3

votes

Muscle glycogen refilled slowly?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 15, 2011 at 4:52 PM

In a post about triglycerides, VLDL and carbs, Ned Kock recently commented:

The reality is that very little of the glucose/fructose from carbs gets past the liver in a health person. Muscle glycogen synthase activity is elevated days after an acute glycolitic event (e.g., an intense weight training session).

The liver is a smaller glycogen tank (about 100 g) that fills up quickly, and that is used to replenish the bigger muscle glycogen tank (about 500 g). That happens over time though, and always after the needs of the brain are met.

I need to brush up more on my physiology, but thought I'd do a quick sanity check here. Does this sound right to you? It surprised me. I thought muscle glycogen would be quickly replenished via serum glucose.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 16, 2011
at 05:30 PM

I agree with you cliff, but OVER feeding studies are not applicable. no one should be purposely trying to overeating. how about some regular eating studies with high carb. overeating is OBVIOUSLY going to cause all fat eaten to be stored, hence, overeating.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:16 PM

"we found that for equivalent amounts of energy, fat leads to more body fat accumulation than does carbohydrate.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:13 PM

Overfeeding on carbohydrates increases net energy expenditure by ~800 cals after a week, fat doesn't increase it at all.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:11 PM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.full.pdf+html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:04 PM

http://veganmaster.blogspot.com/2008/07/elevating-insulin-and-minimizing-fat.html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:30 PM

Andy get a clue, your feelings are obviously hurt because we don't agree with your made up dogma. I eat 700g+ of carbs a day, SAD eaters don't even come close to that considering I eat 4000+ cals and my carb percentage is 70%. The SAD is 50/50 fat/carbs(by calories) with the fats being from toxic PUFAs which screw up carbohydrate metabolism(along with tons of other consequences). Most sad eaters are probably getting more like ~300g of carbs and 150g of fat, if they were truly high carb low fat they wouldn't be obese.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:22 PM

Andy I suggest you pick up a physiology text book, you obviously have been brainwashed by the low carbers.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 06:06 AM

"your refusal to accept that dietary fat has a negligible thermal effect and is readily stored in adipocytes is bizarrely dogmatic." When have I ever refused, or even referred to that?! All I've had is people telling me I'll lose more weight eating 4000 calories a day of carbs than eating 2000 calories a day of fat. The lack of fat thermogenesis and relative ease of storage is pretty immaterial. You reject Taubes, fine. But the 'arguments' advanced here to defend that position are simply haphazard and incoherent. Or at least that's how they come across.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 16, 2011
at 05:53 AM

Andy: You have a complete lack of understanding about human physiology with regard to fat digestion and storage. Not all science is dogma, however your refusal to accept that dietary fat has a negligible thermal effect and is readily stored in adipocytes is bizarrely dogmatic.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:50 AM

I don't imply that at all, I've said precisely the opposite. It's ok, I know how difficult it is to engage with a subject you don't properly understand, and you are heavily invested in simplistic ideas that never held up to scrutiny. You have your personal agenda to push, with your ad hominem remarks and supercilious tone, lacking any real coherent argument. By all means, don't let me stop you.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:42 AM

I downvoted your answer because it's not correct. Approximately 80% of fructose will go to the liver; not all of it.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:39 AM

Inconsistent? Hardly. Despite what an overweight journalist says calories count; you seem to imply they don't.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:35 AM

You're not even making an argument any more. You're hopelessly inconsistent from one comment to the next, which is not surprising given the position you're trying to defend. And now you're just being immature by downvoting my answer.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:27 AM

Sorry should read ''Fat oxidation is suppressed'' at the start.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:27 AM

Sorry should read ''Fat oxidation is suppressed'' at the start.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:13 AM

Carbohydrate oxidation is suppressed until the carbohydrate is used up; then fat oxidation takes place. It's not complicated; one potato does not stop you from burning fat over the course of a day (or whatever course of time). Do you understand how stupid you're making yourself look?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:09 AM

"Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation in the short term; over 24 hours it does not." Unless you eat carbs more than once in that 24 hour period, which seems quite likely. I'm not sure what you're trying to gain from repeating your incomplete decades-old dogma. While I'm sure it's very reassuring to others who can't think for themselves, it's not terribly convincing to anyone who's learnt better. Such transparent sophistry, I just don't understand why you would hang around here of all places to try and peddle it. The nature of an internet contrarian I suppose.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:02 AM

Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation in the short term; over 24 hours it does not. Carbs do not cause bodyfat gain anymore than fat; fat is more readily is stored (as a significant amount of carbohydrate is destroyed before DNL starts).

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:44 AM

"Of course you need to be burning fat to lose weight but eating carbohydrate does not stop you doing so." Yet, barely 25 minutes earlier you yourself said "Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation". What was retarded again?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:26 AM

It does not matter. Of course you need to be burning fat to lose weight but eating carbohydrate does not stop you doing so. This arugument is getting as retarded as carbs->insulin->obesity.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:16 AM

"Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation." Which can only come from dietary carbs. It's a fruitless circle. Eat carbs which stimulates burning of those carbs for the sake of it. To lose fat you need to be burning fat. And yes, that requires a deficit in the long-run. Neither gorging suppresses real hunger. You have no idea what real hunger is, and it's not an issue for anyone who is overweight. Butter soaked bacon however doesn't generate signals that you misinterpret as hunger.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:10 AM

False hunger? Right because when you gorge on butter soaked bacon it suppresses real hunger but when one eats potatoes to satiety it's a fake satiety? Come on. Fat metabolism has got nothing to do with it; weight loss happens when caloric needs are over those eaten. Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation. Over the 24 hour period it doesn't matter. Where does dietary fat go? Straight into storage.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:08 AM

False hunger? Right because when you gorge on butter soaked bacon it suppresses real hunger but when one eats potatoes to satiety it's a fake hunger? Come on. Fat metabolism has got nothing to do with it; weight loss happens when caloric needs are over those eaten. Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation. Over the 24 hour period it doesn't matter. Where does dietary fat go? Straight into storage.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:06 AM

It's not a theory, it can be adapted to whatever you like. It can fit as a partial explanation of some phenomena but I don't think it really addresses everything, and isn't entirely convincing as a root cause or a desirable or logical lifestyle.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:01 AM

I think the potato and rice only diet speaks most highly to Gueyenet's food reward theory

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:55 AM

Simply not true. If you restrict it to one food source then yes, you'll likely get bored. But even so, bread is significantly different to potatoes. Rice and pasta too, as far as I'm concerned. And there is a massive advantage for controlling false hunger and losing weight in switching to a predominantly fat burning metabolism. Unless you're boring yourself into starvation you have to keep getting dietary carbs to satisfy your energy needs, which will regularly halt fat metabolism making it hard work to lose weight without being hungry.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:45 AM

Well the point was you said ''And it's a whole lot easier to overfeed on bread and rice'' which is a reference to it is easy to overeat carbohydrate. The fact is when you restrict either carbs or fat; weightloss is easy because you've reduced the reward content of your diet. There's no metabolic advantage to a LC diet (apart from perhaps some circumstances) just caloric deficit in hiding. :-)

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Well, you were agreeing with what cliff has been saying, and he and his friends seem quite keen on going high-carb and restricting fat. And seemingly keen on sticking to CW on obesity.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:37 AM

It's ok, I see it now. He manifestly did not 'overfeed', quite the opposite. And he went from an non-ideal diet as a baseline. Cutting out the junk would have a significant effect whatever you went to. And going to nothing but potatoes, with a substantial calorie deficit, is going to require that you burn some fat. Almost entirely irrelevant.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:36 AM

Whoops, *restricting fat was **good**. I don't think fat restriction is beneficial (kinda like everyone on this whole site :).

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:35 AM

I'm kinda confused at what you're refuting in the last part of your comment - I never said that eating lots of carbs was good for you or that restricting fat was bad. I simply explained the metabolism behind CHO and fat storage.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:34 AM

There's definitely a link between CHO consumption and fat storage, but you can't look at it in isolation. Fruitarians eat nothing but fruits and thus up to 90/5/5 carbs/protein/fat but frequently suffer from a failure to thrive after some time. Low body weight, low muscle and bone mass, etc. There's more than just CHO intake when it comes to weight loss. 700g of carbs/day is easy with sugary drinks, yes, though I'd argue that what gets stored and what gets burned is *all* that's relevant. I don't think I ever stated anything about cutting or not cutting fat.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:31 AM

Potatoes are about 10% by calories protein.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:31 AM

He ate protein. Potatoes have a very high quality balance of amino acids. All he eat was potato and a little oil (2 tablespoons) and he ate to satisfaction; after a few weeks he had to deliberately increase calories to stop too much weight being lost.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:25 AM

He stopped eating protein? For how long? No other micro-nutrients?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:24 AM

It'll happen slowly, but it'll happen. HGs didn't go desperately looking for fruit or yams after a hunt. They overconsumed on fat and protein. We adapted to what was available, not necessarily what would be most efficient. With regards protein synthesis, the activation of GLUT-4 after exercise makes additional insulin largely redundant. There's some of course, because you ate protein.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:19 AM

Would you say there is no link between CHO consumption and fat storage? Or that eating 700g of carbs is particularly difficult or exceptional with SAD? I've no argument with the idea that a healthy person can successfully buffer occasional carb 'overload'. I think it takes concerted effort to get into a problematic fat storing vicious circle. But when limited to the obese population for whom it's relevant, CHO intake can be that high, what gets stored and what gets burned isn't actually all the relevant, and advice to cut fat is not constructive.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:15 AM

Try scoffing down 2000 (or whatever BMR caloric need is) of rice or potato. Chris Voigt tried it and lost 20 lbs.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:14 AM

Hey Andy, I don't think these statements are right. Gluconeogenesis will contribute negligible amounts of glucose to glycogen replenishment - it's primary purpose is to maintain blood glucose levels. It's worth noting that it takes 2-3g of protein to form 1g of glucose. Also, insulin is a highly anabolic hormone and *does* increase the rate of protein synthesis. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16545079

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:10 AM

Surely they could get fat overfeeding on anything? And it's a whole lot easier to overfeed on bread and rice. Once you've reached saturation, surely it doesn't matter much where the energy surplus comes from, and the important thing is the hormonal environment or misfunction thereof?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:01 AM

''are giving advice that turns the whole theory of paleo upside-down'' what was turned upside down? My comment was merely to illustrate some commonly held paleo beliefs are pretty retarded and that macronutrient ratios matter little if at all; wait milk is bad why? but Kale is ok? Get me. :-) What's wrong with a carb based metabolism?

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:58 AM

Andy: It's highly inefficient to convert glucose into fat (23% energy loss) vs. merely super-saturating glycogen stores which results in a mitochondrial energy substrate switch to glycogen until the stores are brought back to normal levels. DNL, even during carb overfeeding, accounts for about 10g of fat per day. Look at any obese person and probably 95%+ of the actual fat you see started out as dietary fat. Nobody gets obese overfeeding with plain bread or rice. Sure, carbs can cause that aforementioned substrate switch, but the fat was fat to begin with.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:50 AM

"Real whole carb foods contain the nutriets needed to process them." Well not really, given some carb sources don't benefit from being processed by animals. And I'm not sure milk to kale is the most sensible comparison for energy sources. Try comparing milk to liver, and see if you can imagine HGs getting by with that. Still, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There's paleo theories supporting pretty much any specification of carb and fat quantities you care to imagine.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:40 AM

There's no paleo theory that says eat this amount of carbs and this amount of fat. A diet of milk and OJ is as paleo as one of beef and vegetables (probably more considering we've all eaten milk whereas I don't see HGs running around hoping to get 30 calories of energy from kale).

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:37 AM

Real whole carb foods contain the nutriets needed to process them. Nothing wrong with fruit; despite what an overweight tax promoting doctor says.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:04 AM

In your original post, you say you've read somewhere that pretty much everyone here is wrong, and are giving advice that turns the whole theory of paleo upside-down. That's pretty abstract, and seems to me worthy of clarification. Yes, if I ate nothing but carbs after having fully depleting my glycogen stores, it would take a while to get into surplus. That would be a terrible diet though, lacking as it would pretty much all the essential nutrients. Have you not come across the theories of why it's very hard to properly maintain a carb-based metabolism without health risks?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:53 AM

FYI its pretty hard to make coherent comments with only so much to right and my thinking is pretty abstract at times which is why my original post might have been hard to comprehend? I think i got the general idea across though. Jeff seems to understand it.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:51 AM

Contrary view to what?? Conventional paleo wisom? Whats my secret research?? I don't make huge assumptions based on nothing?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:50 AM

..or what the comment even means? You can't link any studies because they don't exist.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:50 AM

So 3200 calories would instantly put you into calorie surplus? Maximum carbohydrates stores for a male are ~1200g depending on weight. If all you ate was 800g of carbs it would be burned for energy, this is what happens when you eat mostly carbohydrates your body compensates by burning mostly carbohydrates. Assuming your glycogen stores were relatively low when you started this it would take you days to completely refill glycogen stores even sitting there doing nothing all day becuase your body still uses ~2000 cals at rest. I don't know what hormones have to do with the issue?...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:44 AM

No, you said the 800g of carbs would be burned for energy. My glycogen stores would be nice and full halfway into day 1 of your 'multiple days'. I would not be in 'energy balance'. I would be in massive surplus if I continued. If I made a habit of it then my hormonal systems would misfunction. This isn't my idea, I'm not introducing the concept that excessive sugar in the diet leads to fat storage. I really didn't think linking studies to support that would be necessary on this site. You're taking a contrary view however, apparently based on your own secret 'research'.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:43 AM

And for the record I'm not totally against you here, I just wanna know what's best. I eat a ton of dates, which I believe are all sucrose

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:43 AM

I would be interested to know as well.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:38 AM

Well, thats true regarding insulin sensitivity, so I suppose exercise would effect that ability. We may be splitting hairs here, but I wonder, and I really don't know yet, how much exercise increases the GLUT 4 transporters to the plasma membrane, as opposed to the changes in GLUT 5 by insulin.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:35 AM

From the last it seems like the more insulin sensitive you are( i.e. the more exercise you do, carbs you eat or healthier you are) the higher your ability to metabolize fructose due to increased glut 5 transporters.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:33 AM

So what do these studies show?

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:32 AM

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t28u8w670w6l2182/ "Our findings suggest that plasma membrane GLUT5 levels and thus fructose utilisation rates in adipocytes are dependent upon cellular insulin sensitivity, inferring a possible role for GLUT5 in the elevated circulating fructose observed during diabetes, and associated pathological complications."

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1219879/pdf/9820812.pdf "The present results show that GLUT5 is expressed in the sarcolemma of rat skeletal muscle and that it is likely to mediate fructose uptake in this tissue. Furthermore, unlike the situation in absorptive and re-absorptive epithelia, GLUT5 expression in insulin-sensitive tissues is not regulated by increased substrate supply."

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9781312 "Muscle exercise, which stimulates glucose uptake through the increased translocation of GLUT4 to the plasma membrane, does not increase fructose transport or sarcolemmal GLUT5 content."......

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Based on what jeff? Not the way to go for what? Sucrose behaves identical to starch for all intents purposes, sucrose=fruits, honey etc. etc. There is no such thing as pure fructose in nature, it always comes packaged 50/50 with glucose in just about every case.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:23 AM

...even using highly refined sources. Its obvious that your cognitive bias wants me to be wrong as is apparent by your blatant misunderstanding of my post. In your mind its obvious that its the carbohydrates that makes SAD dieters fat and not the dietary fat(which is stored in fat tissue the easiest out of any macro-nutrient) which makes up 50% of there diet.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:23 AM

and no need to get snippy guys, we're all trying to learn more and be healthier

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:22 AM

Yeah we have a fructose transporter in our muscles but the fact that it isn't upregulated by exercise or additional substrate suggests it's not the optimal way to go.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:21 AM

I said you could eat 800 grams of carbs before your glycogen stores become saturated which is 3200 cals. I said you could do this for a couple days without physical exercise, after that if you are in energy balance DNL will kick in. So obviously you don't have excellent comprehension skills because I haven't claimed most of the stuff you say I have. What is the link between carbohydrates and obesity? Where are the studies showing people getting fat on carbohydrate based diets(70%+ of calories)? We have 100s of studies showing people improving obesity with high carbohydrate diets....

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:08 AM

Don't worry cliff, I have excellent comprehension skills. There must just be something about your lazy dismissive style that leaves these open questions. So you're saying my metabolism will uprate to burn 6000 calories a day without doing any specific physical activity if I eat lots of sugar? That's good news. I imagine I'd get rather hot though. And it's also good to know that there is no link at all between carbohydrate consumption and obesity. The lack of supporting evidence, science or logic isn't likely to put me off, because you're just so persuasive.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:00 AM

It fills it half as fast.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Again you can't comprehend because I didn't say it can't be converted in the liver I said that it doesn't have to be processed by the liver necessarily. We have glut 5 receptors in our muscles, testis, kidneys, fat tissues and brain which uptake fructose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLUT5

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Cliff, that second study is showing that fructose refills glycogen half as well as sucrose, no?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:57 PM

Andy you must not have very good comprehension skills. The carbs don't magically disappear they are used for energy, do you not understand that? I guess you could say they magically disappear? You gain weight anytime you are in energy balance, my point is too eat enough carbs to stay in energy balance+enough to get them converted to fat you have to try really hard.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:57 PM

"Fructose turns to glucose before its turned into fat." But it's not converted in the liver, because that's just a common misconception yes? So where does this process take place?

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:54 PM

*I think you mean vastly MISunderstood

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:52 PM

So 4000 calories from carbs for multiple days, without any offsetting activity to use glycogen, plus the required nutrition from protein and fat, and you don't gain weight because the carbs magically disappear? Yes, I read that part, and it explains nothing, like your reply.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:44 PM

exactly! My guess is possibly not that effectively.... However, I believe exercise upregulates the GLUT 4 transporter which is what brings glucose into the muscles so maybe it doesn't have to circumvent gluconeogenesis

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Fructose turns to glucose before its turned into fat.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:29 PM

It takes a lot of excess carbs to be stored as fat, did you not read that part? I'm talking about eating 800+ grams for multiple days without exercise, once you reach this limit you will store carbs as fat. There are some rare cases where DNL is upregulated but that isn't the norm. We have a obesity epidemic for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with carbohydrates.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:18 PM

So what happens to the carbs Cliff? If the body can't store them directly and doesn't convert the excess to fat, what happens? And why do we have an obesity epidemic?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 10:46 PM

Isn't that paper saying it's both? And wouldn't the massive blood sugar spike of the CW PWO inhibit gluconeogenesis for a while? Certainly in normal function gluconeogenesis would account for a large degree of replenishment, as that's the default source of glucose. And by filling up the liver, that in turn replenishes the muscles. The question is how effectively can that be circumvented by dumping a load of dietary carbs out of nowhere.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 15, 2011
at 08:13 PM

Keeping the liver (and thus brain) stocked up with glucose is a very pressing concern for the body and it therefore has a much higher priority. It's not that hard to saturate the liver's stores though, so muscle glycogen synthesis would simply be second in line. I doubt that both depots would have the same priority. Muscle glycogen is a possible necessity, whereas glucose for the brain is a constant necessity.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

4
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:10 PM

The whole glycogen deal is vastly misunderstood by just about everyone in the paleo community from what I read. They are still stuck on the assumption that fructose has to be processed by the liver before it can be used or that once the liver is full fructose will be turned to fat. Its been shown in overfeeding studies that very little of the carbs become fat unless you overfeed massive amounts for days without physical activity. Its also been shown that sucrose behaves nearly identical to pure glucose(starch) in regards to glycogen muscle storage, it even seems to have some benefits over starch with lower insulin levels and faster uptake according to one study.

I doubt what ted said is true based on my personal observations but I don't really see anything in scholar on the subject. Lots of info on glycogen storage after exercise though.

"The pattern of muscle glycogen resynthesis following exercise-induced depletion is biphasic. Following the cessation of exercise and with adequate carbohydrate consumption, muscle glycogen is rapidly resynthesised to near pre-exercise levels within 24 hours. Muscle glycogen then increases very gradually to above-normal levels over the next few days. " http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2011684

"When 0.35 (low glucose: N = 5), 0.70 (medium glucose: N = 5), or 1.40 (high glucose: N = 5) g.kg-1 body weight of glucose were given orally at 0, 2, and 4 h after exercise, the rates of glycogen synthesis were (mean +/- SE) 2.1 +/- 0.5, 5.8 +/- 1.0, and 5.7 +/- 0.9 mmol.kg-1.h-1, respectively. When 0.70 g.kg-1 body weight of sucrose (medium sucrose: N = 5), or fructose (medium fructose: N = 7) was ingested accordingly, the rates were 6.2 +/- 0.5 and 3.2 +/- 0.7 mmol.kg-1.h-1" http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3316904

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:29 PM

It takes a lot of excess carbs to be stored as fat, did you not read that part? I'm talking about eating 800+ grams for multiple days without exercise, once you reach this limit you will store carbs as fat. There are some rare cases where DNL is upregulated but that isn't the norm. We have a obesity epidemic for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with carbohydrates.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:23 AM

and no need to get snippy guys, we're all trying to learn more and be healthier

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Cliff, that second study is showing that fructose refills glycogen half as well as sucrose, no?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Again you can't comprehend because I didn't say it can't be converted in the liver I said that it doesn't have to be processed by the liver necessarily. We have glut 5 receptors in our muscles, testis, kidneys, fat tissues and brain which uptake fructose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLUT5

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9781312 "Muscle exercise, which stimulates glucose uptake through the increased translocation of GLUT4 to the plasma membrane, does not increase fructose transport or sarcolemmal GLUT5 content."......

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:27 AM

Sorry should read ''Fat oxidation is suppressed'' at the start.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:23 AM

...even using highly refined sources. Its obvious that your cognitive bias wants me to be wrong as is apparent by your blatant misunderstanding of my post. In your mind its obvious that its the carbohydrates that makes SAD dieters fat and not the dietary fat(which is stored in fat tissue the easiest out of any macro-nutrient) which makes up 50% of there diet.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:50 AM

So 3200 calories would instantly put you into calorie surplus? Maximum carbohydrates stores for a male are ~1200g depending on weight. If all you ate was 800g of carbs it would be burned for energy, this is what happens when you eat mostly carbohydrates your body compensates by burning mostly carbohydrates. Assuming your glycogen stores were relatively low when you started this it would take you days to completely refill glycogen stores even sitting there doing nothing all day becuase your body still uses ~2000 cals at rest. I don't know what hormones have to do with the issue?...

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:52 PM

So 4000 calories from carbs for multiple days, without any offsetting activity to use glycogen, plus the required nutrition from protein and fat, and you don't gain weight because the carbs magically disappear? Yes, I read that part, and it explains nothing, like your reply.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:10 AM

False hunger? Right because when you gorge on butter soaked bacon it suppresses real hunger but when one eats potatoes to satiety it's a fake satiety? Come on. Fat metabolism has got nothing to do with it; weight loss happens when caloric needs are over those eaten. Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation. Over the 24 hour period it doesn't matter. Where does dietary fat go? Straight into storage.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:51 AM

Contrary view to what?? Conventional paleo wisom? Whats my secret research?? I don't make huge assumptions based on nothing?

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:54 PM

*I think you mean vastly MISunderstood

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:33 AM

So what do these studies show?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:44 AM

No, you said the 800g of carbs would be burned for energy. My glycogen stores would be nice and full halfway into day 1 of your 'multiple days'. I would not be in 'energy balance'. I would be in massive surplus if I continued. If I made a habit of it then my hormonal systems would misfunction. This isn't my idea, I'm not introducing the concept that excessive sugar in the diet leads to fat storage. I really didn't think linking studies to support that would be necessary on this site. You're taking a contrary view however, apparently based on your own secret 'research'.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:53 AM

FYI its pretty hard to make coherent comments with only so much to right and my thinking is pretty abstract at times which is why my original post might have been hard to comprehend? I think i got the general idea across though. Jeff seems to understand it.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:50 AM

..or what the comment even means? You can't link any studies because they don't exist.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:10 AM

Surely they could get fat overfeeding on anything? And it's a whole lot easier to overfeed on bread and rice. Once you've reached saturation, surely it doesn't matter much where the energy surplus comes from, and the important thing is the hormonal environment or misfunction thereof?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:45 AM

Well the point was you said ''And it's a whole lot easier to overfeed on bread and rice'' which is a reference to it is easy to overeat carbohydrate. The fact is when you restrict either carbs or fat; weightloss is easy because you've reduced the reward content of your diet. There's no metabolic advantage to a LC diet (apart from perhaps some circumstances) just caloric deficit in hiding. :-)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:57 PM

Andy you must not have very good comprehension skills. The carbs don't magically disappear they are used for energy, do you not understand that? I guess you could say they magically disappear? You gain weight anytime you are in energy balance, my point is too eat enough carbs to stay in energy balance+enough to get them converted to fat you have to try really hard.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:26 AM

It does not matter. Of course you need to be burning fat to lose weight but eating carbohydrate does not stop you doing so. This arugument is getting as retarded as carbs->insulin->obesity.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:44 AM

"Of course you need to be burning fat to lose weight but eating carbohydrate does not stop you doing so." Yet, barely 25 minutes earlier you yourself said "Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation". What was retarded again?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:42 AM

I downvoted your answer because it's not correct. Approximately 80% of fructose will go to the liver; not all of it.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:38 AM

Well, thats true regarding insulin sensitivity, so I suppose exercise would effect that ability. We may be splitting hairs here, but I wonder, and I really don't know yet, how much exercise increases the GLUT 4 transporters to the plasma membrane, as opposed to the changes in GLUT 5 by insulin.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:15 AM

Try scoffing down 2000 (or whatever BMR caloric need is) of rice or potato. Chris Voigt tried it and lost 20 lbs.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:13 AM

Carbohydrate oxidation is suppressed until the carbohydrate is used up; then fat oxidation takes place. It's not complicated; one potato does not stop you from burning fat over the course of a day (or whatever course of time). Do you understand how stupid you're making yourself look?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:22 PM

Andy I suggest you pick up a physiology text book, you obviously have been brainwashed by the low carbers.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:00 AM

It fills it half as fast.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:35 AM

From the last it seems like the more insulin sensitive you are( i.e. the more exercise you do, carbs you eat or healthier you are) the higher your ability to metabolize fructose due to increased glut 5 transporters.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:40 AM

There's no paleo theory that says eat this amount of carbs and this amount of fat. A diet of milk and OJ is as paleo as one of beef and vegetables (probably more considering we've all eaten milk whereas I don't see HGs running around hoping to get 30 calories of energy from kale).

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:21 AM

I said you could eat 800 grams of carbs before your glycogen stores become saturated which is 3200 cals. I said you could do this for a couple days without physical exercise, after that if you are in energy balance DNL will kick in. So obviously you don't have excellent comprehension skills because I haven't claimed most of the stuff you say I have. What is the link between carbohydrates and obesity? Where are the studies showing people getting fat on carbohydrate based diets(70%+ of calories)? We have 100s of studies showing people improving obesity with high carbohydrate diets....

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:32 AM

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t28u8w670w6l2182/ "Our findings suggest that plasma membrane GLUT5 levels and thus fructose utilisation rates in adipocytes are dependent upon cellular insulin sensitivity, inferring a possible role for GLUT5 in the elevated circulating fructose observed during diabetes, and associated pathological complications."

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:55 AM

Simply not true. If you restrict it to one food source then yes, you'll likely get bored. But even so, bread is significantly different to potatoes. Rice and pasta too, as far as I'm concerned. And there is a massive advantage for controlling false hunger and losing weight in switching to a predominantly fat burning metabolism. Unless you're boring yourself into starvation you have to keep getting dietary carbs to satisfy your energy needs, which will regularly halt fat metabolism making it hard work to lose weight without being hungry.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:09 AM

"Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation in the short term; over 24 hours it does not." Unless you eat carbs more than once in that 24 hour period, which seems quite likely. I'm not sure what you're trying to gain from repeating your incomplete decades-old dogma. While I'm sure it's very reassuring to others who can't think for themselves, it's not terribly convincing to anyone who's learnt better. Such transparent sophistry, I just don't understand why you would hang around here of all places to try and peddle it. The nature of an internet contrarian I suppose.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:50 AM

I don't imply that at all, I've said precisely the opposite. It's ok, I know how difficult it is to engage with a subject you don't properly understand, and you are heavily invested in simplistic ideas that never held up to scrutiny. You have your personal agenda to push, with your ad hominem remarks and supercilious tone, lacking any real coherent argument. By all means, don't let me stop you.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:04 PM

http://veganmaster.blogspot.com/2008/07/elevating-insulin-and-minimizing-fat.html

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:57 PM

"Fructose turns to glucose before its turned into fat." But it's not converted in the liver, because that's just a common misconception yes? So where does this process take place?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:25 AM

Based on what jeff? Not the way to go for what? Sucrose behaves identical to starch for all intents purposes, sucrose=fruits, honey etc. etc. There is no such thing as pure fructose in nature, it always comes packaged 50/50 with glucose in just about every case.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:31 AM

Potatoes are about 10% by calories protein.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:39 AM

Inconsistent? Hardly. Despite what an overweight journalist says calories count; you seem to imply they don't.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 06:06 AM

"your refusal to accept that dietary fat has a negligible thermal effect and is readily stored in adipocytes is bizarrely dogmatic." When have I ever refused, or even referred to that?! All I've had is people telling me I'll lose more weight eating 4000 calories a day of carbs than eating 2000 calories a day of fat. The lack of fat thermogenesis and relative ease of storage is pretty immaterial. You reject Taubes, fine. But the 'arguments' advanced here to defend that position are simply haphazard and incoherent. Or at least that's how they come across.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:18 PM

So what happens to the carbs Cliff? If the body can't store them directly and doesn't convert the excess to fat, what happens? And why do we have an obesity epidemic?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:16 PM

"we found that for equivalent amounts of energy, fat leads to more body fat accumulation than does carbohydrate.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Fructose turns to glucose before its turned into fat.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:04 AM

In your original post, you say you've read somewhere that pretty much everyone here is wrong, and are giving advice that turns the whole theory of paleo upside-down. That's pretty abstract, and seems to me worthy of clarification. Yes, if I ate nothing but carbs after having fully depleting my glycogen stores, it would take a while to get into surplus. That would be a terrible diet though, lacking as it would pretty much all the essential nutrients. Have you not come across the theories of why it's very hard to properly maintain a carb-based metabolism without health risks?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:25 AM

He stopped eating protein? For how long? No other micro-nutrients?

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:27 AM

Sorry should read ''Fat oxidation is suppressed'' at the start.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:43 AM

And for the record I'm not totally against you here, I just wanna know what's best. I eat a ton of dates, which I believe are all sucrose

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:22 AM

Yeah we have a fructose transporter in our muscles but the fact that it isn't upregulated by exercise or additional substrate suggests it's not the optimal way to go.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:08 AM

Don't worry cliff, I have excellent comprehension skills. There must just be something about your lazy dismissive style that leaves these open questions. So you're saying my metabolism will uprate to burn 6000 calories a day without doing any specific physical activity if I eat lots of sugar? That's good news. I imagine I'd get rather hot though. And it's also good to know that there is no link at all between carbohydrate consumption and obesity. The lack of supporting evidence, science or logic isn't likely to put me off, because you're just so persuasive.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:43 AM

I would be interested to know as well.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:50 AM

"Real whole carb foods contain the nutriets needed to process them." Well not really, given some carb sources don't benefit from being processed by animals. And I'm not sure milk to kale is the most sensible comparison for energy sources. Try comparing milk to liver, and see if you can imagine HGs getting by with that. Still, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There's paleo theories supporting pretty much any specification of carb and fat quantities you care to imagine.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 12:29 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1219879/pdf/9820812.pdf "The present results show that GLUT5 is expressed in the sarcolemma of rat skeletal muscle and that it is likely to mediate fructose uptake in this tissue. Furthermore, unlike the situation in absorptive and re-absorptive epithelia, GLUT5 expression in insulin-sensitive tissues is not regulated by increased substrate supply."

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:58 AM

Andy: It's highly inefficient to convert glucose into fat (23% energy loss) vs. merely super-saturating glycogen stores which results in a mitochondrial energy substrate switch to glycogen until the stores are brought back to normal levels. DNL, even during carb overfeeding, accounts for about 10g of fat per day. Look at any obese person and probably 95%+ of the actual fat you see started out as dietary fat. Nobody gets obese overfeeding with plain bread or rice. Sure, carbs can cause that aforementioned substrate switch, but the fat was fat to begin with.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:35 AM

You're not even making an argument any more. You're hopelessly inconsistent from one comment to the next, which is not surprising given the position you're trying to defend. And now you're just being immature by downvoting my answer.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on December 16, 2011
at 05:53 AM

Andy: You have a complete lack of understanding about human physiology with regard to fat digestion and storage. Not all science is dogma, however your refusal to accept that dietary fat has a negligible thermal effect and is readily stored in adipocytes is bizarrely dogmatic.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 01:37 AM

Real whole carb foods contain the nutriets needed to process them. Nothing wrong with fruit; despite what an overweight tax promoting doctor says.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:31 AM

He ate protein. Potatoes have a very high quality balance of amino acids. All he eat was potato and a little oil (2 tablespoons) and he ate to satisfaction; after a few weeks he had to deliberately increase calories to stop too much weight being lost.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:08 AM

False hunger? Right because when you gorge on butter soaked bacon it suppresses real hunger but when one eats potatoes to satiety it's a fake hunger? Come on. Fat metabolism has got nothing to do with it; weight loss happens when caloric needs are over those eaten. Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation. Over the 24 hour period it doesn't matter. Where does dietary fat go? Straight into storage.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:01 AM

I think the potato and rice only diet speaks most highly to Gueyenet's food reward theory

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:01 AM

''are giving advice that turns the whole theory of paleo upside-down'' what was turned upside down? My comment was merely to illustrate some commonly held paleo beliefs are pretty retarded and that macronutrient ratios matter little if at all; wait milk is bad why? but Kale is ok? Get me. :-) What's wrong with a carb based metabolism?

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:06 AM

It's not a theory, it can be adapted to whatever you like. It can fit as a partial explanation of some phenomena but I don't think it really addresses everything, and isn't entirely convincing as a root cause or a desirable or logical lifestyle.

D12142c8cafb16d9af10b3362cb8fb62

(1590)

on December 16, 2011
at 04:02 AM

Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation in the short term; over 24 hours it does not. Carbs do not cause bodyfat gain anymore than fat; fat is more readily is stored (as a significant amount of carbohydrate is destroyed before DNL starts).

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:37 AM

It's ok, I see it now. He manifestly did not 'overfeed', quite the opposite. And he went from an non-ideal diet as a baseline. Cutting out the junk would have a significant effect whatever you went to. And going to nothing but potatoes, with a substantial calorie deficit, is going to require that you burn some fat. Almost entirely irrelevant.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:16 AM

"Carbohydrate suppresses fat oxidation BUT it increases carbohydrate oxidation." Which can only come from dietary carbs. It's a fruitless circle. Eat carbs which stimulates burning of those carbs for the sake of it. To lose fat you need to be burning fat. And yes, that requires a deficit in the long-run. Neither gorging suppresses real hunger. You have no idea what real hunger is, and it's not an issue for anyone who is overweight. Butter soaked bacon however doesn't generate signals that you misinterpret as hunger.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:11 PM

http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.full.pdf+html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 03:13 PM

Overfeeding on carbohydrates increases net energy expenditure by ~800 cals after a week, fat doesn't increase it at all.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on December 16, 2011
at 05:30 PM

I agree with you cliff, but OVER feeding studies are not applicable. no one should be purposely trying to overeating. how about some regular eating studies with high carb. overeating is OBVIOUSLY going to cause all fat eaten to be stored, hence, overeating.

1
3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

on December 16, 2011
at 02:01 AM

As cliff stated, muscle glycogen stores are replenished at speeds in proportion to the amount of glucose consumed.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation here about CHO intake and fat accumulation. In summary, carbs are converted to fat via a process called de novo lipogenesis. However, de novo lipogenesis occurs in negligible amounts until your entire CHO intake exceeds your total energy expenditure. The body will always prefer CHO to fat/protein for fuel, if available. Here was one study on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981

Unless you're eating something like 700+g CHO a day and are actually exceeding your daily energy expenditure, you get fat not because CHO is converted to fat but rather because lipolysis is downregulated. You aren't burning the fat you eat since you're burning CHO, and it gets stored. VLCDs work for weight loss for a multitude of reasons, but the return to a primarily lipolytic state (vs. lipogenic with high carb + fat intake) is an integral factor.

To answer your actual question, you can check out studies but 24 - 48 hours is sufficient to fully replenish glycogen stores. Ned's statement doesn't jive with what most studies have shown on glycogen replenishment in athletes.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:35 AM

I'm kinda confused at what you're refuting in the last part of your comment - I never said that eating lots of carbs was good for you or that restricting fat was bad. I simply explained the metabolism behind CHO and fat storage.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Well, you were agreeing with what cliff has been saying, and he and his friends seem quite keen on going high-carb and restricting fat. And seemingly keen on sticking to CW on obesity.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:30 PM

Andy get a clue, your feelings are obviously hurt because we don't agree with your made up dogma. I eat 700g+ of carbs a day, SAD eaters don't even come close to that considering I eat 4000+ cals and my carb percentage is 70%. The SAD is 50/50 fat/carbs(by calories) with the fats being from toxic PUFAs which screw up carbohydrate metabolism(along with tons of other consequences). Most sad eaters are probably getting more like ~300g of carbs and 150g of fat, if they were truly high carb low fat they wouldn't be obese.

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:19 AM

Would you say there is no link between CHO consumption and fat storage? Or that eating 700g of carbs is particularly difficult or exceptional with SAD? I've no argument with the idea that a healthy person can successfully buffer occasional carb 'overload'. I think it takes concerted effort to get into a problematic fat storing vicious circle. But when limited to the obese population for whom it's relevant, CHO intake can be that high, what gets stored and what gets burned isn't actually all the relevant, and advice to cut fat is not constructive.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:36 AM

Whoops, *restricting fat was **good**. I don't think fat restriction is beneficial (kinda like everyone on this whole site :).

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:34 AM

There's definitely a link between CHO consumption and fat storage, but you can't look at it in isolation. Fruitarians eat nothing but fruits and thus up to 90/5/5 carbs/protein/fat but frequently suffer from a failure to thrive after some time. Low body weight, low muscle and bone mass, etc. There's more than just CHO intake when it comes to weight loss. 700g of carbs/day is easy with sugary drinks, yes, though I'd argue that what gets stored and what gets burned is *all* that's relevant. I don't think I ever stated anything about cutting or not cutting fat.

1
5e36f73c3f95eb4ea13a009f4936449f

(8280)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:22 PM

Depends on what you mean by "slowly". My recollection is that research on recovery in athletes was 24-48 hours for glycogen restoration.

0
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 10:31 PM

I see what you're questioning, the statement that very little glucose/fructose from carbs gets past the liver.

I'm gonna throw a wrench in this that I'm currently trying to figure out... It appears that liver glycogen isn't re-filled directly from dietary carbs the way many people seem to assume.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11544610

I need to read this paper fully, but it shows that liver glycogen is refilled (to a considerable degree at least) via gluconeogenesis.

To be honest I'm not yet sure how this relates to muscle glycogen other than it may be managed slightly differently that just eating starch and letting your muscles absorb it. Maybe not though.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on December 15, 2011
at 11:44 PM

exactly! My guess is possibly not that effectively.... However, I believe exercise upregulates the GLUT 4 transporter which is what brings glucose into the muscles so maybe it doesn't have to circumvent gluconeogenesis

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 10:46 PM

Isn't that paper saying it's both? And wouldn't the massive blood sugar spike of the CW PWO inhibit gluconeogenesis for a while? Certainly in normal function gluconeogenesis would account for a large degree of replenishment, as that's the default source of glucose. And by filling up the liver, that in turn replenishes the muscles. The question is how effectively can that be circumvented by dumping a load of dietary carbs out of nowhere.

-2
Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 15, 2011
at 05:27 PM

Depends how much glucose you take in. As we know if you take a big hit it''s not going to stay glucose for long. And what I've seen suggests that there's questionable gain to trying to overload things post workout, and only then so as to be able to overtrain. If you have a healthy intense training frequency, then you should be able to refill your glycogen over several days from your normal paleo carb intake/gluconeogenesis if that's your thing.

There's still some CW around I think that suggests that the glucose helps with the uptake of protein, which I hear is not necessary.

So the question is, when you go for your PWO sugar rush, does the insulin preferentially shuttle glucose to the muscles? Fructose has to go to the liver first, so that's a non-issue, but glucose can be used and stored directly. However it seems to me reasonable to think that at best, muscle and liver glycogen are replenished at the same rate, and once the liver is full it's going to start converting to fat while your muscles are only 1/5th full. I think you'd be able to push on and get a lot into the muscles, but only at a cost which may seem counter-productive depending on your goals. Health or performance.

3bad4b0b105bf44d7650e7fdfbe15cbd

(860)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:14 AM

Hey Andy, I don't think these statements are right. Gluconeogenesis will contribute negligible amounts of glucose to glycogen replenishment - it's primary purpose is to maintain blood glucose levels. It's worth noting that it takes 2-3g of protein to form 1g of glucose. Also, insulin is a highly anabolic hormone and *does* increase the rate of protein synthesis. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16545079

Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 16, 2011
at 02:24 AM

It'll happen slowly, but it'll happen. HGs didn't go desperately looking for fruit or yams after a hunt. They overconsumed on fat and protein. We adapted to what was available, not necessarily what would be most efficient. With regards protein synthesis, the activation of GLUT-4 after exercise makes additional insulin largely redundant. There's some of course, because you ate protein.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!