Ad Widget

Collapse

What sugar/glucose level to Remain in fat burning

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What sugar/glucose level to Remain in fat burning

    Hi everyone
    What sugar/glucose numbers are considered the fat burning level ?
    For example....if I eat something eg sweet potato , and tested my sugar level an hour later to see what the response is, what do I need to be below ?


    Sent from my iPhone using Marks Daily Apple Forum

  • #2
    Originally posted by Onedayatatime View Post
    Hi everyone
    What sugar/glucose numbers are considered the fat burning level ?
    For example....if I eat something eg sweet potato , and tested my sugar level an hour later to see what the response is, what do I need to be below ?
    Hi, this is not the way it works. If you eat a sweet potato, or 2, or 5, if your metabolism is not screwed up, you will dispose of the glucose pretty fast. if you are like most people, you move a good deal throughout the day and you sleep a good night sleep. Energy assessment happens mostly at night. Your liver will deliver glucose to your brain while sleeping, while most of your body functions are fueled by fat during that time. If you did not eat much during the day, regardless of what you ate, you will be in a deficit. If you repeat that during a few days, you will see a difference on the scale and in the mirror. If you think that eating fat only will make you a "fat burning beast", you are believing in Santa Claus. This low carb myth is just that, a myth, and Sisson can't retro-pedal and disown his Taubesian influence. A real shame but anyway, enjoy your carbs!

    (Seriously, of all macronutrients, only proteins and carbs are tightly regulated by the body, meaning that the body makes sure to use adequate amounts and get rid of excess - this is very well researched and documented. Fat is the macro you should watch out for because we don't have a tight regulation mechanism, we can store it almost ad lib, we just suck at getting rid of excess dietary fat when the intake is in a surplus compared to our needs. This does not mean you should avoid fat at all, but you should just have this in mind if you already eat enough carbs and proteins).

    EDIT: please read the latest article from Stephan Guyenet, it will show you that insulin is actually not a fat loss hindrance at all, quite the opposite So much for Taubes, haha!

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...ndermines.html
    Last edited by Man; 08-14-2015, 02:28 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I generally agree with Man. There is no "lower" blood glucose level resulting from being a fat burner, unless there have been insulin issues prior to the transition. In cases like that, then lower carb intake would lower blood glucose levels. But, assuming systems are working normally, blood glucose levels will stay within a narrow range regardless of lower carb intake. The value of lower carb intake is 1) the elimination of excessive carbs that convert to fat, or 2) overwhelm available insulin and 3) mask satiation signals from the brain.

      The value of being a fat burner is the impact it has on fat, both stored and dietary. Using fat to meet energy needs is more efficient, keeps insulin low and blood glucose levels within range. Meeting those energy needs with fat improves satiation signals, reduces additional fat storage and utilizes stored fat, with resultant weight loss of excessive stored fat.

      I disagree with Man about the regulation of macros, however. The way the body regulates carbs is not what we want. Excess carbs readily are stored as fat. That is regulation, yes, but it's not like they're being discarded when consumed in excess. In my opinion, carbs are the unregulated macro, in the context of unwanted effect.

      The way I see it, protein and fat intake is regulated by satiation signals from the brain. Either can be eaten to excess, of course, but one really has to work at it and will be uncomfortable in the process. If one routinely eats proteins and fats in excess, there are other issues. For example, excessive carbs can mask those satiation signals and lead to excessive intake of protein and fat as well. I'm sure there are other malfunctions that can cause issues too. For me, carbs are the culprit.
      Last edited by John Caton; 08-14-2015, 03:43 AM.
      Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
      Old Paths ... New Journeys

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Caton View Post
        I disagree with Man about the regulation of macros, however. The way the body regulates carbs is not what we want. Excess carbs readily are stored as fat. That is regulation, yes, but it's not like they're being discarded when consumed in excess. In my opinion, carbs are the unregulated macro, in the context of unwanted effect.
        That's where John and I completely disagree. From what I read, excess carbs are mostly burnt (increased body temp) but only when glycogen stored have been filled up (liver, muscles). DNL (de novo lipogenesis) is highly inefficient in humans. You may make a little bit out of repeated excess carb episodes, but the resulting amount of fat is not only insignificant but is also oxidized right then (this is well documented). For proteins, we keep tight control of the nitrogen balance. So when the amino acid pool is filled up, the body just gets rid of the excess by burning it. When it comes to fat, there is no such tight regulation. If you eat enough proteins with your fat, protein will help you reach satiation. Fat itself does not do that. If it did, I'd like to see a paper explaining the mechanism. In my opinion, that's where many high fat low carb paleo folks get it wrong, thinking that fat is helping to reach satiation quick. That's in fact the protein since this version of paleo is often very protein centric.

        Comment


        • #5
          Low carb does work especially if you are trying to lose fat/weight. You can find research supporting or debunking anything on the internet. There's an anti-low carb movement going on around here lately despite the thousands of people who have had success and greatly improved their personal health. And that's it right there, "personal" some people do fine eating as much carbohydrate as they want. Others don't have that luxury. Everyone knows that super fit and healthy person that eats candy and crap all day and doesn't gain weight or have any apparent health issues. Everybody is different. I personally preform best low carb and have had great success with it in the past.

          Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Nobody says that you can't lose weight on low carb diets, that's not the point. The point that is made here is to understand that insulin is not the enemy of weight loss at all (the OP was asking about blood sugar level in relation with fat burning - unless you're diabetic, blood sugar level fluctuations throughout the day due to food ingestion has not much to do with body fat loss). The myth has been popularized by Taubes, and this must be debunked. I referred to an article from S. Guyenet. I highly recommend you read it because it precisely tested Taubes' theory. It explains all this better than I can ever do. As to what you want to eat, whatever floats your boat!

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm just skeptical of papers and research anymore since you can usually find an equal amount that support or refute just about any given topic. Personal experience trumps all in my opinion.

              Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by whitebear View Post
                I'm just skeptical of papers and research anymore since you can usually find an equal amount that support or refute just about any given topic. Personal experience trumps all in my opinion.

                Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
                Learning to read and understand the science is key. Proper studies are not written for laypersons (though that's a huge flaw in the scientific/academic journal industry), and journalists do no favors when reporting on results that they themselves do not understand.

                I agree that each person needs to figure out what works based on their experience, but your experience (or my experience, etc.) does nothing to help anyone else find their own path. Proper reading of solid science helps more people, more consistently, than any n=1.
                I got 99 problems but a pancake ain't one...

                My Journal

                Height: 6'3"
                SW (Feb 2012): 278
                SBF: 26% (Scale)
                CW (Sept 2015): 200
                CBF: 17% (Scale)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by accidentalpancake View Post
                  Learning to read and understand the science is key. Proper studies are not written for laypersons (though that's a huge flaw in the scientific/academic journal industry), and journalists do no favors when reporting on results that they themselves do not understand.

                  I agree that each person needs to figure out what works based on their experience, but your experience (or my experience, etc.) does nothing to help anyone else find their own path. Proper reading of solid science helps more people, more consistently, than any n=1.
                  Howdy neighbor ...

                  I agree that n=1s trump the advice from the gurus, here and elsewhere, but even our variances are based in the science. No one is so unique to defy the science. The question is, do we understand the science?

                  Life is the embodiment of mass converting to energy and vice versa. Therefore, when considering the everlasting debate of available energy from glucose vs fat, the science still reveals that a molecule of fatty acid yields 6X more energy than a molecule of glucose in the mitochondria, the generators of our energy, infrared heat and DC electricity.

                  All of our debates center on stuff that happens during the processes that deliver fats and sugar to the mitochondria, but it's what happens there that matters. No n=1 trumps that.

                  We often mistake what we perceive to be an energy burst when we consume a high carb food or drink. Much of what we feel is just a quick rise in dopamine. The same effect can be had from a dose of l-dopa, caffeine or nicotine. Or, if you prefer, any host of illegal substances.

                  Glycogen provides quick access to infrared energy when muscles demand it and that's a good thing. Beyond maintaining a healthy store of glycogen I fail to see any benefit of using carbs for a primary energy source.
                  Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                  Old Paths ... New Journeys

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                    the science still reveals that a molecule of fatty acid yields 6X more energy than a molecule of glucose in the mitochondria
                    The amount of energy derived from a molecule of fatty acid would depend on the length of the fatty acid, which varies.
                    Originally posted by John Caton
                    Glycogen provides quick access to infrared energy when muscles demand it and that's a good thing.
                    Are you suggesting that glycogen's only purpose is to provide infrared light? Fatty acids and glycogen both break down in a process that produces ATP. It's the same "energy."
                    My opinions and some justification

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                      The amount of energy derived from a molecule of fatty acid would depend on the length of the fatty acid, which varies.
                      Are you suggesting that glycogen's only purpose is to provide infrared light? Fatty acids and glycogen both break down in a process that produces ATP. It's the same "energy."
                      Fatty acids convert to acetyl CoA and that does not vary, yielding 6X more ATP (energy) than glucose.

                      I did not say glycogen's "only" purpose was to supply infrared light, did I? It probably shoots a little sugar to the brain as well to trigger hormonal responses to attacks from tigers.
                      Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                      Old Paths ... New Journeys

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                        Fatty acids convert to acetyl CoA and that does not vary, yielding 6X more ATP (energy) than glucose.
                        Glucose also breaks down into acetyl CoA.
                        Originally posted by John Caton
                        I did not say glycogen's "only" purpose was to supply infrared light, did I? It probably shoots a little sugar to the brain as well to trigger hormonal responses to attacks from tigers.
                        Your use of the word "little" makes it sound like you are trying to downplay glycogen's role here. When food is not actively digesting, the brain and other tissues consume glucose derived from liver glycogen. This is one of the major roles of liver glycogen.

                        I'm also not sure where you're going with the infrared light angle. Infrared light production is mostly a function of temperature. Burning fatty acids contributes to body temperature; this is not unique to glucose. In fact, free fatty acids promote uncoupling, which is a process that produces heat without producing ATP.
                        My opinions and some justification

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                          Glucose also breaks down into acetyl CoA.
                          Your use of the word "little" makes it sound like you are trying to downplay glycogen's role here. When food is not actively digesting, the brain and other tissues consume glucose derived from liver glycogen. This is one of the major roles of liver glycogen.

                          I'm also not sure where you're going with the infrared light angle. Infrared light production is mostly a function of temperature. Burning fatty acids contributes to body temperature; this is not unique to glucose. In fact, free fatty acids promote uncoupling, which is a process that produces heat without producing ATP.
                          My reference to acetyl CoA from fatty acids was simply to provide for equalization prior to downstream processes. Yes, glucose converts to acetyl CoA as well but loses carbon to CO2 production to yield fewer acetyl CoA molecules. Therefore, one has to eat more carbs to get the same energy output as gotten from a lesser amount of fat.

                          Fats have 2X the heat energy potential as carbs, but at the mitochondrial level provide 6X the energy output and that is after the heat potential that is lost in heat generation without ATP production as you mentioned. So in what energy form is the additional energy provided except as electromagnetic energy? It can't all be heat, because if it were, it would only be possible to generate 2X the amount of energy as glucose, not 6X. Electromagnetic light frequency in the infrared spectrum is sensed by us as heat but is all heat infrared? I don't think so because by your reasoning, it would require infrared to generate infrared.

                          This exchange is an example of how we engage in debate on processes leading up to generating energy to power life. If we focused more on the simple output of the mitochondria and engaged in the promotion of mitochondrial health, there couldn't be much to debate.
                          Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                          Old Paths ... New Journeys

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                            My reference to acetyl CoA from fatty acids was simply to provide for equalization prior to downstream processes. Yes, glucose converts to acetyl CoA as well but loses carbon to CO2 production to yield fewer acetyl CoA molecules. Therefore, one has to eat more carbs to get the same energy output as gotten from a lesser amount of fat.
                            So what did you mean by this quote?
                            Originally posted by John Caton
                            a molecule of fatty acid yields 6X more energy than a molecule of glucose
                            Are you telling me butyrate, a fatty acid, produces 6x more energy than glucose? Because they both produce two units of acetyl CoA, but glucose also produces extra ATP via glycolysis. So glucose actually produces more ATP than this fatty acid molecule.
                            Originally posted by John Caton
                            Fats have 2X the heat energy potential as carbs, but at the mitochondrial level provide 6X the energy output and that is after the heat potential that is lost in heat generation without ATP production as you mentioned.
                            Citation, please.
                            Originally posted by John Caton
                            So in what energy form is the additional energy provided except as electromagnetic energy? It can't all be heat, because if it were, it would only be possible to generate 2X the amount of energy as glucose, not 6X. Electromagnetic light frequency in the infrared spectrum is sensed by us as heat but is all heat infrared?I don't think so because by your reasoning, it would require infrared to generate infrared.
                            I don't think you are using these words correctly.

                            It sounds like your argument is "Fat produces a huge amount of energy, but only a small amount of it is in the form of either ATP or heat, so the rest must be light. I am assuming this light is infrared." How are you concluding that fat produces so much energy? Where did you hear this?
                            My opinions and some justification

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Frankly, Elliott, I can't figure which of your questions relate to which of my quotes you cite, but it doesn't matter. Try a search on any engine with just the words "fatty acids carbs atp" and you'll have more citations than you can read today.

                              Again, why debate so many of the preliminary steps? You tell me, do your nerves transmit ATP or do they transmit electrical current? Then tell me where on earth there can be an electric current without a magnetic field? Whether as waves or particles, they exist together everywhere I can think of.

                              More fat, more ATP, more electromagnetic energy. Bottom line.
                              Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                              Old Paths ... New Journeys

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X