directly using the calories consumed, storing the energy as glycogen, or storing the energy as fat (all three of these use up different amounts of energy and are dependent on what is eaten and also if the body is in a fasted or depleted state or not). On the CO-side, the differences in using the stored energy in the blood, in using glycogen, using fat by performing gluconeogenesis, or producing keytones are also ignored. Also thermogenic effecs of fat being liberated not due to an energy demand are also ignored. I could dig out hundreds of peoples posts that ignore all those things. These people just say the bmr isn't known and lump all the effects into that term. Tell me what is wrong with the paper referenced!
So enlighten us, how does one implement all those factors if not by, as is advised here, to start with a number and adjust via results? This is a classic case of majoring in the minors. Results are what matter. CICO works for everyone, whether you understand the minutiae or not.
Of course CICO works because it assumes all CI the mouth are used as meeting energy demands or fat storage even when they are not. That is a worst case estimate. Same thing with the CO side. The idea that CO is only due to bodies energy demands is worst case also. If you go by CICO, it will work. The only danger I see by looking at it that way is the possibility of driving down the metabolism low by always eating at a deficit.
To model what is happening to a dynamic system, you can't just average stuff over a day or a week to see what is happening, you need to model instantaneous effects. Eating the same calories over the whole day or eating them in a short window should have some different effects. If a person always consumes at an instantaneous rate that is less than the TDEE rate, that person is always in a deficit. If a person eats the same amount of calories as the example just mentioned but does it in a short window, then that person will have a short term temporary surplus. That should drive metabolism effects differently than the person that rarely or barely has a surplus. Anyone who has modeled dynamic systems looks at instantaneous effects because in real systems, everything has saturation and rate limits on what it can do. Those effects are significant in real-life dynamic systems.
Still haven't answered the question. How do you identify and implement all of the factors you want to hang your hat on as pivotal to weight management if not by self testing your own CICO balance?
That's it. That's what I asked. Tell me how to track and work out what my needs are to lose, maintain and gain.
The answer is simple... you cant. We do not live in metabolic chambers. We cant measure to the minute level or anything else. Where he continues to fail on this argument, is that at best we can only estimate. What he also doesn't understand is that if you track the same way over a given time, one can form a rough estimate of tdee; its no different than how he eats 20:4 to lose weight and 16:8 to maintain. Its a basic natural mechanism to account for calories.
And lol at the wholw glucenogenisis argument thrown in there.
You are averaging everything into a bmr doing that. You can get an average doing that by your observation but that doesn't mean you can't change it by what and when you eat. Your dismissiveness on the gluconeogenesis is just that. Studies show it is 67% efficient. If your fasting for long periods (20:4) you do a lot more of it therefore you will burn more calories due to that vs directly using the calories as they come in.
Do you count lack of small anabolic windows during the day that are part of more frequent eating and compare them to the extra spike you get from your big meal?
How do you know your big meal is more lean muscle sparing than 3-6 smaller ones?
Have you compared your daily RMR during your fasting hours with a continuous eating model of RMR? What is the % difference in an isocaloric same macro situation?
Does your way of eating promote better fat to lean mass loss ratios? How did you test this? Is it true for men, women, young, middle aged, elderly, trained, untrained, and up to what size of deficit? What about an overage? If it is not better during an overage why is it better during deficits?
I think that everyone you are arguing with will grant you that if your way of eating ensures you achieve your goals...A1, go for it. It is the best one for you
But when you claim that your way of eating is intrinsically better/more productive and as such worth pursuing independent of whether another way of eating would facilitate compliance for an individual (because that's what you're doing when you proclaim it to be a BETTER solution for everyone), well, guess what, I think compliance and increasing the odds of compliance is more important.
Even if nothing is optimized when it comes to one's way of eating overall compliance with CISCO trumps any marginal hack.
I do think it is a better way on an energy basis for losing weight neglecting hunger effects. Some it might not be best for due to peoples different responses and how hungry they get doing one or the other. I agree compliance is very important and fasting or LC isn't going to work for everyone due to that. I've never said it was better for compliance for everyone but I do believe on a single day basis, it is better for burning more calories. I do think for some it is better for compliance though than eating HC or eating a lot of meals in the day. It is for me for sure. What I've said isn't a hack and it can help a person be compliant to have a deficit. I'm not denying thermodynamics by any means. My arguments extend from the fact that thermodynamics demands different digestive/fat use pathways use up more energy than others. I don't care how a person losses weight but folks shouldn't say these things makes no difference at all when they do on a single day energy basis every time and on a compliance basis for quite a few over an extended period of time. I've said numerous times simple CICO calculation will work because it is a worst-case conservative estimate of the energy equation.
The muslce sparing question I think is a good one. I have read that it is better in that sense for fasted mice.
I haven't done experiments and have just read and reasoned. I think that is probably your case and the others that have replied here as well.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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%.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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!3 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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=15 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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?2 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll 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.2 -
How high?0
-
GottaBurnEmAll 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.4 -
So what percent carbs ar optimal for good excersize performance?0
-
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.1 -
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 clarity0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions