Carbs and DNL

MityMax96

DNL == de novo lipogenesis.
The point at which your body begins converting carbs into fat.

So the July AARR was released and there was a study that he highlighted, regarding glycogen stores. (wish it would have been released sooner. Like last month. :laugh: )

But they did a study over the course of 10 days. 3 days of carb depletion, followed by 7 days of carb reloading/repletion.

Study points to glycogen storage capacity of being 15 g / kg body weight.....
So for a 170 lb man, that is ~1155gr of carbs before glycogen stores are full.....

Alan also highlighted another study at the end, where people who were NOT carb depleted,

"consumed a single 500 g CHO meal (bread, jam, fruit juice)....led to a 346 g gain in glycogen storage, while 133 g carb, 17 g fat, and 29 g protein were oxidized during the 10 hour post-meal assessment period. The important finding was that no net fat synthesis occurred (although fat oxidation was suppressed). It's notable that the subjects were not glycogen-depleted upon consuming the test meal, so it's likely that they had at least 200 g glycogen stored, yet DNL still did not occur from the 500 g carb-bomb."

eric_sg61

In B4 the "but carbs make you fat" crowd

martyqueen52

I believe Ghost Busters are real.....

Mischievous_Rascal

Science makes me happy. :flowerforyou:

bonkosaurusrex

Can someone dumb this down for me? Me not very gud at syence.

Nevermind. Yay for google.

Kari121869

Can someone dumb this down for me? Me not very gud at syence.

^^^ this... can someone explain what he just said lol

YalithKBK

I am suspicious at any sort of metabolism/body study that looks at people for any less than 60 days. I'm going to guess that these people were not eating like this before the study and if you change the way you eat, it takes your body a while to adjust and move to a new routine. I would like to see if the data still holds up after 2, 6, and 12 months.

MityMax96

Can someone dumb this down for me? Me not very gud at syence.

^^^ this... can someone explain what he just said lol

basically in a nutshell....
Carbs don't make you fat....eating more calories than you need makes you fat.

And while the pathways do exist for your body to convert carbs to fat (DNL)
You have to consume VAST amounts of carbs in order to do so......even in a setting where you are not carb/glycogen depleted.

On my workout days, I consume over 300 g of carbs.....which is a lot....1200 calories alone right there.

They had a test meal of 500 g of carbs in a person not in a depleted state, and even that amount showed no DNL

MityMax96

I am suspicious at any sort of metabolism/body study that looks at people for any less than 60 days. I'm going to guess that these people were not eating like this before the study and if you change the way you eat, it takes your body a while to adjust and move to a new routine. I would like to see if the data still holds up after 2, 6, and 12 months.

always be suspicious...

Conduct your own personal study, see what you come up with.

TavistockToad

Carbs don't make you fat....eating more calories than you need makes you fat.

shocker.... :laugh:

MityMax96

Carbs don't make you fat....eating more calories than you need makes you fat.

shocker.... :laugh:

pipe down sexy.....
No lip from you.

Dragonwolf

The USDA recommendation for carbohydrate intake is at least 55% of total calories, which at my current calorie setting of 2,150, that means about 290g of carbs at 55%. It would be interesting to see more studies on the effect of long-term, sub-maximum (for DNL) carbohydrate intake in people who don't regularly deplete their glycogen stores, especially considering that most of the arguments behind the "carbs make you fat" idea have at least as much to do with satiety and the ability to not overeat without fighting hunger and having to obsessively count every bite that goes into your mouth, as they do with DNL.

MityMax96

The USDA recommendation for carbohydrate intake is at least 55% of total calories, which at my current calorie setting of 2,150, that means about 290g of carbs at 55%. It would be interesting to see more studies on the effect of long-term, sub-maximum (for DNL) carbohydrate intake in people who don't regularly deplete their glycogen stores, especially considering that most of the arguments behind the "carbs make you fat" idea have at least as much to do with satiety and the ability to not overeat without fighting hunger and having to obsessively count every bite that goes into your mouth, as they do with DNL.

I will say that for me....and how I eat...
When in caloric deficit, while still eating a fair amount of carbs, for 5 out 7 days a week....
I still depleted myself.....it showed.

Dragonwolf

Also, for those that want to read the study itself and in full, here's link to it:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.long

If that doesn't work, here's the link to the abstract, where you should be able to find a "free full text PDF" link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3165600

yarwell

(although fat oxidation was suppressed)

and there you have it, a carb load gets oxidised away as long as there's enough fat in the intake to be shuttled off into storage. So the carbs inhibit fat oxidation and nudge fat into storage through elevated insulin.

You don't need DNL to increase fat storage, the well understood effect of carb intake on nutrient partitioning is sufficient in the context of a mixed meal.

yarwell

Also, for those that want to read the study itself and in full, here's link to it:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.long

Thanks. "When the glycogen stores had increased by ‘~500 g
(end of day 2 of overfeeding), carbohydrate oxidation
and storage became insufficient to dispose of al of the
ingested carbohydrate. The excess was disposed of by
conversion to fat, ie, de novo lipogenes. "

Mikkimeow

Also, for those that want to read the study itself and in full, here's link to it:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.long

Thanks. "When the glycogen stores had increased by ‘~500 g
(end of day 2 of overfeeding), carbohydrate oxidation
and storage became insufficient to dispose of al of the
ingested carbohydrate. The excess was disposed of by
conversion to fat, ie, de novo lipogenes. "

chivalryder

this is why it's highly recommneded to eat a high carb meal after long a long, hard cardio session 9like a 2 hour + bike ride). Your glycogen stores will be empty.

sheermomentum

I'm not sure I understand the conclusion. It seems to be that you can eat (carbs, in this example) and not generate new fat cells even when your glycogen stores are not completely full (not depleted, but not full either). I think the part I'm confused about is that I wouldn't expect DNL to occur UNLESS glycogen stores were at max (and energy intake exceeded expenditure).

Its possible that I'm totally missing something important, like the point Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand the post....

edit: Ok, I think this was the key thing the OP was saying:
Study points to glycogen storage capacity of being 15 g / kg body weight.....

MityMax96

(although fat oxidation was suppressed)

and there you have it, a carb load gets oxidised away as long as there's enough fat in the intake to be shuttled off into storage. So the carbs inhibit fat oxidation and nudge fat into storage through elevated insulin.

You don't need DNL to increase fat storage, the well understood effect of carb intake on nutrient partitioning is sufficient in the context of a mixed meal.

No one argued that point....and I never said otherwise either.

But I can go a whole day consuming less than 20 gr of fat....
While consuming a butt load of carbs and protein....
Stay below my caloric goals......
Replenish glycogen stores.
and have muscles fill out.....

WIN!!!

MityMax96

Also, for those that want to read the study itself and in full, here's link to it:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/2/240.long

Thanks. "When the glycogen stores had increased by ‘~500 g
(end of day 2 of overfeeding), carbohydrate oxidation
and storage became insufficient to dispose of al of the
ingested carbohydrate. The excess was disposed of by
conversion to fat, ie, de novo lipogenes. "

And??
I take from that, the person had to first replenish stores, and then go above carbs needed to reach DNL

Am I wrong?

MityMax96

I'm not sure I understand the conclusion. It seems to be that you can eat (carbs, in this example) and not generate new fat cells even when your glycogen stores are not completely full (not depleted, but not full either). I think the part I'm confused about is that I wouldn't expect DNL to occur UNLESS glycogen stores were at max (and energy intake exceeded expenditure).

Its possible that I'm totally missing something important, like the point Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand the post....

edit: Ok, I think this was the key thing the OP was saying:
Study points to glycogen storage capacity of being 15 g / kg body weight.....

Seems like you got the gist of it....

and the body doesn't create new fat cells....as far as I know.
The ones you have just contract or expand accordingly......

And yes, that was my point....
Our glycogen stores are hella large

shreddedtrooper

Read above, thank you MityMax96 for pointing out this publication and referencing the key points, this is great reading material

agreed, total #WIN

LVFT

parkscs

Can someone dumb this down for me? Me not very gud at syence.

^^^ this... can someone explain what he just said lol

basically in a nutshell....
Carbs don't make you fat....eating more calories than you need makes you fat.

And while the pathways do exist for your body to convert carbs to fat (DNL)
You have to consume VAST amounts of carbs in order to do so......even in a setting where you are not carb/glycogen depleted.

On my workout days, I consume over 300 g of carbs.....which is a lot....1200 calories alone right there.

They had a test meal of 500 g of carbs in a person not in a depleted state, and even that amount showed no DNL

I don't think that's quite what they're saying, because it's really only relevant to people doing carb refeeds.

We've suspected for years that a carb refeed in a depleted state where you take in large amounts of carbs (with very little fat), often to the point where you're over your maintenance calories, because your body prefers to use the carbs for glycogen replenishment. This study reinforces that notion, as the participants were in a depleted state and DNL did not begin until glycogen stores were increased by about 500g. It also seems to suggest that at least some people aren't walking around with their glycogen stores filled to the point of saturation, so there could be some benefits to a refeed even when your glycogen stores aren't completely depleted.

But if you aren't doing a carb refeed where you're keeping carbs high and fat very low, people shouldn't expect the same results. For that matter, if you aren't in a depleted state, people shouldn't expect the same results. It's an interesting little study for people who do carb cycling/refeeds though. But recognize it for what it is - a small study on all of 3 healthy young individuals. It doesn't stand for the broad conclusion that "carbs don't make you fat." It's just a small exploratory study about the upper levels of glycogen storage.

MityMax96

Can someone dumb this down for me? Me not very gud at syence.

^^^ this... can someone explain what he just said lol

basically in a nutshell....
Carbs don't make you fat....eating more calories than you need makes you fat.

And while the pathways do exist for your body to convert carbs to fat (DNL)
You have to consume VAST amounts of carbs in order to do so......even in a setting where you are not carb/glycogen depleted.

On my workout days, I consume over 300 g of carbs.....which is a lot....1200 calories alone right there.

They had a test meal of 500 g of carbs in a person not in a depleted state, and even that amount showed no DNL

I don't think that's quite what they're saying, because it's really only relevant to people doing carb refeeds.

We've suspected for years that a carb refeed in a depleted state where you take in large amounts of carbs (with very little fat), often to the point where you're over your maintenance calories, because your body prefers to use the carbs for glycogen replenishment. This study reinforces that notion, as the participants were in a depleted state and DNL did not begin until glycogen stores were increased by about 500g. It also seems to suggest that at least some people aren't walking around with their glycogen stores filled to the point of saturation, so there could be some benefits to a refeed even when your glycogen stores aren't completely depleted.

But if you aren't doing a carb refeed where you're keeping carbs high and fat very low, people shouldn't expect the same results. For that matter, if you aren't in a depleted state, people shouldn't expect the same results. It's an interesting little study for people who do carb cycling/refeeds though. But recognize it for what it is - a small study on all of 3 healthy young individuals. It doesn't stand for the broad conclusion that "carbs don't make you fat." It's just a small exploratory study about the upper levels of glycogen storage.

Even if you are not doing a refeed or depleted state....you still seem to have a lot of room to go in the carb dept. before it can be converted to fat.....

MityMax96

haha...
a notion is an idea you don't agree with

yarwell

I take from that, the person had to first replenish stores, and then go above carbs needed to reach DNL
Am I wrong?

Sounds about right, the typical sedentary person snacking and sipping sugary drinks on a chronic basis will not need to worry about replenishing stores though. DNL was evident on the second day of overfeed, while CHO stores were still accumulating - seems more like a steady charge over 3-4 days than a rapid refill.

The effect of carb overfeed is best seen in the table :-

where the net fat burn (second column from right) stops on the day the carb overfeed starts (day 4) and causes fat accumulation from day 5 with de novo fat synthesis. So adding the carbs caused the fat to accumulate, and this paper is not evidence that "Carbs don't make you fat" at all - quite the opposite.

Would be interesting to see the same thing done with an equivalent overfeed of fat instead. Then you would know whether is was the carbs, the calories, or the fat that done it.

The authors do comment that these values in their 1988 study are "among the highest glycogen storage values reported in the literature" and thier study group was "Three healthy young men, one of whom was a competition swimmer at university level, (21-2 y, 62-72 kg, 174-180 cm,and 1 -14% body fat)". Be interesting to see what a wider group of people look like.

MityMax96

Would be interesting to see the same thing done with an equivalent overfeed of fat instead. Then you would know whether is was the carbs, the calories, or the fat that done it.

The authors do comment that these values in their 1988 study are "among the highest glycogen storage values reported in the literature" and thier study group was "Three healthy young men, one of whom was a competition swimmer at university level, (21-2 y, 62-72 kg, 174-180 cm,and 1 -14% body fat)". Be interesting to see what a wider group of people look like.

Agreed.

But my point in saying carbs don't make you fat.....
They don't, unless you go above CHO norms....
Which I mean for most people, you need to actually put your mind too it...
I just did two competitions a few weeks ago, and I know that on 2 days of a carb reload, consuming very little fat and prolly less than 70 gr of protein....
I had to force myself to eat the carbs...just to get near 600 gr for the day.....of course I was doing with rice and potatoes for the most part....

So if someone actually sat down and planned out their diet accordingly, focusing on carbs/protein, and making sure fat intake stayed low that day.....
They would be hard pressed to reach a saturation point whereas their bodies get actually start holding onto fat.....
Is this an incorrect thought??

But a more expanded study would be nice, I agree......

parkscs

Even if you are not doing a refeed or depleted state....you still seem to have a lot of room to go in the carb dept. before it can be converted to fat.....

Perhaps I misworded that, but I was referring to a pure 500g carb meal as a refeed. I can't remember the last time I eat 500g of pure carbs as a meal and personally I'd only look to do so as a refeed, but I suppose it's not that rare to see people eat 500g of carbs from bread, jam and juice with no significant protein/fat consumption.

I wouldn't say they're proving "carbs don't make you fat" nor is that the purpose of the study, but at the same time I don't think "carbs make you fat" is a reasonable assertion in the first place. In any event, I'd wager that most meals include protein and fat as well as carbs, and just because DNL doesn't occur doesn't mean fat is not being stored, and that's why I say a study about refeeds/consuming purely carbs isn't necessarily that relevant to the average person. But for people looking to refill their glycogen stores for performance reasons, it's at least an interesting first look at how you can do so and potentially avoid/minimize fat gains in the process.

parkscs

So if someone actually sat down and planned out their diet accordingly, focusing on carbs/protein, and making sure fat intake stayed low that day.....
They would be hard pressed to reach a saturation point whereas their bodies get actually start holding onto fat.....
Is this an incorrect thought??

Certainly if you look at carb cycling plans, you'll see a lot of people advocating that your body has a preference to use excess carbs for glycogen replenishment rather than fat storage. On refeed days, it's pretty common to see people eating a surplus of calories with a very high carb macro and very little fat, and yet seeing very little (if any) fat storage. To the extent this study suggests that you may be capable of storing quite a bit of glycogen even at "normal" levels, that says to me you might be able to get away with a "refeed" day even when you aren't in a fully depleted state and see very little fat storage from it.

TiberiusClaudis

Let me first say I LOVE carbs.

And I"m on my first cut below 10%...technically below 12%, that's as low as I've ever previously got before now.

But, I've kept carbs below 100 grams and have reached 5.5%BF fairly easy.

Is this the best way to dive low...I have no clue...but it's worked so far.

And now when I do double up on my carbs I look like the HULK...well atleast I think I do anyway.