Ad Widget

Collapse

Trying to understand carbs -> glycogen -> fat

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Elliot View Post
    Johnn, you've changed units again. You've been doing this frequently throughout this thread. Fat has more energy per mass than glucose, and it has more energy per molecule. Neither of these is total energy. To get from energy per mass to total energy, you would need to know the total amount of mass being burned.

    As I said before, to get an equal amount of energy from carbs, you could simply burn more of them.

    Total energy is neither energy per mass nor energy per molecule!
    The quote you cite doesn't mention units at all so why do you say I changed units again?

    Switching from molecules to moles to grams is not a switch from the consideration of the differences in mass. It was just a restatement of mass units since you were so quick to point out that fat molecules are larger than glucose molecules. That was a valid observation you made so I provided some equalization to express both in grams. I previously tried to equalize the comparison using moles. Both of those switches were intended to provide clarity and to reaffirm the advantage fat has over glucose in output of energy to fuel your body. Your continued argument about "switching units" is a contrarian one.

    As I'm sure you know "Total Energy" has a specific meaning and our bodies do not utilize the "Total Energy" of glucose nor fat, nor anything else for that matter. If you did, I doubt you'd live to talk about it. That being said, the Total Energy of fat would probably kill you faster. Higher mass = higher energy.
    Last edited by John Caton; 08-21-2015, 02:51 AM.
    Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
    Old Paths ... New Journeys

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by John Caton View Post
      The quote you cite doesn't mention units at all so why do you say I changed units again?
      You said "increased energy." Not "increased energy per mass," or "increased energy per molecule," or "increased energy per mole." Just "increased energy." However, if you truly meant "increased energy per mass," or "increased energy per mole," then I still don't see why it's beneficial to get more energy per mass or more energy per mole. If one were to produce the same amount of energy, burning more carbs to compensate for the difference in energy per mass, what is the drawback?
      Originally posted by John Caton
      Switching from molecules to moles to grams is not a switch from the consideration of the differences in mass. It was just a restatement of mass units since you were so quick to point out that fat molecules are larger than glucose molecules. That was a valid observation you made so I provided some equalization to express both in grams. I previously tried to equalize the comparison using moles. Both of those switches were intended to provide clarity and to reaffirm the advantage fat has over glucose in output of energy to fuel your body. Your continued argument about "switching units" is a contrarian one.
      It's not contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. The original statement to which I responded here compared numbers using different units, as if they were the same. Here is the statement that started this:
      Originally posted by John Caton
      based on your calorie based assumptions, fat should only deliver 2X the energy as carbs...but when at its full potential, driven by proper hormonal signals, high saturated fat will deliver 6X the energy of glucose, not the 2X you'd expect from its calorie count.
      You use quantities with different units in the same sentence and compare them as if they are comparable. Fat does, in fact, provide 2X (more like 2.25X) the energy of carbs, per mass. It provides about 6X the energy of glucose, per molecule (assuming we're counting ATP produced in the mitochondria and the fatty acid is about 17 carbons). So the bolded portion you said is false is actually true. It is not contradicted by the underlined portion, because they are measuring different quantities with different units. You said one statement is false and one is true, but they are both true!
      Last edited by Elliot; 08-21-2015, 07:12 AM.
      My opinions and some justification

      Comment


      • #33
        No, EllioT. Not all fats provide 2.25X the energy in mass as glucose. My whole point in the thread is to knock that belief down. In the case of Stearic Acid, the second most abundant saturated fat, almost 4X more energy per gram is supplied over glucose.

        Calorie comparisons may be true in calorimeters but not in mitochondria.

        I understand it appeared in one of my posts that I agreed there was 2X (actually 2.25) advantage of fat over glucose, but I've had enough posts on here and you and I have debated this enough that my tongue-in-cheek statement should have shown through. I guess it didn't with you. So, for all those who insist on calorie counting, you had better calculate those fat calories in your steak as closer to 18 than 9.
        Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
        Old Paths ... New Journeys

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by John Caton View Post
          Calorie comparisons may be true in calorimeters but not in mitochondria.
          Energy is produced outside of the mitochondria. If you say "fat has more than 2.25 times as much energy," and not "fat has more than 2.25 times as much energy produced in the mitochondria," you would need to account for glycolysis. But the larger point is that your calculations were for ATP, which is only one form of energy. If you really want to show that fat actually produces more than 2.25 times as much energy, and not ATP specifically, you would also need to account for all forms of energy, including heat. Or, if you only want to talk about ATP, then you need to talk about how much ATP is produced, because it's not necessarily the maximal amount. Free fatty acid promote uncoupling, which would directly inhibit ATP production on a high-fat diet.
          My opinions and some justification

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by John Caton View Post
            So, for all those who insist on calorie counting, you had better calculate those fat calories in your steak as closer to 18 than 9.
            I would go very careful with bulletproof coffee if that was the case...
            "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

            - Schopenhauer

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
              I would go very careful with bulletproof coffee if that was the case...
              Gee whiz, I wish I had read this before consuming those 300 "calories" of fat in my bulletproof coffee this morning. Dang it.
              Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
              Old Paths ... New Journeys

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                Energy is produced outside of the mitochondria. If you say "fat has more than 2.25 times as much energy," and not "fat has more than 2.25 times as much energy produced in the mitochondria," you would need to account for glycolysis. But the larger point is that your calculations were for ATP, which is only one form of energy. If you really want to show that fat actually produces more than 2.25 times as much energy, and not ATP specifically, you would also need to account for all forms of energy, including heat. Or, if you only want to talk about ATP, then you need to talk about how much ATP is produced, because it's not necessarily the maximal amount. Free fatty acid promote uncoupling, which would directly inhibit ATP production on a high-fat diet.
                You seem to downplay the fact that ATP, while releasing only one form of energy, is our primary source of electrical energy to power our bodies. I'm not even trying to account for all forms of energy. My brain doesn't have enough ATP to power that task.

                Glycolysis is still an intracellular function to prepare glucose for ATP production in the mitochondria and it produces some ATP in the process prior to the mitochondria, while also consuming some ATP to power the process. Before you even say it, I know that the Fatty Acid Spiral also consumes some ATP. Body processes require energy. The question is, which process nets the greatest ATP output. Whether you measure the output expressed per molecule, mole or gram, what does it matter (pun intended)? Fat still wins.

                Heat is an important form of energy, of course. I dare say it isn't the most important source of energy to drive life, however. Heat is required to create a conducive environment for enzymatic and hormonal actions and that varies with lifeforms. Heat isn't what directly powers our brain, heart, other muscles, nerves or enzymatic and hormonal actions. It just renders an ideal environment for the actions.

                Although I wasn't trying to account for heat, it deepens my wonderment at why we stay in the dark ages trying to account for electrical output using a unit of potential heat measurement. I'm sure there are minds that can calculate electrical energy potential in the various macros. Why don't they come forward? Why don't we see that on nutritional labels? In the meantime, the net numerical ATP output (in molecules) available to the cell, is all I need to guide my food choices.

                I apologize for misspelling your name in a prior post, but you got me back in a humorous way. My cat is named Elliott. Not that I confused the two of you, but my cranial autocorrect is to blame. Peace.
                Last edited by John Caton; 08-22-2015, 04:40 AM.
                Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                Old Paths ... New Journeys

                Comment

                Working...
                X