We???ve all heard it time and time again ??? of the three macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates and fats) , our bodies prefer to burn carbs for energy. You can find that fact in medical textbooks, nutrition articles and just about anywhere else that you look. It???s pretty much accepted by everyone without any controversy. The only problem is that it isn???t true.
Read more at:
asked byPaleolithica (298)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on November 18, 2012
at 11:20 PM
I think it's just the same story repeated by someone who read it somewhere else, who in turn just read it somewhere else. Does the body produce its own alcohol when alcohol gets too low? No, it doesn't. Glucose is a unique fuel and essential to life whether you eat it or not the body does seem to like it.
We're probably more used to burning fat and perhaps exogenous fat is a better fuel than carbohydrate (longer lasting, more calories per gram etc.), but all those peatatarians can't be wrong. So I'd say it's still up for debate.
on November 18, 2012
at 11:21 PM
What is discussed in this article is hardly new. Alcohol is very quickly absorbed by the body and subsequently efficiently metabolized to acetaldehyde (by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase) and then further to acetate, latter being preferentially used for energy even in the presence of sugar/fat/protein. That's basically the reason why drinking alcohol is a bad idea when feasting on lots of calories, because those will be very likely stored as fat, whereas the alcohol will be used a primary fuel. But I agree ... referring to alcohol as a 'super carb' is totally incorrect.
I would put substances than can be used as such, or that need only very little metabolic/enzymatic processing (such as alcohol, or creatine, or ATP ...) in another category as carbs/protein/fat. For me, they're not really macronutrient ... although alcohol is termed as such in the literature. I think that everything that cannot be store easily, or at all, will always be used first ... that's kind of trivial. And there's nothing to adapt to, in terms of cellular machinery.
on November 19, 2012
at 01:56 PM
I don't find any of his arguments convincing. The reason we need fat and protein but not carbs is because carbs are soo important that our bodies can make The glucose from protein. I find that evidence of the importance of carbs, not evidence that we don't need them.
He also compares carbs to alcohol, trying to make it seem that carbs are the most toxic, like alcohol. Please.... Let me repeat, the body makes its own carbs! If carbs were toxic to the body then it would not do this!