Protein cannot get stored as fat
Replies
-
wow. according to this link neither protein nor carbs can be converted to fat. since we've heard that fat doesn't necessarily turn into fat i guess nothing turns to fat. nothing but magic.
i'm gonna have to pass on that one
So I can go back to drinking 4 gallons of high fructose corn syrup packed soda a day and I have nothing to worry about?
All that sweet sweet carb juice will turn into pure muscle bro.0 -
why does it matter? if anyone had to eat that much protein 'over' their calories, I'm sure it wouldn't be health at all... poor kidneys0
-
Seems more to me that protein is less likely to be stored as fat than fat or carbohydrates, but if you ate a diet of 3000 calories of protein and your TDEE was 2000 you would gain fat, that's what I think anyway.
Correct.
It is the excess calories that lead to fat accumulation.
In short this kind of question about whether protein can get converted into body fat (theoretically possible but unlikely) is rather missing the point. Ultimately it is about calories
^^yep. You need to look at the whole picture and how nutrients would be partitioned and not just at one macro in isolation.0 -
wow. according to this link neither protein nor carbs can be converted to fat. since we've heard that fat doesn't necessarily turn into fat i guess nothing turns to fat. nothing but magic.
i'm gonna have to pass on that one
Lol - no, all he was saying that it is much less likely for lipogenesis (fat creation) to come about from dietary protein then carbs then fat. For protein to be become body fat it has to onvert into amino acids, convert to glucose, find insulin, turn to fatty acids, and then do a little dance with glycerol-3-phospate. Whether this entire process gets to be completed depends on what else is going on in the body at the same time but it seems unlikely.
Again, this is a theoretical point more than anything.
In the real world, we eat food. Food usually contains a number of things, not solely carbs or fat or protein in isolation. Although a piece of steak is classified as "protein" it also contains fat. Whilst a grain like quinoa is classified as a "carb" it also contains protein etc. Trying to figure out exactly the fate of these nutrients in a real world scenario is a bit pointless in reality. No one could ever have a pure protein diet even if they wanted to (that would lead to death in the long term anyway!)
Overall energy balance is the final thing which determines the storage or burning of body fat. We could try ourselves mad with the "Is a calorie really a calorie" question but in a real world scenario it is not worth worrying about (in the absence of metabolic disorders etc..)0 -
I don't really agree with some of the claims in this article. How can he be certain that the carbon skeleton from an amino acid or a carbohydrate for that matter is unlikely to be used for lipogenesis? A substrate is a substrate no matter it's origin.
Curious now....I must go and do some reading...
De Novo lipogenesis is an irrelevant process in a normally functioning human. This is well established by science.
Converting carbs/protein to fat is nonsense. Overeating on carbs/protein can cause a state where all ingested fat is stored instead of burned. Carb and protein intake controls the ratio of fat burn:storage.0 -
It's not I don't agree with the theory that it's harder convert protein to fat than the other macros, but I take issue with how it's presented. It's that all or nothing fallacy that tends to dominate a lot of the F&N threads. I mean, the author dispels one all or nothing (who's gonna eat 1250 grams of protein) but then uses a different all or nothing to back up his point (it would take 700 grams of carbs!).
Also makes assumptions in favor of it's argument. Satiation powers of protein, glycogen depletion, etc., that will vary for different people and can't be assumed. Like I said, I do believe it's harder to get fat off of protein but I'd never present it as impossible or even unlikely. Like anything else, if you exceed your caloric limits, bad things happen.0 -
I don't really agree with some of the claims in this article. How can he be certain that the carbon skeleton from an amino acid or a carbohydrate for that matter is unlikely to be used for lipogenesis? A substrate is a substrate no matter it's origin.
Curious now....I must go and do some reading...
De Novo lipogenesis is an irrelevant process in a normally functioning human. This is well established by science.
Converting carbs/protein to fat is nonsense. Overeating on carbs/protein can cause a state where all ingested fat is stored instead of burned. Carb and protein intake controls the ratio of fat burn:storage.
Nope, this is simply incorrect and is certainly not well established by science.
Here's a nice review article in a high impact factor journal that discusses it in relation to carbs.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802852a.html0 -
It's unlikely unless you are practically starving to death. But to make the statement "protein cannot get stored as fat" is highly inaccurate0
-
I don't really agree with some of the claims in this article. How can he be certain that the carbon skeleton from an amino acid or a carbohydrate for that matter is unlikely to be used for lipogenesis? A substrate is a substrate no matter it's origin.
Curious now....I must go and do some reading...
De Novo lipogenesis is an irrelevant process in a normally functioning human. This is well established by science.
Converting carbs/protein to fat is nonsense. Overeating on carbs/protein can cause a state where all ingested fat is stored instead of burned. Carb and protein intake controls the ratio of fat burn:storage.
Nope, this is simply incorrect and is certainly not well established by science.
Here's a nice review article in a high impact factor journal that discusses it in relation to carbs.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802852a.html
Did you read the experiment?
Clearly eating 700-800-900-1000g carbs day after day is normal eating patterns for a human. In that experiment DNL didn't start until 1500g carbs had been consumed within 2 days, without exercise, and then started ramping up as the CHO intake continued to climb.
DNL can occur no doubt, but to absolutely top off glycogen and begin DNL as a safety valve release for excess carbs takes dietary conditions a normal human is unlikely to experience.
You need to keep reading up on this. DNL is irrelevant in a normal functioning human, this is widely agreed apon. It is though to start occurring about when CHO intake exceeds TDEE for a couple days. Which is exactly what this experiment shows.
And something that 0.0% of people reading this have in their food diaries.0 -
Which experiment are you referring to?
I don't really agree with some of the claims in this article. How can he be certain that the carbon skeleton from an amino acid or a carbohydrate for that matter is unlikely to be used for lipogenesis? A substrate is a substrate no matter it's origin.
Curious now....I must go and do some reading...
De Novo lipogenesis is an irrelevant process in a normally functioning human. This is well established by science.
Converting carbs/protein to fat is nonsense. Overeating on carbs/protein can cause a state where all ingested fat is stored instead of burned. Carb and protein intake controls the ratio of fat burn:storage.
Nope, this is simply incorrect and is certainly not well established by science.
Here's a nice review article in a high impact factor journal that discusses it in relation to carbs.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802852a.html
Did you read the experiment?
Clearly eating 700-800-900-1000g carbs day after day is normal eating patterns for a human. In that experiment DNL didn't start until 1500g carbs had been consumed within 2 days, without exercise, and then started ramping up as the CHO intake continued to climb.
DNL can occur no doubt, but to absolutely top off glycogen and begin DNL as a safety valve release for excess carbs takes dietary conditions a normal human is unlikely to experience.
You need to keep reading up on this. DNL is irrelevant in a normal functioning human, this is widely agreed apon.
I can assure you that this it is not widely accepted in the scientific community, although it seems to be widely accepted in the bodybuilding community based on a few old studies. I accept that under usual conditions, it is not energetically favourable but I am convinced that is way more complex than the simplistic view that is interpreted from some of the studies I have read.
Edit: Just saw your edit. I'm not talking about individuals eating under requirements and I'm assuming that the OP wasn't either.0 -
I used to eat protein lots of it tons of it..I was a fat ****:) Calories are calories...after 20 years in denial:)0
-
I'm currently reading the book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. The author, Gary Taubes, addresses at length fat storage, how it works and what types of nutrients the body converts to fat .
He says every successful weight loss plan is the result of reduced carbohydrate intake intentionally or otherwise. When you reduce calories and maintain the same ratio of nutrients (that is protein, fat and carbs) you significantly decrease all including carbohydrate intake.
His basic premise is that carbohydrate consumption causes the secretion of insulin which causes the body to not only store more fat but hold on desperately to already stored fat. He says the calories in calories out model is completely wrong and we have been misled by professionals who were misguided or who are unable or unwilling to accept the truth (as he sees it).
It's been difficult for me to accept some of what he says. I'm about 2/3 through the book and, I must admit, I'm ready to seriously restrict my carbohydrate intake. Not eliminate all carbs but eliminate as many sources of sugars and simple carbs as possible. It might be worth your time to read this book.0 -
Ok, kids... let's make it simpler...
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
"Of all the food categories, the digestion of proteins is the most time consuming. It takes over three hours to break down and assimilate proteins. The reason for this is simple: protein molecules are long chains with well-soldered links, and to break down their resistance requires the combination of good chewing and the simultaneous attack of various gastric, pancreatic, and biliary juices.
This long process of calorie extraction taxes the system; it has been calculated that to obtain 100 calories from a protein food, the system must use 30 calories. We can say that the specific dynamic action of proteins is 30 percent, while it is only 12 percent for fats and just 7 percent for carbohydrates."
So... proteins have fewer calories per gram and it's harder to digest and use them. But yes, if you eat an excess of them it gets stored as fat.0 -
I can't find any studies, but know my nutritional science professor taught me that any unused calories will be stored as fat. Regardless, if for some reason protein couldn't be stored as fat, which I just don't believe I still would limit my intake. Why? Excessive amounts of protein would overwork your kidneys. I will take a little body fat over kidney stones haha.0
-
I'm currently reading the book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. The author, Gary Taubes, addresses at length fat storage, how it works and what types of nutrients the body converts to fat .
He says every successful weight loss plan is the result of reduced carbohydrate intake intentionally or otherwise. When you reduce calories and maintain the same ratio of nutrients (that is protein, fat and carbs) you significantly decrease all including carbohydrate intake.
His basic premise is that carbohydrate consumption causes the secretion of insulin which causes the body to not only store more fat but hold on desperately to already stored fat. He says the calories in calories out model is completely wrong and we have been misled by professionals who were misguided or who are unable or unwilling to accept the truth (as he sees it).
It's been difficult for me to accept some of what he says. I'm about 2/3 through the book and, I must admit, I'm ready to seriously restrict my carbohydrate intake. Not eliminate all carbs but eliminate as many sources of sugars and simple carbs as possible. It might be worth your time to read this book.
Everything Taubes says is wrong.0 -
Any macronutrient over your daily energy expenditure will turn to fat. You can get fat off broccoli if you eat enough of it. Altho thatd be a lot of Broccoli lol.0
-
didn't read the link...but theoretically if you eat below 25 carbs a day could that work. For me.. I did eat that way ..and it Did NOT work.. i maintained after trying it for four weeks... however.. i was not hungry and was sad when it failed me.0
-
Which experiment are you referring to?
I don't really agree with some of the claims in this article. How can he be certain that the carbon skeleton from an amino acid or a carbohydrate for that matter is unlikely to be used for lipogenesis? A substrate is a substrate no matter it's origin.
Curious now....I must go and do some reading...
De Novo lipogenesis is an irrelevant process in a normally functioning human. This is well established by science.
Converting carbs/protein to fat is nonsense. Overeating on carbs/protein can cause a state where all ingested fat is stored instead of burned. Carb and protein intake controls the ratio of fat burn:storage.
Nope, this is simply incorrect and is certainly not well established by science.
Here's a nice review article in a high impact factor journal that discusses it in relation to carbs.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n4s/full/0802852a.html
Did you read the experiment?
Clearly eating 700-800-900-1000g carbs day after day is normal eating patterns for a human. In that experiment DNL didn't start until 1500g carbs had been consumed within 2 days, without exercise, and then started ramping up as the CHO intake continued to climb.
DNL can occur no doubt, but to absolutely top off glycogen and begin DNL as a safety valve release for excess carbs takes dietary conditions a normal human is unlikely to experience.
You need to keep reading up on this. DNL is irrelevant in a normal functioning human, this is widely agreed apon.
I can assure you that this it is not widely accepted in the scientific community, although it seems to be widely accepted in the bodybuilding community based on a few old studies. I accept that under usual conditions, it is not energetically favourable but I am convinced that is way more complex than the simplistic view that is interpreted from some of the studies I have read.
Edit: Just saw your edit. I'm not talking about individuals eating under requirements and I'm assuming that the OP wasn't either.
And if you read the article you posted you would see that DNL only occurs under massive carbohydrate overfeeding.According to Hellerstein,27 DNL becomes a quantitatively major pathway under one condition: when total CHO intake—expressed in energy terms—exceeds total energy expenditure, that is, when more than 100% of the energy requirement is covered by CHO ingestion. He rightly pointed out that this circumstance is unusual in daily life.
The studies that resulted in significant DNL used massive caloric surpluses. For example, in the study performed by the authors of the paper the subject were fed 7000 calories and 1000 grams of CHO.
Not really relevant.0 -
there is an upper limit on the amount of calories of protein that can be used by the body daily. Something like 600 calories.Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
600 / 4 = 150. So going beyond 150 grams is no good and perhaps even bad?0 -
there is an upper limit on the amount of calories of protein that can be used by the body daily. Something like 600 calories.Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
600 / 4 = 150. So going beyond 150 grams is no good and perhaps even bad?
The maximum for an 80 kg person is 285 to 365 g/d.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/167799210 -
Personally I haven't found any clinical studies that show protein gets stored as fat in calorie surplus. If anyone has it, I'd love to read it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Food and Nutrition
Protein cannot get stored as fat
BUMP TO READ LATER0 -
Interesting stuff. Thank you.
Thinking in simple terms (it's getting late, and the day is almost over), I suppose the "2 to 2.5 g" could break even with 1 kg = 2.2 pounds, which would mean the maximum number of grams of protein per day equals your weight in pounds!0 -
Your friend is wrong. The simplified metabolic pathway schematic posted earlier demonstrates how the various pathways are very interconnected (if you want the full version, google "metabolic map" and you'll see just how complex metabolism it - btw, to whoever posted that, thanks for the high school flashback /cringe).
But, ingested protein will fill you up faster than fat for the same calories because it is less calorie dense; so it is still a better choice if you are trying to lose weight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions