Blast: Trestolone Acetate + Testosterone + Superdrol + LGD / Hairygrandpa blowing up!

HIT4ME said:
I know we kind of hijacked the thread - but here is a good article on the science of low carb vs. High carb:

Invalid Link Removed

I have also seen some evidence showing that the leanest individuals tend to have the highest carb intake, which is something I've observed anecdotally in discussions with people - and what I was pointing out with the group of us here that tend to naturally gravitate toward lower carbs yet seem to still struggle with weight.

Obviously, not suggesting low carb doesn't work myself either - just trying to bring up new angles to the discussion and open more opportunities for some of us.
Click to expand...

Interesting read, but not sure that it applies at all toward anything but the already known calories in VS calories out is the only answer. It point blank states in the beginning of the article that the body has an amazing capability to adapt to whatever you are feeding it. The differences in weight loss ofter extended periods was not statistically relevant. There is no smoking gun even implied here. Calories in VS calories out is what matters for composition. I promise I could get ripped with 400-500g of carbs a day but I would be miserable without my fats, and my blood sugar would likely cause me issues.

I think in a lot of ways you are looking to the diet as the cause of the problem and not the fact it was indirectly a result of your personal biology. As well as behavioral in that I am sure there was a time you overate carbohydrates enough to cause your insulin sensitivity issues you had in the first place. When people need to get insulin under control they need to control their carbs for a while. On top of that it is far easier to adhere to a CKD style diet than a lowfat, high carb for many due to blood sugar swings.

Anyway, I am going to read up on PDK later and see what all the hubbub is about Bub!
 
Oh yeah I mentioned maybe in another thread about the fact that insulin sensitivity increases as you get leaner. So you can definitely get away with eating more carbs when leaner.
 
HIT4ME said:
I know we kind of hijacked the thread - but here is a good article on the science of low carb vs. High carb: link removed.

I have also seen some evidence showing that the leanest individuals tend to have the highest carb intake, which is something I've observed anecdotally in discussions with people - and what I was pointing out with the group of us here that tend to naturally gravitate toward lower carbs yet seem to still struggle with weight.

Obviously, not suggesting low carb doesn't work myself either - just trying to bring up new angles to the discussion and open more opportunities for some of us.
Click to expand...

Great article! Thanks for sharing. It fits into my understanding and experience!
 
MrKleen73 said:
Interesting read, but not sure that it applies at all toward anything but the already known calories in VS calories out is the only answer. It point blank states in the beginning of the article that the body has an amazing capability to adapt to whatever you are feeding it. The differences in weight loss ofter extended periods was not statistically relevant. There is no smoking gun even implied here. Calories in VS calories out is what matters for composition. I promise I could get ripped with 400-500g of carbs a day but I would be miserable without my fats, and my blood sugar would likely cause me issues.

I think in a lot of ways you are looking to the diet as the cause of the problem and not the fact it was indirectly a result of your personal biology. As well as behavioral in that I am sure there was a time you overate carbohydrates enough to cause your insulin sensitivity issues you had in the first place. When people need to get insulin under control they need to control their carbs for a while. On top of that it is far easier to adhere to a CKD style diet than a lowfat, high carb for many due to blood sugar swings.

Anyway, I am going to read up on PDK later and see what all the hubbub is about Bub!
Click to expand...

Agreed - definitely no smoking gun here - just points for thought. Calories in vs. calories out is certainly the controlling factor here. The only thing I'm saying beyond that is, fat is a much more efficient source of calories than carbs - thus better for surviving on low calorie diets. It's actually fairly obvious but I think completely ignored in a lot of the dogma that is out there.

And yes - people adapt. Actually - did find another study on PDK that shows that, I believe it was mice and not people, fed a low carb diet for 7 days experienced a large increase in PDK, but this was rapidly reversed in 1-2 days on carbs. It shows how adaptive we are.

I guess the start of my "quest" here is this - the vast majority of dieters regain weight after they lose it. Many dieters regain MORE weight then they lost. This is true of any diet, in any situation. There is a lot of dogma out there about, "starvation mode" or whatever bro-science explanation you can think of as to why people regain this weight.

What this really shows is that there is actually a pretty simple and straight forward mechanism that breaks in obesity, which is actually made WORSE from dieting. This explanation also gives some theory to the anecdotal experiences of many dieters who rebound, especially low carbers who claim carbs make them explode.

Now, of course this is dealing with a certain situation. I'm talking about people who have become obese, often dramatically obese, and made serious and and at least somewhat successful attempts at losing weight. I'm not sure what the chicken and the egg is here. Did they originally become obese because they have genetic PDK issues? Or did they become obese because of habitual overeating and this broke their PDK? Or some of both? Or maybe even a step further - maybe their PDK issue was a product of their environment in the womb or something (some interesting evidence coming out about this)?

Either way, the theory is actually relatively simple and still works. Impaired carb tolerance increases a preference for fat-for-fuel, further impairs carb tolerance, increases need for dieting, and dieting further impairs carb tolerance. In a normal, non-obese or maybe even mildly obese individual - this is probably a different situation (but it does point to the importance of refeeds as you get leaner).

Also, this theory would suggest that you don't need to avoid carbs to get your insulin sensitivity back under control - you just need to fix the PDK issue - and there are numerous studies showing this is in fact the case as inhibiting PDK dramatically improves glucose tolerance.

There is also a study out there showing that Omega-3 fats DO NOT increase PDK activity like other fats. I found that interesting.

I am not a "low-fat" guy either.

If I had to describe how we work, I do think you'd be pretty much on board with a lot of my thinking - metabolic flexibility is key. We are machines that were designed to survive in a CHANGING environment. We weren't designed to run on carbs only, or fats only. Ups and downs are very important. We just happen to live in a time when we can create such a steady stream of the same stuff over and over again that we don't necessarily need to ever have those ups and downs. I believe this is why IF is often so beneficial for a lot of people. It isn't so much that the setup is so "right" - but it creates a changing environment and that is important.

It's just some ideas to throw out there, for discussion. Not sure it is right...
 
Reading up some on PDK now. Here is something to ponder though...

In general carnivores, and omnivores did not have a lot of need for insulin sensitivity. Sure the ones that were lucky enough to live near fruits and what not had regular exposure to carbs, but in general when grazing they were grazing on greens... similar to what you see your dog do when they are outside.

Who is to say that having a higher carb intake, and insulin sensitivity is not the secondary / back up energy plan. It would make a whole lot more sense biologically, especially with what we know about food availability in the paleo era. Only those in warmer almost tropical climates had access to fruit year round, otherwise the vegetation was grass and other greens. Tubers were only available in limited areas as well. In those times without fruits available they would need to have excessively high PDK and not really have much on the insulin sensitivity side of things.

Keep in mind this carb centric way of life has only been a major factor since man started doing irrigated farming, and or since they learned how to make grains edible via cooking. I don't know that going back to that is actually a break in the system so much as the need for insulin sensitivity has increased due to the dietary changes brought on by that.

Again just something to think about, but it does make sense that huge groups of people who come from places that may not have had consistent access to carbohydrate my biologically be better wired for mostly protein and fat consumption.
 
MrKleen73 said:
Reading up some on PDK now. Here is something to ponder though...

In general carnivores, and omnivores did not have a lot of need for insulin sensitivity. Sure the ones that were lucky enough to live near fruits and what not had regular exposure to carbs, but in general when grazing they were grazing on greens... similar to what you see your dog do when they are outside.

Who is to say that having a higher carb intake, and insulin sensitivity is not the secondary / back up energy plan. It would make a whole lot more sense biologically, especially with what we know about food availability in the paleo era. Only those in warmer almost tropical climates had access to fruit year round, otherwise the vegetation was grass and other greens. Tubers were only available in limited areas as well. In those times without fruits available they would need to have excessively high PDK and not really have much on the insulin sensitivity side of things.

Keep in mind this carb centric way of life has only been a major factor since man started doing irrigated farming, and or since they learned how to make grains edible via cooking. I don't know that going back to that is actually a break in the system so much as the need for insulin sensitivity has increased due to the dietary changes brought on by that.

Again just something to think about, but it does make sense that huge groups of people who come from places that may not have had consistent access to carbohydrate my biologically be better wired for mostly protein and fat consumption.
Click to expand...

Yes! Now we are cooking with some gas here.

I THINK, but am not sure, that the answer gets back to the idea of metabolic flexibility to be honest. The idea is that we have a bunch of systems that all inter relate and we need to be able to switch back and forth quickly.

I think ultimately, our society has become carb-centric as you point out. To make this even more specific, we have become sugar and corn based. These substances are great for really scarce feedings, but we have the. All the time and in almost everything now.

On the other hand, if you are trying to get lean, fat is still your most efficient energy source...and being super efficient is not going to help you burn energy.

I also think the answer has to do with metabolic flux (not sure this is a real term) - but we are designed to store and turn over and burn. If glucose is always high because we can't burn carbs, we are constantly creating more fat to store from that glucose, and never taking things out of storage. We become good at putting things away but never unpacking them. PDK may be an initiator of this, but it isn't the entire process and I haven't figured that out yet.

Good questions...not sure these are "answers" but...
 
HIT4ME said:
Yes! Now we are cooking with some gas here.

I THINK, but am not sure, that the answer gets back to the idea of metabolic flexibility to be honest. The idea is that we have a bunch of systems that all inter relate and we need to be able to switch back and forth quickly.

I think ultimately, our society has become carb-centric as you point out. To make this even more specific, we have become sugar and corn based. These substances are great for really scarce feedings, but we have the. All the time and in almost everything now.

On the other hand, if you are trying to get lean, fat is still your most efficient energy source...and being super efficient is not going to help you burn energy.

I also think the answer has to do with metabolic flux (not sure this is a real term) - but we are designed to store and turn over and burn. If glucose is always high because we can't burn carbs, we are constantly creating more fat to store from that glucose, and never taking things out of storage. We become good at putting things away but never unpacking them. PDK may be an initiator of this, but it isn't the entire process and I haven't figured that out yet.

Good questions...not sure these are "answers" but...
Click to expand...

The bolded is the only statement we simply can not come to any form of agreement on.

The issue there is that we are addressing different types of efficiency...

Fat Being the most efficient source of fuel - means that it takes longer to burn, and provides far more ATP than glycogen on a gram to gram basis. However on the same note fat is not the most efficient source of ATP for anaerobic training. It takes longer to convert and produce the ATP and often can not keep up with the high demands put on the muscle causing momentary muscle failure prematurely.

On the same note becoming more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase the amount of fat burned for energy. Not as a metabolic reaction, but just from getting better at the process. Hormonal changes, upregulating enzymes, and lipolosys are all ways you can become more efficient at burning fat.. This process happens relatively quickly, and the improvement isn't continuous, or at least not in any sort of linear fashion. So that improvement is kind of limited to becoming "fat adjusted" Once fat adjusted there probably isn't much of a biological benefit to remaining in keto long term. Remember the ONLY WAY TO LOSE FAT IS TO BURN FAT, so being more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase how much fat you can burn.

I am not saying burning fat more efficiently, as in getting more out of burning less. I am saying when you become more efficient burning fat as in it is easier to burn and get the energy out of the fat cell and into the mitochondria. So if you can break down fat faster that is also being more efficient, just in a different area or way than using it efficiently.

As an example a person showing in ketosis is burning fat easily, but not efficiently as there would not be any ketones being excreted if it were being USED efficiently as there would be no left over waste product. However being so efficient at lipolosys that the fat is being broken down in larger amounts than it can be used so some is getting excreted too showing ketones is the efficiency of the catabolic process of breaking down fat. We don't want to use fat efficiently, we want to catabolize it as efficiently as possible and hopefully even excrete some ketones so they can't be used for energy later and are wasted energy.

That is the only way I can understand what you mean by saying becoming more efficient at burning fat does not make you efficient at burning fat. See the difference in our referral of efficiency...
 
MrKleen73 said:
The bolded is the only statement we simply can not come to any form of agreement on.

The issue there is that we are addressing different types of efficiency...

Fat Being the most efficient source of fuel - means that it takes longer to burn, and provides far more ATP than glycogen on a gram to gram basis. However on the same note fat is not the most efficient source of ATP for anaerobic training. It takes longer to convert and produce the ATP and often can not keep up with the high demands put on the muscle causing momentary muscle failure prematurely.

On the same note becoming more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase the amount of fat burned for energy. Not as a metabolic reaction, but just from getting better at the process. Hormonal changes, upregulating enzymes, and lipolosys are all ways you can become more efficient at burning fat.. This process happens relatively quickly, and the improvement isn't continuous, or at least not in any sort of linear fashion. So that improvement is kind of limited to becoming "fat adjusted" Once fat adjusted there probably isn't much of a biological benefit to remaining in keto long term. Remember the ONLY WAY TO LOSE FAT IS TO BURN FAT, so being more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase how much fat you can burn.

I am not saying burning fat more efficiently, as in getting more out of burning less. I am saying when you become more efficient burning fat as in it is easier to burn and get the energy out of the fat cell and into the mitochondria. So if you can break down fat faster that is also being more efficient, just in a different area or way than using it efficiently.

As an example a person showing in ketosis is burning fat easily, but not efficiently as there would not be any ketones being excreted if it were being USED efficiently as there would be no left over waste product. However being so efficient at lipolosys that the fat is being broken down in larger amounts than it can be used so some is getting excreted too showing ketones is the efficiency of the catabolic process of breaking down fat. We don't want to use fat efficiently, we want to catabolize it as efficiently as possible and hopefully even excrete some ketones so they can't be used for energy later and are wasted energy.

That is the only way I can understand what you mean by saying becoming more efficient at burning fat does not make you efficient at burning fat. See the difference in our referral of efficiency...
Click to expand...

I totally get the angle of efficiency from which you are both approaching this - it’s been an interesting read and helping my knowledge base.

That said I do feel clen is the easiest answer right now lol
 
MrKleen73 said:
The bolded is the only statement we simply can not come to any form of agreement on.

The issue there is that we are addressing different types of efficiency...

Fat Being the most efficient source of fuel - means that it takes longer to burn, and provides far more ATP than glycogen on a gram to gram basis. However on the same note fat is not the most efficient source of ATP for anaerobic training. It takes longer to convert and produce the ATP and often can not keep up with the high demands put on the muscle causing momentary muscle failure prematurely.

On the same note becoming more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase the amount of fat burned for energy. Not as a metabolic reaction, but just from getting better at the process. Hormonal changes, upregulating enzymes, and lipolosys are all ways you can become more efficient at burning fat.. This process happens relatively quickly, and the improvement isn't continuous, or at least not in any sort of linear fashion. So that improvement is kind of limited to becoming "fat adjusted" Once fat adjusted there probably isn't much of a biological benefit to remaining in keto long term. Remember the ONLY WAY TO LOSE FAT IS TO BURN FAT, so being more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase how much fat you can burn.

I am not saying burning fat more efficiently, as in getting more out of burning less. I am saying when you become more efficient burning fat as in it is easier to burn and get the energy out of the fat cell and into the mitochondria. So if you can break down fat faster that is also being more efficient, just in a different area or way than using it efficiently.

As an example a person showing in ketosis is burning fat easily, but not efficiently as there would not be any ketones being excreted if it were being USED efficiently as there would be no left over waste product. However being so efficient at lipolosys that the fat is being broken down in larger amounts than it can be used so some is getting excreted too showing ketones is the efficiency of the catabolic process of breaking down fat. We don't want to use fat efficiently, we want to catabolize it as efficiently as possible and hopefully even excrete some ketones so they can't be used for energy later and are wasted energy.

That is the only way I can understand what you mean by saying becoming more efficient at burning fat does not make you efficient at burning fat. See the difference in our referral of efficiency...
Click to expand...

Yeah...I get the leap. It is actually a bit of a conceptual leap so I get that. One thing to keep in mind is that burning fat is not the only way to lose fat. You can suck it out. You can induce apoptosis and excrete it. It you can break it down and convert it back into carbohydrate - which happens to be very inefficient.

I believe, I may be wrong, that fat burning does create more ATP, but carbs are obviously a faster fuel source for anaerobic respiration. This may be a piece of evidence that points toward humans actually preferring carbs for functions - when it is around, it can burn fast.

On the other hand, burning fat for energy has a mass efficiency - you will consume much less tissue during starvation by burning fat than by burning carbs.

So, the efficiency does have different applications...carbs are more "efficient" for fast burning, but fat is more efficient for mass preservation.

This is actually one of the supposed ideas behind low carb proponents saying carbs store fat. They say that carbs get converted to fat in an almost preferential manner. I agree with this with the PDK theory, except it isn't preferential. It is because carbs are overloaded...either by simply eating too many carbs or by not being able to burn them because PDK is elevated - thus causing a backup of carbs. But as you point out, they would be burned preferentially under activity.

Now, what if we could work this backwards - upregulate gluconeogenesis from fat break down. Every gram of fat you convert to a gram of carb loses 5 calories or more. But, gluconeogenesis is often seen as bad too.

This would be very inefficient and waste a ton of calories.

And of course, simple evolution would make sense with this - if you are starving, what would evolution reward? The organism that burns the least efficient fuel? Or the organism that burns the most efficient source? And, wouldn't you want to store the most efficient source for periods of starvation? The idea IS to save energy during those times.
 
HIT4ME said:
Yeah...I get the leap. It is actually a bit of a conceptual leap so I get that. One thing to keep in mind is that burning fat is not the only way to lose fat. You can suck it out. You can induce apoptosis and excrete it. It you can break it down and convert it back into carbohydrate - which happens to be very inefficient.

I believe, I may be wrong, that fat burning does create more ATP, but carbs are obviously a faster fuel source for anaerobic respiration. This may be a piece of evidence that points toward humans actually preferring carbs for functions - when it is around, it can burn fast.

On the other hand, burning fat for energy has a mass efficiency - you will consume much less tissue during starvation by burning fat than by burning carbs.

So, the efficiency does have different applications...carbs are more "efficient" for fast burning, but fat is more efficient for mass preservation.

This is actually one of the supposed ideas behind low carb proponents saying carbs store fat. They say that carbs get converted to fat in an almost preferential manner. I agree with this with the PDK theory, except it isn't preferential. It is because carbs are overloaded...either by simply eating too many carbs or by not being able to burn them because PDK is elevated - thus causing a backup of carbs. But as you point out, they would be burned preferentially under activity.

Now, what if we could work this backwards - upregulate gluconeogenesis from fat break down. Every gram of fat you convert to a gram of carb loses 5 calories or more. But, gluconeogenesis is often seen as bad too.

This would be very inefficient and waste a ton of calories.

And of course, simple evolution would make sense with this - if you are starving, what would evolution reward? The organism that burns the least efficient fuel? Or the organism that burns the most efficient source? And, wouldn't you want to store the most efficient source for periods of starvation? The idea IS to save energy during those times.
Click to expand...

Well yes you are correct those other things will get rid of fat, but they do not burn it. I was very specific to repeat burn fat so that it would take those other things out of consideration. Things like inducing apoptosis via extreme cold, liposuction, and don't really have a place in this discussion. We are discussing metabolic and hormonal reactions to diet. Now starvation can cause apoptosis, which would require all of the fat in the cell to be burned through and then cell death comes to the empty and starved cell. So that one does require burning.

If there were any chance of starvation for anyone but the homeless in most of today's developed societies then that last part would make sense. However other than those with anorexia nervosa there is simply not many people who ever starve in current society, and more specifically America.

The gluconeogenisis you are referring to does not happen with fat easily at all, and is far from the preferential situation. Also it requires you to be in ketosis to get any actual benefit out of it, the liver makes the ketones one of which is acetone that donates the carbons needed for the creation of glucose from fats. However this does not in anyway mean that you know longer have to burn 9 calories to rid yourself of the fat. Most of those ketones will be burned off as well so the same amount of energy exchange exists, only a very small amount of it ends up as glucose. However the preferential form of gluconeogenisis is via protein and amino acid breakdown. To be more specific L-Glutamine is the main source used for this. During fasting you will see "more" gluconeogenisis from fats, but once you have fed, if there are no carbs the body will turn to the proteins if it wants to create glucose.
 
MrKleen73 said:
Well yes you are correct those other things will get rid of fat, but they do not burn it. I was very specific to repeat burn fat so that it would take those other things out of consideration. Things like inducing apoptosis via extreme cold, liposuction, and don't really have a place in this discussion. We are discussing metabolic and hormonal reactions to diet. Now starvation can cause apoptosis, which would require all of the fat in the cell to be burned through and then cell death comes to the empty and starved cell. So that one does require burning.

If there were any chance of starvation for anyone but the homeless in most of today's developed societies then that last part would make sense. However other than those with anorexia nervosa there is simply not many people who ever starve in current society, and more specifically America.

The gluconeogenisis you are referring to does not happen with fat easily at all, and is far from the preferential situation. Also it requires you to be in ketosis to get any actual benefit out of it, the liver makes the ketones one of which is acetone that donates the carbons needed for the creation of glucose from fats. However this does not in anyway mean that you know longer have to burn 9 calories to rid yourself of the fat. Most of those ketones will be burned off as well so the same amount of energy exchange exists, only a very small amount of it ends up as glucose. However the preferential form of gluconeogenisis is via protein and amino acid breakdown. To be more specific L-Glutamine is the main source used for this. During fasting you will see "more" gluconeogenisis from fats, but once you have fed, if there are no carbs the body will turn to the proteins if it wants to create glucose.
Click to expand...

You are mostly right here - except you would still lose energy in the fat to ketone/carb conversion. You are right, that would be less than 5 calories in the mix - since ketones have 9 cals/gram, but I was being illustrative - you could only get 1 gram of anything from 1 gram of anything else - so a gram of fat at most could yield 1 gram of carb with total conversion - thus a 5 calorie drop. A mix of ketones and carbs in the conversion makes it complex, but any carbohydrate formation will burn more calories than it yields, which is WHY this is so rare in nature. It's NOT efficient for saving calories and rarely makes sense if you have other systems.

Also, there isn't much metabolic difference between a keto diet and starvation - keto was actually designed originally to mimic starvation without starvation, correct? Or is there another story? But yes, actual starvation is hard to come by and only illustrative.

One observation I have made is that I have a REALLY hard time getting into ketosis. Even doing a PSMF I only get into trace levels of ketosis. I just find it very difficult, not that I've ever really buckled down and tried specifically to get into it, but you would think long term PSMF would get me close enough that I could tip the scales, but even then it wasn't easy. Maybe my assumption is wrong on how easy it should be though. But having a high level of PDK and high level of fat stores could explain this partially.

But all in all you bring up good points that I have not pondered fully, but have thought through some of them partially. The gluconeogenesis thing I do have to dig into more. My thinking there is that if you inhibit PDK too much, and upregulate gluconeogenesis too much, you may induce ketoacidosis from the combination.
 
And yes - glucose from amino acids would be a much easier conversion than fats to glucose.

Keep in mind though, converting carbs to fats isn't exactly preferred either. Saying you need to burn fat to lose fat isn't much different than saying eating fat will make you gain fat. Storing a substrate that is already converted to the storage form is much easier than converting it from something else.
 
Here my contribution to macros, fat burning and diet:

[video=youtube;Vaco3iVxv8A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vaco3iVxv8A[/video]
 
HIT4ME said:
You are mostly right here - except you would still lose energy in the fat to ketone/carb conversion. You are right, that would be less than 5 calories in the mix - since ketones have 9 cals/gram, but I was being illustrative - you could only get 1 gram of anything from 1 gram of anything else - so a gram of fat at most could yield 1 gram of carb with total conversion - thus a 5 calorie drop. A mix of ketones and carbs in the conversion makes it complex, but any carbohydrate formation will burn more calories than it yields, which is WHY this is so rare in nature. It's NOT efficient for saving calories and rarely makes sense if you have other systems.

Also, there isn't much metabolic difference between a keto diet and starvation - keto was actually designed originally to mimic starvation without starvation, correct? Or is there another story? But yes, actual starvation is hard to come by and only illustrative.

One observation I have made is that I have a REALLY hard time getting into ketosis. Even doing a PSMF I only get into trace levels of ketosis. I just find it very difficult, not that I've ever really buckled down and tried specifically to get into it, but you would think long term PSMF would get me close enough that I could tip the scales, but even then it wasn't easy. Maybe my assumption is wrong on how easy it should be though. But having a high level of PDK and high level of fat stores could explain this partially.

But all in all you bring up good points that I have not pondered fully, but have thought through some of them partially. The gluconeogenesis thing I do have to dig into more. My thinking there is that if you inhibit PDK too much, and upregulate gluconeogenesis too much, you may induce ketoacidosis from the combination.
Click to expand...

Again and you will probably come across this when looking more into gluconeogenisis but it requires donor ketones during the krebs cycle that are not available without ketosis. So that one gram of fat is burnt off as ketones and some is actually converted to glucose. Still all 9 calories of energy will be used for energy, or excreted as waste product IE ketones in the urine.

Not being able to measure ketones in your urine does not mean you have not reached ketosis, it just means that you are not wasting any of the ketones. Your production and use of them are equally efficient or inefficient whatever the case may be so you are not excreting ketones in your urine.

HIT4ME said:
And yes - glucose from amino acids would be a much easier conversion than fats to glucose.

Keep in mind though, converting carbs to fats isn't exactly preferred either. Saying you need to burn fat to lose fat isn't much different than saying eating fat will make you gain fat. Storing a substrate that is already converted to the storage form is much easier than converting it from something else.
Click to expand...

Converting carbs to fat doesn't happen as easily or often as people would have you believe. Your muscles have to basically send feedback saying HEY Glycogen stores are full, do something else with this crap... Then the body begins to start converting carbs to fat for storage.

Look Fat and carbs and everything else are separate substrates. You can only get rid of fat naturally by catabolizing fat and then using it for energy or excreting it as waste. You can't burn carbs to burn fat, you can't burn protein to burn fat. You can only burn fat to burn fat. It is NOTHING like saying eating fat will make you fat. That isn't even a good analogy this time around.

If I put 1lb of fat, and 1lb of carbs in a bucket, and then tell you to remove the carbs you may have 1lb less mass in the bucket but you still have 1lb of fat... It is just that simple. I am not really sure how to make that any more clear. This isn't a relative statement, it is definitive. If you have fat to lose you must catabolize it, and then burn through the lipids in the blood, or excrete them. Otherwise they simply get reabsorbed into the fat cells.

You can use or remove any macro you want to create the deficit required to burn that fat, but you still have to create a deficit and induce lipolosys to rid yourself of the stored fat...

Yes it is easier to store saturated fats when there is insulin in the system. However insulin is never high during keto so that kind of removes that from the equation. All other forms of fat must also go through a conversion process to be stored. So the only fat that can be stored without conversion is saturated fat, and again you would need to be in a surplus, and have insulin to drive that storage.
 
hairygrandpa said:
Here my contribution to macros, fat burning and diet:

[video=youtube;Vaco3iVxv8A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vaco3iVxv8A[/video]
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this video yet. But with Lee Priest in it it will probably contain Gummy Bears and Mcdonalds.
 
Oh yeah and I am pretty sure there is a decent metabolic effect from ketosis over starvation. Quite simply the TEF from the food eaten causes an increase in metabolism. Also protein causes insulin spikes too which you would not see during starvation. There are a lot of things that happen during starvation that do not happen on keto.
 
MrKleen73 said:
Oh yeah and I am pretty sure there is a decent metabolic effect from ketosis over starvation. Quite simply the TEF from the food eaten causes an increase in metabolism. Also protein causes insulin spikes too which you would not see during starvation. There are a lot of things that happen during starvation that do not happen on keto.
Click to expand...

If you haven't yet check out Valter Longo's time restricted feed idea take a look. It's kicking cancers ass better than keto.
 
Newth said:
I haven't seen this video yet. But with Lee Priest in it it will probably contain Gummy Bears and Mcdonalds.
Click to expand...


They are saying what I always suspected. All the science is probably right, non the less it boils down to the amount of food you eat in relation to cardio for fat burning. Counting macros isn't necessary if you train right. I only count roughly my protein intake, to make sure it is enough -but thinking about it: When I was in the army, I had NO WAY enough daily protein for the muscles I carried. Now that I'm older, I may need more protein -also more rest.
There is a genetic factor to it and personal metabolic features that play a role here.
 
hairygrandpa said:
They are saying what I always suspected. All the science is probably right, non the less it boils down to the amount of food you eat in relation to cardio for fat burning. Counting macros isn't necessary if you train right. I only count roughly my protein intake, to make sure it is enough -but thinking about it: When I was in the army, I had NO WAY enough daily protein for the muscles I carried. Now that I'm older, I may need more protein -also more rest.
There is a genetic factor to it and personal metabolic features that play a role here.
Click to expand...

Well I think you are wrong about not eating enough protein for the muscle you had in the Army. I think you might be convinced you needed more but obviously that was not the case since you carried it around on that amount of protein. If you were getting in 100-150g a day then you were getting plenty to maintain someone much larger than you. We are VERY efficient in how we use proteins, and even aminos that are orphaned from other processes like gluconeogenisis are reabsorbed into the amino acid pool in the blood. Protein and aminos are CONSTANTLY being recycled and reused. Those of us who train are actually even more efficient at protein use and recycling. So in truth you probably don't even need as much as you eat now.

You are definitely right that genetics and personal metabolic factors play a role. I would go so far as to say a huge role!
 
MrKleen73 said:
Again and you will probably come across this when looking more into gluconeogenisis but it requires donor ketones during the krebs cycle that are not available without ketosis. So that one gram of fat is burnt off as ketones and some is actually converted to glucose. Still all 9 calories of energy will be used for energy, or excreted as waste product IE ketones in the urine.

Not being able to measure ketones in your urine does not mean you have not reached ketosis, it just means that you are not wasting any of the ketones. Your production and use of them are equally efficient or inefficient whatever the case may be so you are not excreting ketones in your urine.



Converting carbs to fat doesn't happen as easily or often as people would have you believe. Your muscles have to basically send feedback saying HEY Glycogen stores are full, do something else with this crap... Then the body begins to start converting carbs to fat for storage.

Look Fat and carbs and everything else are separate substrates. You can only get rid of fat naturally by catabolizing fat and then using it for energy or excreting it as waste. You can't burn carbs to burn fat, you can't burn protein to burn fat. You can only burn fat to burn fat. It is NOTHING like saying eating fat will make you fat. That isn't even a good analogy this time around.

If I put 1lb of fat, and 1lb of carbs in a bucket, and then tell you to remove the carbs you may have 1lb less mass in the bucket but you still have 1lb of fat... It is just that simple. I am not really sure how to make that any more clear. This isn't a relative statement, it is definitive. If you have fat to lose you must catabolize it, and then burn through the lipids in the blood, or excrete them. Otherwise they simply get reabsorbed into the fat cells.

You can use or remove any macro you want to create the deficit required to burn that fat, but you still have to create a deficit and induce lipolosys to rid yourself of the stored fat...

Yes it is easier to store saturated fats when there is insulin in the system. However insulin is never high during keto so that kind of removes that from the equation. All other forms of fat must also go through a conversion process to be stored. So the only fat that can be stored without conversion is saturated fat, and again you would need to be in a surplus, and have insulin to drive that storage.
Click to expand...

Starting with the gluconeogenesis - I do understand that the ketones are necessary for the carbon donations in this process. BUT - unless ketones have more than 9 calories per gram, then there is no way the process does NOT yield something less than 9 calories. It would defy the laws of physics and basic thermodynamics.

If I have a gram of fat, and convert it to ketones and carbs, and given that carbs have 4 calories and ketones have 9 calories, by definition I will end up with 1 gram of material with less than 9 calories. Why? Because if I end up with 4/5 of a gram of ketones and 1/5 of a gram of carbohydrate from the process - I still have my gram, and I have 0.8 calories of carbs and 7.2 calories of ketones = 8 calories. There is NO ration which will yield some carbs and a full 9 calories per gram. Maybe you get closer to 9 calories because the ketones are equal to more than 80% of the conversion, maybe you get closer to 4 calories because carbs are the majority of the conversion. There may also be some amount of material that is just excreted as waste because it becomes unusable in the process. Again, this isn't necessarily a "natural" state, because your body is designed to conserve and this would be incredibly wasteful - but it does happen as one would expect that someone in ketosis still does have SOME glycogen stores in their muscles through gluconeogenesis.

And what I am saying is that neither analogy holds true - eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat, and you don't necessarily need to burn fat (directly) to lose fat. You can break it into ketones and carbs, You can probably dispose of it in other ways too through apoptosis, but I don't have enough knowledge yet. If you're saying you have to break it down, then we're more in agreement. But the idea behind ketosis is equally as troubled as the idea of converting fat to carbs - as you said (and we agree on) - it's kind of metabolic alchemy. But proponents of low carb lean on this alchemy for fat storage, so it's not all that unheard of to lean on it the other way either. And the other way would be so much LESS efficient, which is why we don't see it much in nature.

But my analogy - people say that eating carbs makes you fat - and they usually use the insulin theory, but the science shows that doesn't really hold up. Insulin levels, when tested in labs over weeks, don't vary enough to explain much difference between someone eating a high fat diet or high carb diet. Maybe this actually has to do with us adjusting quickly and high fat making us insulin resistant? I don't know. It supports your theory (which I agree with) that we adjust rapidly. Or they think carbs lead to fat gain through conversion, which the PDK theories suggest a pathway for, as you suggest, for carbs to backup and start knocking on the doors of fat cells - and this theory could still hold true during caloric restrictions where you eat carbs - PDK inhibits the burning of carbs, backing them up, making it impossible to burn carbs fast enough so carbs MUST be converted to fat to be stored or utilized efficiently, and thus carbs = fat gain. But the problem isn't the carbs themselves in this theory, it's actually the PDK, which is elevated because of fat, not carbs. So, in other words, fat makes carbs make you fat. And so does dieting.

Again - I'm not saying ketosis doesn't work either, or that it doesn't have some theory behind it, just that there may be a better way and it may be ignoring the ACTUAL problem - which is back to metabolic flexibility. I'm also not saying low fat/no fat/high carbs necessarily are the best way to go. I just don't know.

Also, I'm dealing in some theory here and as I've said - nature and evolution has made the human body look for ways to be efficient with energy for survival; fat loss is a bad thing in nature. Ketosis kind of leans on a natural situation (hunger/starvation) and plays that path out. I'm just saying that, by design, that path is INeffecient for FAT LOSS because because it looks to be efficient for survival/energy production.

MrKleen73 said:
Oh yeah and I am pretty sure there is a decent metabolic effect from ketosis over starvation. Quite simply the TEF from the food eaten causes an increase in metabolism. Also protein causes insulin spikes too which you would not see during starvation. There are a lot of things that happen during starvation that do not happen on keto.
Click to expand...

Yeah, any digestion will take energy, so you will burn more calories if you are eating than not eating. Maybe I should have said it "simulates starvation" like this article:

Invalid Link Removed

Newth said:
If you haven't yet check out Valter Longo's time restricted feed idea take a look. It's kicking cancers ass better than keto.
Click to expand...

This is not a flame of you - but I personally don't seen how ketosis would help cancer. If anything, it should make it worse. I know there are some studies that show cancerous tumors shrink on keto diets, but there is a TON of science looking at the effect of PDK in cancer. Elevated PDK (which ketosis would make worse), seems to a good way to grow a tumor. But this gets back to the fact that there is so much that isn't known I guess.....forget how little I personally know.

hairygrandpa said:
They are saying what I always suspected. All the science is probably right, non the less it boils down to the amount of food you eat in relation to cardio for fat burning. Counting macros isn't necessary if you train right. I only count roughly my protein intake, to make sure it is enough -but thinking about it: When I was in the army, I had NO WAY enough daily protein for the muscles I carried. Now that I'm older, I may need more protein -also more rest.
There is a genetic factor to it and personal metabolic features that play a role here.
Click to expand...

Haven't had a chance to watch the video - too busy typing out all of this. Calories are king. Protein is queen. Carbs and fats are whatever comes next?


MrKleen73 said:
Well I think you are wrong about not eating enough protein for the muscle you had in the Army. I think you might be convinced you needed more but obviously that was not the case since you carried it around on that amount of protein. If you were getting in 100-150g a day then you were getting plenty to maintain someone much larger than you. We are VERY efficient in how we use proteins, and even aminos that are orphaned from other processes like gluconeogenisis are reabsorbed into the amino acid pool in the blood. Protein and aminos are CONSTANTLY being recycled and reused. Those of us who train are actually even more efficient at protein use and recycling. So in truth you probably don't even need as much as you eat now.

You are definitely right that genetics and personal metabolic factors play a role. I would go so far as to say a huge role!
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100% - and I would also throw in that steroids may increase, in a round-about way, your protein requirements. You will conserve protein, but you will also be building faster so you will see more growth by "over-doing" protein more than someone who is natural and just takes more protein in.

Also, you are probably right - as we get older we may need more protein. There is some research out there for "metabolic resistance" in the elderly, which indicates they don't respond to proteins with the same MPS as younger counter parts, especially if they combine those proteins with carbs and fats.
 
hairygrandpa said:
They are saying what I always suspected. All the science is probably right, non the less it boils down to the amount of food you eat in relation to cardio for fat burning. Counting macros isn't necessary if you train right. I only count roughly my protein intake, to make sure it is enough -but thinking about it: When I was in the army, I had NO WAY enough daily protein for the muscles I carried. Now that I'm older, I may need more protein -also more rest.
There is a genetic factor to it and personal metabolic features that play a role here.
Click to expand...

Forgetting genetics were pretty nifty creatures.
I've always been a firm believer that there is no perfect diet. But ways to optimise eating to suit goals.
I also think many people who don't compete get to wrapped up in macros.
The real truth is micros are WAY more important to health as they are what allows our body to use all its different pathways.

Also to add to what Kleen was just saying atophagy will help recycle aminos too.
 
Also - I would just like to point out, that even just using the 4/5 of a gram getting converted to ketones and 1/5 going to carbs - you are losing 1/9th of the energy - which is an 11% waste. That's almost like a light cycle of some kind of yellow powder I won't mention.

Of course - this is likely ALSO why low carb diets may have an increase thermic effect...because on an extremely low carb diet, you need to create some carbs from fat....even if it's just a small amount.
 
To summarize the vid for you HIT4ME: They were making fun of people who know everything on nutrition, macros, carbs, fats, training, metabolic rates -and commented about how those people look in comparison to them, who never counted sh1t. :)

I know, that was "ouchie" for you -but you deserve it. :)
 
HIT4ME said:
Also - I would just like to point out, that even just using the 4/5 of a gram getting converted to ketones and 1/5 going to carbs - you are losing 1/9th of the energy - which is an 11% waste. That's almost like a light cycle of some kind of yellow powder I won't mention.

Of course - this is likely ALSO why low carb diets may have an increase thermic effect...because on an extremely low carb diet, you need to create some carbs from fat....even if it's just a small amount.
Click to expand...

That's the idea of not eating to much protein on keto as it will convert to carbs(in preference to fat converting) if not stored as proteins.
Thanks for posting the links you have also.
It is an interesting topic and those links will make learning it much easier.
 
hairygrandpa said:
To summarize the vid for you HIT4ME: They were making fun of people who know everything on nutrition, macros, carbs, fats, training, metabolic rates -and commented about how those people look in comparison to them, who never counted sh1t. :)

I know, that was "ouchie" for you -but you deserve it. :)
Click to expand...

Lol...ouch...but you know me. I come back swinging. I have a lot to say to that summary too.

1. I agree that there is a big difference between knowing and doing.

2. I agree that many people focus on details that ultimately aren't as important as the basics.

3. You can make it very far with just the basics and some actual doing.

4. I look like sh1t.

5. A lot of people can turn on a light switch and give you light. But if you run into a problem and that switch no longer works, I am not sure they will be able to help you overcome the darkness on that imperfect situation and an electrician may be helpful. This is the difference between being unconsciously competent and consciously competent.

6. Not sure Lee priest would be the best guy to help someone who has repeatedly lost weight and for some inexplicable reason seems to gain it back even with moderate discipline. The guy doesn't even follow macros and look at him.

7. People love to complain. When I break out the sledgehammer and DO the basics without much thought to details (PSMF) people give flack. When I try to think something through, now YOU are giving me flack (through Lee priest).

7. No one ever accused Lee Priest of being smart.
 
Oh and....just in case...


8. I am not upset, as I think you know me well enough to know. I am always at least half joking. Haha
 
That's the goal. I bet MrKleen73 and I would have a blast in a room full of people just debating...we would probably just do things to fuark up people's heads.
 
Newth said:
That's the idea of not eating to much protein on keto as it will convert to carbs(in preference to fat converting) if not stored as proteins.
Thanks for posting the links you have also.
It is an interesting topic and those links will make learning it much easier.
Click to expand...

Hey - if anything I say or provide is helpful, I am happy. I appreciate your taking the time to learn - it helps to have other perspectives on all of this, so you are helping me by putting in the effort!
 
HIT4ME said:
Starting with the gluconeogenesis - I do understand that the ketones are necessary for the carbon donations in this process. BUT - unless ketones have more than 9 calories per gram, then there is no way the process does NOT yield something less than 9 calories. It would defy the laws of physics and basic thermodynamics.

If I have a gram of fat, and convert it to ketones and carbs, and given that carbs have 4 calories and ketones have 9 calories, by definition I will end up with 1 gram of material with less than 9 calories. Why? Because if I end up with 4/5 of a gram of ketones and 1/5 of a gram of carbohydrate from the process - I still have my gram, and I have 0.8 calories of carbs and 7.2 calories of ketones = 8 calories. There is NO ration which will yield some carbs and a full 9 calories per gram. Maybe you get closer to 9 calories because the ketones are equal to more than 80% of the conversion, maybe you get closer to 4 calories because carbs are the majority of the conversion. There may also be some amount of material that is just excreted as waste because it becomes unusable in the process. Again, this isn't necessarily a "natural" state, because your body is designed to conserve and this would be incredibly wasteful - but it does happen as one would expect that someone in ketosis still does have SOME glycogen stores in their muscles through gluconeogenesis.

And what I am saying is that neither analogy holds true - eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat, and you don't necessarily need to burn fat (directly) to lose fat. You can break it into ketones and carbs, You can probably dispose of it in other ways too through apoptosis, but I don't have enough knowledge yet. If you're saying you have to break it down, then we're more in agreement. But the idea behind ketosis is equally as troubled as the idea of converting fat to carbs - as you said (and we agree on) - it's kind of metabolic alchemy. But proponents of low carb lean on this alchemy for fat storage, so it's not all that unheard of to lean on it the other way either. And the other way would be so much LESS efficient, which is why we don't see it much in nature.

But my analogy - people say that eating carbs makes you fat - and they usually use the insulin theory, but the science shows that doesn't really hold up. Insulin levels, when tested in labs over weeks, don't vary enough to explain much difference between someone eating a high fat diet or high carb diet. Maybe this actually has to do with us adjusting quickly and high fat making us insulin resistant? I don't know. It supports your theory (which I agree with) that we adjust rapidly. Or they think carbs lead to fat gain through conversion, which the PDK theories suggest a pathway for, as you suggest, for carbs to backup and start knocking on the doors of fat cells - and this theory could still hold true during caloric restrictions where you eat carbs - PDK inhibits the burning of carbs, backing them up, making it impossible to burn carbs fast enough so carbs MUST be converted to fat to be stored or utilized efficiently, and thus carbs = fat gain. But the problem isn't the carbs themselves in this theory, it's actually the PDK, which is elevated because of fat, not carbs. So, in other words, fat makes carbs make you fat. And so does dieting.

Again - I'm not saying ketosis doesn't work either, or that it doesn't have some theory behind it, just that there may be a better way and it may be ignoring the ACTUAL problem - which is back to metabolic flexibility. I'm also not saying low fat/no fat/high carbs necessarily are the best way to go. I just don't know.

Also, I'm dealing in some theory here and as I've said - nature and evolution has made the human body look for ways to be efficient with energy for survival; fat loss is a bad thing in nature. Ketosis kind of leans on a natural situation (hunger/starvation) and plays that path out. I'm just saying that, by design, that path is INeffecient for FAT LOSS because because it looks to be efficient for survival/energy production.



Yeah, any digestion will take energy, so you will burn more calories if you are eating than not eating. Maybe I should have said it "simulates starvation" like this article:

Invalid Link Removed



This is not a flame of you - but I personally don't seen how ketosis would help cancer. If anything, it should make it worse. I know there are some studies that show cancerous tumors shrink on keto diets, but there is a TON of science looking at the effect of PDK in cancer. Elevated PDK (which ketosis would make worse), seems to a good way to grow a tumor. But this gets back to the fact that there is so much that isn't known I guess.....forget how little I personally know.



Haven't had a chance to watch the video - too busy typing out all of this. Calories are king. Protein is queen. Carbs and fats are whatever comes next?




I agree with this 100% - and I would also throw in that steroids may increase, in a round-about way, your protein requirements. You will conserve protein, but you will also be building faster so you will see more growth by "over-doing" protein more than someone who is natural and just takes more protein in.

Also, you are probably right - as we get older we may need more protein. There is some research out there for "metabolic resistance" in the elderly, which indicates they don't respond to proteins with the same MPS as younger counter parts, especially if they combine those proteins with carbs and fats.
Click to expand...

You are missing my point and thinking of things in a vacuum or at best compartmentalized into your points of focus. Ketones come from broken down fat... 1 gram of fat broken down into ketones or whatever form of lipids = 9 calories broken down... those lipids are then either burned for ATP or donated to the gluconeogenisis process. Regardless of how many calories worth of glucose you end up producing from the process the rest of the fat is still burned off as energy, excreted, or if not in a deficit redeposited as fat. Since we are discussing weight loss the deficit is assumed so it is highy likely that all 9 calories worth of fat was used for one process or the other.

HIT4ME said:
Also - I would just like to point out, that even just using the 4/5 of a gram getting converted to ketones and 1/5 going to carbs - you are losing 1/9th of the energy - which is an 11% waste. That's almost like a light cycle of some kind of yellow powder I won't mention.

Of course - this is likely ALSO why low carb diets may have an increase thermic effect...because on an extremely low carb diet, you need to create some carbs from fat....even if it's just a small amount.
Click to expand...
Again, that math is only absolute if you completely segregate the systems which you can not. Lipolyzed fat goes into way too many processes for you to assume that the lipids won't get burned, excreted or redeposited. Assuming that all of the calories worth of energy in 1 gram of fat would only be dedicated to gluconeogenisis is not reasonable. Acetone only accounts for about 50-55% of the ketones produced so those other ketones will be used elsewhere for other process especially when in a deficit.
hairygrandpa said:
To summarize the vid for you HIT4ME: They were making fun of people who know everything on nutrition, macros, carbs, fats, training, metabolic rates -and commented about how those people look in comparison to them, who never counted sh1t. :)

I know, that was "ouchie" for you -but you deserve it. :)
Click to expand...

Haha to be fair they are professionals which to be one you have to have the best of the best genetics. Those people can eat almost anything and be perfect... However the reality is that all you need is discipline and to pay attention. Most of us aren't wired that way. I don't have extreme discipline. I can muster it for periods but then I relax and gain weight. I find it fascinating and enjoy learning about it. I think the people that will look the best will have great genetics and high levels of discipline, knowledge is not required if they can follow directions or a plan.

HIT4ME said:
That's the goal. I bet MrKleen73 and I would have a blast in a room full of people just debating...we would probably just do things to fuark up people's heads.
Click to expand...
That or end up in a corner talking among ourselves...
 
Okay guys HIT4ME and I have decided to move this convo to my log to quit taking up space in HGP's sorry for the derail!!!!!
 
MrKleen73 said:
You are missing my point and thinking of things in a vacuum or at best compartmentalized into your points of focus. Ketones come from broken down fat... 1 gram of fat broken down into ketones or whatever form of lipids = 9 calories broken down... those lipids are then either burned for ATP or donated to the gluconeogenisis process. Regardless of how many calories worth of glucose you end up producing from the process the rest of the fat is still burned off as energy, excreted, or if not in a deficit redeposited as fat. Since we are discussing weight loss the deficit is assumed so it is highy likely that all 9 calories worth of fat was used for one process or the other.


Again, that math is only absolute if you completely segregate the systems which you can not. Lipolyzed fat goes into way too many processes for you to assume that the lipids won't get burned, excreted or redeposited. Assuming that all of the calories worth of energy in 1 gram of fat would only be dedicated to gluconeogenisis is not reasonable. Acetone only accounts for about 50-55% of the ketones produced so those other ketones will be used elsewhere for other process especially when in a deficit.


Haha to be fair they are professionals which to be one you have to have the best of the best genetics. Those people can eat almost anything and be perfect... However the reality is that all you need is discipline and to pay attention. Most of us aren't wired that way. I don't have extreme discipline. I can muster it for periods but then I relax and gain weight. I find it fascinating and enjoy learning about it. I think the people that will look the best will have great genetics and high levels of discipline, knowledge is not required if they can follow directions or a plan.


That or end up in a corner talking among ourselves...
Click to expand...

Forget about how our body processes it for a moment. Think about it purely from the laws of thermodynamics.

Matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed.

This means 1 gram of material can only ever be converted to 1 gram of any other substance or group of substances.

In this case, fat can be broken down into carbs, ketones and maybe some inert substances.

Those substances must then be converted to energy. A calorie is just a measure of the energy produced from metabolizing the substance.

So if you take fat and convert it to ANY combination of ketones and carbohydrate and any other substances produced as by products you LOSE energy.

Carbs only produce 4 calories. Fats and ketones produce 9. Any ratio of carbs and ketones will have less than 9 calories per gram.

So, if you break down 1 gram of fat, you can have 1 gram of ketones...which will still be equal to 9 calories, which still means you are conserving calories and mass very efficiently.

But as soon as you make ANY carbohydrate from that fat, you lose energy from the system - you end up with by products that have energy we cannot use.

You can't break a gram of fat down into (a gram of ketones) and (any amount of carbohydrate). You can break it down (maybe) into 1 gram of ketones and no carbs. Or you can break it down into x grams of ketones and 1 - x grams of carbohydrate.

It doesn't matter what your body wants to do with it or how many processes are involved, this will always be true.

And as soon as you create any amount of carbs, you lose the availability of some energy and that will be excreted as waste.
 
But hairygrandpa loves to derail everyone else's threads with humor and memes...we derailed it with....debate. yeah, we are cool.
 
Out of my way, here comes a workout post!

weighted chin ups / ss/ weighted dips
chin +65lbs x5+1
dip +65lbs x9
chin BW x13
dip BW x18
chin BW x11
dip BW x13
chin +45lbs x7
dip +45lbs x14
chin BW x11
dip BW x14
chin BW x7+1
dip BW x9
pause 8 min
chin BW 13
dip BW 13
chin +45lbs x3
dip +45lbs x6

Here comes the neck exercises, first time:
3 sets of each direction with moderate weight. Found use for my weight belt! LOL

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
I am jealous of you grandpa!
 
HIT4ME , I'll keep burning you until you get your sh1t together and show us how its done (again). Really, you were one of my idols here. None could lose weight and gain strength as you did. Do it again!
 
hairygrandpa said:
HIT4ME , I'll keep burning you until you get your sh1t together and show us how its done (again). Really, you were one of my idols here. None could lose weight and gain strength as you did. Do it again!
Click to expand...

Lol, now your getting wrapped up in the details and missing the bigger picture.
The longer he keeps going the more he keeps MrKleen73 distracted from the transformation comp;)

Also looking great and nice pics of you getting your freak on.
 
HIT4ME said:
Lol...ouch...but you know me. I come back swinging. I have a lot to say to that summary too.

1. I agree that there is a big difference between knowing and doing.

2. I agree that many people focus on details that ultimately aren't as important as the basics.

3. You can make it very far with just the basics and some actual doing.

4. I look like sh1t.

5. A lot of people can turn on a light switch and give you light. But if you run into a problem and that switch no longer works, I am not sure they will be able to help you overcome the darkness on that imperfect situation and an electrician may be helpful. This is the difference between being unconsciously competent and consciously competent.

6. Not sure Lee priest would be the best guy to help someone who has repeatedly lost weight and for some inexplicable reason seems to gain it back even with moderate discipline. The guy doesn't even follow macros and look at him.

7. People love to complain. When I break out the sledgehammer and DO the basics without much thought to details (PSMF) people give flack. When I try to think something through, now YOU are giving me flack (through Lee priest).

7. No one ever accused Lee Priest of being smart.
Click to expand...

I have to debate #7.
He is a smart-ass.
 
hairygrandpa said:
HIT4ME , I'll keep burning you until you get your sh1t together and show us how its done (again). Really, you were one of my idols here. None could lose weight and gain strength as you did. Do it again!
Click to expand...

Keep it up! I appreciate it. I am still gping...just got a lot else going on. Excuses, but priorities change. I really appreciate the kind words too - you always had faith and I appreciate that.

hairygrandpa said:
I would rather like to see you at 200 with 15% BF, instead of 180 with 30%.
Click to expand...

Haha, me too. I don't think I will ever be 200 and 15%. Not unless I hop on gear...which may happen one day.

180 @ 15% would be pretty impressive I think if I could do it naturally. 180 @ 10% would be a great physique for a 5'8 natural.
 
HIT4ME said:
Keep it up! I appreciate it. I am still gping...just got a lot else going on. Excuses, but priorities change. I really appreciate the kind words too - you always had faith and I appreciate that.
Click to expand...


Never had faith -only reasonable expectations, seriously, I'm as faithless as it can get, LOL.


HIT4ME said:
Haha, me too. I don't think I will ever be 200 and 15%. Not unless I hop on gear...which may happen one day.

180 @ 15% would be pretty impressive I think if I could do it naturally. 180 @ 10% would be a great physique for a 5'8 natural.
Click to expand...

Common, you tried almost anything under the sun to get lean. Its time to try something to get buffed -and lean. You know everything about it, what are your worries?
 
Newth said:
Lol, now your getting wrapped up in the details and missing the bigger picture.
The longer he keeps going the more he keeps MrKleen73 distracted from the transformation comp;)

Also looking great and nice pics of you getting your freak on.
Click to expand...
So that is what this is all about!!!! DUPED AGAIN!!!!
hairygrandpa said:
Never had faith -only reasonable expectations, seriously, I'm as faithless as it can get, LOL.




Common, you tried almost anything under the sun to get lean. Its time to try something to get buffed -and lean. You know everything about it, what are your worries?
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top