General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

nutrients flowchart and diet strategy

Bennett Haselto · 2004-04-12T10:06:17+00:00

After a long time searching, I finally found a file that described what happens to nutrients that you consume: what gets converted to what, and the order in which they are used when you need to burn energy: http://www.biosbcc.net/barron/physiology/pdfS04/metab2.pdf I don't know if it's correct, but I drew up a flowchart based on that, showing where nutrients get stored and the order in which they're used, hoping that it would help me figure out, for example, whether it's useful to spread out your food consumption, or to avoid mixing certain foods with each other: http://www.peacefire.org/staff/bennett/nutrient- flowchart.html The numbered blue arrows indicate that when the body needs energy for exercise, it gets it from the sources in the following order: (1) glucose in the blood and from glycogen stores, (2) fat stores, (3) amino acids converted to glucose, and (4) muscle mass converted to amino acids which are then converted to glucose. I assume my understanding of the info in the PDF file is correct. Could this be helpful in coming up with a diet strategy? For example, if carbs are always converted into glucose, and glucose is either stored or used for energy and only *excess* glucose is converted into fatty acids, it looks like you could avoid gaining weight from foods high in glucose if you ate small amounts spread over a long period, so it would always be converted into energy and there would never be an "excess" of glucose to turn into fatty acids. (Fat, on the other hand, would be exactly the opposite: if 100% of fat is converted to fatty acids and 100% of that is converted to triglycerides stored in body fat, then it doesn't matter whether you consume the fat all at once, or spread out over a long period - it all ends up as fat tissue.) If my logic is correct, then it's not just a matter of what you eat and whether you exercise -- you can also time it to your advantage. There are three places in that diagram where the flow "branches" and you can control what happens: (a) amino acids are converted either to muscle mass or to glucose depending on whether you exercise; (b) if you spread out your glucose consumption evenly, it will be constantly being converted into energy, rather than being converted into fatty acids (and ultimately to fat) if you consume too much at once; (c) if you exercise when your glucose levels are not too high, then you can cut more quickly to the phase where fat is burned for energy. Suppose you convert those three decision branches into three principles of a diet: (a) Do muscle-building exercise after eating protein, to avoid too much of it turning to glucose, and also since larger muscle mass will help you burn more calories later. (b) Spread out glucose consumption. (c) Since fat-burning can only take place when you've used up most of your glucose for energy, and since the brain needs glucose, if you're always going to have your brain feel a little groggy during your fat-burning phase, then it's better to have that happen while you're exercising, since you don't need to think very deeply to run on a treadmill. So here your strategy would be: During long periods of the day when you know you won't be able to do much exercise (e.g. at work or at school), you can eat carbs and sugars in moderation as long as you eat them very gradually. When you're coming up on time when you can exercise, you can have a high-protein meal like a steak, as long as you'll be able to do the exercise later. Since you've only been eating carbs gradually throughout the day, your glucose level shouldn't be too high, so you should be able to start burning fat from exercising -- and the protein will also turn to muscle mass so you'll be able to burn more calories per minute in the future. This way, your also don't have to let your blood sugar drop down while you're trying to work or study (it only drops down while you're exercising, so you can get to the fat burning). Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my logic about carbs vs. fat is correct -- i.e. that you can avoid gaining weight from carbs if you eat them in moderation spread out over a long period, but for fats, it makes no difference whether you eat them gradually all at once. And it seems logical to have the blood-sugar-lowering and fat-burning take place when you're already in pain anyway (i.e. exercising), rather than while you're working or even just reading and you need your brain to work. -Bennett

Started by Bennett Haselto · 12 April 2004 · Last activity 23 April 2004 · 40 posts · 2,406 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postnutrients flowchart and diet strategyBennett Haselto · 12 Apr 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 2 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #40Skinny · 23 Apr 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 12 April 2004
Last activity: 23 April 2004
Original author: Bennett Haselto
Posts: 40
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 2,406
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Nutrition

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Bennett Haselto
Archived post

12 April 2004, 10:06 UTC #1

After a long time searching, I finally found a file that described
what happens to nutrients that you consume: what gets converted to
what, and the order in which they are used when you need to burn
energy:
biosbcc.netmetab2.pdf
I don't know if it's correct, but I drew up a flowchart
based on that, showing where nutrients get stored and the
order in which they're used, hoping that it would help me
figure out, for example, whether it's useful to spread out
your food consumption, or to avoid mixing certain foods with
each other: peacefire.orgnutrient
flowchart.html
The numbered blue arrows indicate that when the body needs
energy for exercise, it gets it from the sources in the
following order: (1) glucose in the blood and from glycogen
stores, (2) fat stores, (3) amino acids converted to
glucose, and (4) muscle mass converted to amino acids which
are then converted to glucose. I assume my understanding of
the info in the PDF file is correct.
Could this be helpful in coming up with a diet strategy?
For example, if carbs are always converted into glucose,
and glucose is either stored or used for energy and only
*excess* glucose is converted into fatty acids, it looks
like you could avoid gaining weight from foods high in
glucose if you ate small amounts spread over a long
period, so it would always be converted into energy and
there would never be an "excess" of glucose to turn into
fatty acids. (Fat, on the other hand, would be exactly the
opposite: if 100% of fat is converted to fatty acids and
100% of that is converted to triglycerides stored in body
fat, then it doesn't matter whether you consume the fat
all at once, or spread out over a long period - it all
ends up as fat tissue.)
If my logic is correct, then it's not just a matter of what
you eat and whether you exercise -- you can also time it to
your advantage. There are three places in that diagram where
the flow "branches" and you can control what happens: (a)
amino acids are converted either to muscle mass or to
glucose depending on whether you exercise; (b) if you spread
out your glucose consumption evenly, it will be constantly
being converted into energy, rather than being converted
into fatty acids (and ultimately to fat) if you consume too
much at once; (c) if you exercise when your glucose levels
are not too high, then you can cut more quickly to the phase
where fat is burned for energy.
Suppose you convert those three decision branches into three
principles of a diet:
(a) Do muscle-building exercise after eating protein, to
avoid too much of it turning to glucose, and also
since larger muscle mass will help you burn more
calories later.
(b) Spread out glucose consumption.
(c) Since fat-burning can only take place when you've used
up most of your glucose for energy, and since the brain
needs glucose, if you're always going to have your brain
feel a little groggy during your fat-burning phase, then
it's better to have that happen while you're exercising,
since you don't need to think very deeply to run on a
treadmill.
So here your strategy would be: During long periods of the
day when you know you won't be able to do much exercise
(e.g. at work or at school), you can eat carbs and sugars in
moderation as long as you eat them very gradually. When
you're coming up on time when you can exercise, you can have
a high-protein meal like a steak, as long as you'll be able
to do the exercise later. Since you've only been eating
carbs gradually throughout the day, your glucose level
shouldn't be too high, so you should be able to start
burning fat from exercising -- and the protein will also
turn to muscle mass so you'll be able to burn more calories
per minute in the future. This way, your also don't have to
let your blood sugar drop down while you're trying to work
or study (it only drops down while you're exercising, so you
can get to the fat burning).
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about carbs vs. fat is correct -- i.e. that you can
avoid gaining weight from carbs if you eat them in
moderation spread out over a long period, but for fats, it
makes no difference whether you eat them gradually all at
once. And it seems logical to have the blood-sugar-lowering
and fat-burning take place when you're already in pain
anyway (i.e. exercising), rather than while you're working
or even just reading and you need your brain to work.
-Bennett

Report
markd
Archived post

12 April 2004, 13:28 UTC #2

Tinkering with the macro sources goes only so far, jury out
on how much wiggle room is signifcant. If excess carbs are
stored as fat, the natural process that works as it is
designed and is not an abnormal responce, then it is at
hand when glucose stores are low. The key is always in the
end to not eat to excess so the math at ehe end of the day,
to pick an arbitrary unit of time, does not exceed energy
usage for the day, regardless of how muny carbs wer stored
and then tapped for energy during the day. In fact, doing
the carb to fat and then fat to glucose cyle takes more
energy then straight glucose to usage, a potential greater
energy usage in the calorie balance math at the end of the
day. There are no majic bullits to be found here in using
one macro source over the other, just how much passes your
lips and how much is required for metabolism and tissue
support. All sources when consumed to excess end up as
stored tissue, end of story.
Quoted message said:
After a long time searching, I finally found a file that
described what happens to nutrients that you consume: what
gets converted to what, and the order in which they are
used when you need to burn energy:
biosbcc.netmetab2.pdf
I don't know if it's correct, but I drew up a flowchart
based on that, showing where nutrients get stored and the
order in which they're used, hoping that it would help me
figure out, for example, whether it's useful to spread out
your food consumption, or to avoid mixing certain foods
with each other: peacefire.orgnutrient
flowchart.html
The numbered blue arrows indicate that when the body needs
energy for exercise, it gets it from the sources in the
following order: (1) glucose in the blood and from glycogen
stores, (2) fat stores, (3) amino acids converted to
glucose, and (4) muscle mass converted to amino acids which
are then converted to glucose. I assume my understanding of
the info in the PDF file is correct.
Could this be helpful in coming up with a diet strategy?
For example, if carbs are always converted into glucose,
and glucose is either stored or used for energy and only
*excess* glucose is converted into fatty acids, it looks
like you could avoid gaining weight from foods high in
glucose if you ate small amounts spread over a long
period, so it would always be converted into energy and
there would never be an "excess" of glucose to turn into
fatty acids. (Fat, on the other hand, would be exactly the
opposite: if 100% of fat is converted to fatty acids and
100% of that is converted to triglycerides stored in body
fat, then it doesn't matter whether you consume the fat
all at once, or spread out over a long period - it all
ends up as fat tissue.)
If my logic is correct, then it's not just a matter of what
you eat and whether you exercise -- you can also time it to
your advantage. There are three places in that diagram
where the flow "branches" and you can control what happens:
(a) amino acids are converted either to muscle mass or to
glucose depending on whether you exercise; (b) if you
spread out your glucose consumption evenly, it will be
constantly being converted into energy, rather than being
converted into fatty acids (and ultimately to fat) if you
consume too much at once; (c) if you exercise when your
glucose levels are not too high, then you can cut more
quickly to the phase where fat is burned for energy.
Suppose you convert those three decision branches into
three principles of a diet:
(a) Do muscle-building exercise after eating protein, to
avoid too much of it turning to glucose, and also since
larger muscle mass will help you burn more calories
later.
(b) Spread out glucose consumption.
(c) Since fat-burning can only take place when you've used
up most of your glucose for energy, and since the brain
needs glucose, if you're always going to have your
brain feel a little groggy during your fat-burning
phase, then it's better to have that happen while
you're exercising, since you don't need to think very
deeply to run on a treadmill.
So here your strategy would be: During long periods of the
day when you know you won't be able to do much exercise
(e.g. at work or at school), you can eat carbs and sugars
in moderation as long as you eat them very gradually. When
you're coming up on time when you can exercise, you can
have a high-protein meal like a steak, as long as you'll be
able to do the exercise later. Since you've only been
eating carbs gradually throughout the day, your glucose
level shouldn't be too high, so you should be able to start
burning fat from exercising -- and the protein will also
turn to muscle mass so you'll be able to burn more calories
per minute in the future. This way, your also don't have to
let your blood sugar drop down while you're trying to work
or study (it only drops down while you're exercising, so
you can get to the fat burning).
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about carbs vs. fat is correct -- i.e. that you can
avoid gaining weight from carbs if you eat them in
moderation spread out over a long period, but for fats, it
makes no difference whether you eat them gradually all at
once. And it seems logical to have the blood-sugar-lowering
and fat-burning take place when you're already in pain
anyway (i.e. exercising), rather than while you're working
or even just reading and you need your brain to work.
-Bennett

Report
Mirek Fidler
Archived post

12 April 2004, 21:29 UTC #3

"Bennett Haselton" <[email hidden]> píse v diskusním príspevku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about
Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is that
while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is quite a
quick process, converting fat to glucose takes much longer
time - and never happens as long as BG is high enough or
there is insulin in blood.
Mirek

Report
Bennett Haselto
Archived post

13 April 2004, 01:51 UTC #4

"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Bennett Haselton" <[email hidden]> píse v
diskusním príspevku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about
Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is that
while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is quite a
quick process, converting fat to glucose takes much longer
time - and never happens as long as BG is high enough or
there is insulin in blood.
Mirek
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that
fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just Googling
the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose" turns up
quite a few 🙂
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes much
longer time
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there is
insulin in blood"?
-Bennett

Report
Mirek Fidler
Archived post

13 April 2004, 09:03 UTC #5

Quoted message said:
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that fat cannot
be converted to glucose. In fact, just Googling the phrase "fat
cannot be converted to glucose" turns up quite a few 🙂
Try to google "glucogenesis".
Quoted message said:
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes much
longer time
No. Actually, converting glucose to fat is quite easy, and
happens as long as glucose is elvated (and insulin present).
As I understand it:
As long as BG is high, insulin is secreted to convert BG to
fat (in liver, by synthetising triglycerides and sending
them packed in VLDL to adipose tissue and muscles). If BG
drops below normal, insulin drops too, glucagon gets
secreted and triglycerides and protein get converted to BG
and keton bodies.
The key issue in this process IMHO is that feedback
mechanism for glucogenesis is insulin again - when BG raises
high enough, small amount of insulin is secreted and
inhibits further glucogenesis (and, that way, burning your
body fat). BTW, this is also why T1 diabetics get
ketoacidosis - without insulin glucogenesis has no means to
stop and ketone bodies concentrations grow without limits.
Of course, I welcome any corrections to my explanation.
Mirek

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

15 April 2004, 04:27 UTC #6

On 12 Apr 2004 18:31:26 -0700, [email hidden] (Bennett
Haselton) posted:
Quoted message said:
"Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]-
berlin.de>...
Quoted message said:
"Bennett Haselton" <[email hidden]> pÃse v
diskusnÃm prÃspevku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about
Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is
that while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is
quite a quick process, converting fat to glucose takes
much longer time - and never happens as long as BG is
high enough or there is insulin in blood.
Mirek
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that
fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just Googling
the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose" turns up
quite a few 🙂
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes much
longer time
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood"?
-Bennett
Part of triglyceride fats can be converted to glucose. The
glyceride part. Roughly 10% of it.

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

15 April 2004, 04:49 UTC #7

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:40:39 +0200, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that
fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just
Googling the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose"
turns up quite a few 🙂
Try to google "glucogenesis".
Quoted message said:
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes
much longer time
No. Actually, converting glucose to fat is quite easy, and
happens as long as glucose is elvated (and insulin
present).
But of course it is only "elevated" in people who are ill,
and who need to do something about it. And of course glucose
won't be converted to fat unless a considerable amount has
been ingested IN EXCESS. Guess what, fat is easy to convert
to fat. Happens at the speed of light.
Quoted message said:
As I understand it:
As long as BG is high, insulin is secreted to convert BG to
fat (in liver, by synthetising triglycerides and sending
them packed in VLDL to adipose tissue and muscles). If BG
drops below normal, insulin drops too, glucagon gets
secreted and triglycerides and protein get converted to BG
and keton bodies.
So what happened to glycogen?
Quoted message said:
The key issue in this process IMHO is that feedback
mechanism for glucogenesis is insulin again - when BG
raises high enough, small amount of insulin is secreted and
inhibits further glucogenesis (and, that way, burning your
body fat). BTW, this is also why T1 diabetics get
ketoacidosis - without insulin glucogenesis has no means to
stop and ketone bodies concentrations grow without limits.
No, without insulin, and with energy needs that the
available glucose could satisfy with some insulin, fat must
me metabolised at a great rate to satisfy this "starvation"
energy need and so the extra ketone bodies produced which
are very acidic cause the blood pH to lower to dangerous
levels (~ 7)
Quoted message said:
Of course, I welcome any corrections to my explanation.
In a multifactorial mechanism, any part can be emphasised at
the expense of another.

Report
Mirek Fidler
Archived post

15 April 2004, 07:47 UTC #8

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No. Actually, converting glucose to fat is quite easy,
and happens as long as glucose is elvated (and insulin
present).
But of course it is only "elevated" in people who are ill,
and who need to do something about it.
No, it is elevated as soon as hi GI is ingested. It is just
elevated only a little in healthy people. It is also true
that body is smart enough to start producing some insulin
in the moment you start eating carbs, that is before they
get ingested.
Quoted message said:
And of course glucose won't be converted to fat unless a
considerable amount has been ingested IN EXCESS.
Yes, but the problem is not "in excess" calories, but "in
excess" as momentary amount absorbed.
You cannot expect to eat sugar or beer without immedietely
storing its calories as fat (as long as you fill your
glycogen stores, but that really does not take that much...)
Quoted message said:
Guess what, fat is easy to convert to fat. Happens at the
speed of light.
Right. But does not block glucogenesis. And, btw, does not
raise VLDL levels. Some of dietery fat even never gets to
the blood (AFAIK).
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
As I understand it:
As long as BG is high, insulin is secreted to convert BG
to fat (in liver, by synthetising triglycerides and
sending them packed in VLDL

to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
adipose tissue and muscles). If BG drops below normal,
insulin drops too, glucagon gets secreted and
triglycerides and protein get

converted
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to BG and keton bodies.
So what happened to glycogen?
Right. Anyway, glycogen stores are relatively small - they
get full quite quickly.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The key issue in this process IMHO is that feedback
mechanism for glucogenesis is insulin again - when BG
raises high enough, small

amount
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
of insulin is secreted and inhibits further glucogenesis
(and, that

way,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
burning your body fat). BTW, this is also why T1
diabetics get ketoacidosis - without insulin glucogenesis
has no means to stop and ketone bodies concentrations
grow without limits.
No, without insulin, and with energy needs that the
available glucose could satisfy with some insulin, fat
must me metabolised at a great rate to satisfy this
"starvation" energy need and so the extra ketone bodies
produced which are very acidic cause the blood pH to lower
to dangerous levels (~ 7)
No. Read some biochemistry. It is the lack of insulin as the
feedback mechanism.
That is why carbs restriction is dangerous for T1, but
works well for
T2.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Of course, I welcome any corrections to my explanation.
In a multifactorial mechanism, any part can be emphasised
at the expense of another.
Very true.
Mirek

Report
Mattlb
Archived post

15 April 2004, 14:06 UTC #9

Moosh:) said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if
> my logic about
Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is
that while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is
quite a quick process, converting fat to glucose takes
much longer time - and never happens as long as BG is
high enough or there is insulin in blood.
Mirek
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that
fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just
Googling the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose"
turns up quite a few 🙂
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes
much longer time
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood"?
-Bennett
Part of triglyceride fats can be converted to glucose. The
glyceride part. Roughly 10% of it.
Glycerol itself isn't a fat, so you're not making glucose
from fat. A triglyceride is a fat only because of the three
fatty acids in it. Once a TG is hydrolysed to glycerol and
fatty acids the two take different routes to the liver and
have different metabolic destinations. Fatty acids can't be
made into glucose, but glycerol (well two of them) can.
MattLB

Report
Skinny
Archived post

15 April 2004, 21:27 UTC #10

Speaking of glycerol.... Does it require insulin to get from
the bloodstream into the brain? When pure glycerol/glycerine
is eaten, does it require insulin to digest it? What can
insulin do to it or with it?
Skinny
--------------
MattLB said:
Moosh:) said:
Quoted message said:
> > Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if
> > my logic about
>
> Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is
> that while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is
> quite a quick process, converting fat to glucose takes
> much longer time - and never happens as long as BG is
> high enough or there is insulin in blood.
>
> Mirek
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said that
fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just
Googling the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose"
turns up quite a few 🙂
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes
much longer time
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood"?
-Bennett
Part of triglyceride fats can be converted to glucose.
The glyceride part. Roughly 10% of it.
Glycerol itself isn't a fat, so you're not making glucose
from fat. A triglyceride is a fat only because of the
three fatty acids in it. Once a TG is hydrolysed to
glycerol and fatty acids the two take different routes to
the liver and have different metabolic destinations. Fatty
acids can't be made into glucose, but glycerol (well two
of them) can.
MattLB

Report
Mirek Fidler
Archived post

16 April 2004, 10:24 UTC #11

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Part of triglyceride fats can be converted to glucose. The
glyceride part. Roughly 10% of it.
Well, it is very possibly I do not understand the issue
well, but AFAIK glucogenesis can use remnants of glycolysis
as substrates.
So you are right that fat itself cannot be used to
produce glucose, but ENERGY from fat (represented by ATP)
is used to recycle remnants of glycolysis (like lactate)
back to glucose.
If I got this one wrong, please correct me 🙂
Mirek

Report
Mattlb
Archived post

16 April 2004, 12:47 UTC #12

Skinny said:

Speaking of glycerol.... Does it require insulin to get
from the bloodstream into the brain? When pure
glycerol/glycerine is eaten, does it require insulin to
digest it? What can insulin do to it or with it?
Glycerol is transported into cells via water channels in the
membrane, so has no requirement for insulin at all. The only
influence insulin may have is indirect. Glycerol taken up by
the liver from the blood can be used:
a) to make triglycerides
b) to make glucose
c) in glycolysis The presence of insulin will cause the
liver to be in triglyceride-synthesis mode, so glycerol
will be used for that rather than glucose production or
glycolysis.
MattLB

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

17 April 2004, 03:48 UTC #13

On 12 Apr 2004 03:02:26 -0700, [email hidden] (Bennett
Haselton) posted:
Quoted message said:
After a long time searching, I finally found a file that
described what happens to nutrients that you consume: what
gets converted to what, and the order in which they are
used when you need to burn energy:
biosbcc.netmetab2.pdf
I don't know if it's correct, but I drew up a flowchart
based on that, showing where nutrients get stored and the
order in which they're used, hoping that it would help me
figure out, for example, whether it's useful to spread out
your food consumption, or to avoid mixing certain foods
with each other: peacefire.orgnutrient
flowchart.html
The numbered blue arrows indicate that when the body needs
energy for exercise, it gets it from the sources in the
following order: (1) glucose in the blood and from glycogen
stores, (2) fat stores, (3) amino acids converted to
glucose, and (4) muscle mass converted to amino acids which
are then converted to glucose. I assume my understanding of
the info in the PDF file is correct.
Could this be helpful in coming up with a diet strategy?
For example, if carbs are always converted into glucose,
and glucose is either stored or used for energy and only
*excess* glucose is converted into fatty acids, it looks
like you could avoid gaining weight from foods high in
glucose if you ate small amounts spread over a long
period, so it would always be converted into energy and
there would never be an "excess" of glucose to turn into
fatty acids. (Fat, on the other hand, would be exactly the
opposite: if 100% of fat is converted to fatty acids and
100% of that is converted to triglycerides stored in body
fat, then it doesn't matter whether you consume the fat
all at once, or spread out over a long period - it all
ends up as fat tissue.)
If my logic is correct, then it's not just a matter of what
you eat and whether you exercise -- you can also time it to
your advantage. There are three places in that diagram
where the flow "branches" and you can control what happens:
(a) amino acids are converted either to muscle mass or to
glucose depending on whether you exercise; (b) if you
spread out your glucose consumption evenly, it will be
constantly being converted into energy, rather than being
converted into fatty acids (and ultimately to fat) if you
consume too much at once; (c) if you exercise when your
glucose levels are not too high, then you can cut more
quickly to the phase where fat is burned for energy.
Suppose you convert those three decision branches into
three principles of a diet:
(a) Do muscle-building exercise after eating protein, to
avoid too much of it turning to glucose, and also since
larger muscle mass will help you burn more calories
later.
(b) Spread out glucose consumption.
(c) Since fat-burning can only take place when you've used
up most of your glucose for energy, and since the brain
needs glucose, if you're always going to have your
brain feel a little groggy during your fat-burning
phase, then it's better to have that happen while
you're exercising, since you don't need to think very
deeply to run on a treadmill.
So here your strategy would be: During long periods of the
day when you know you won't be able to do much exercise
(e.g. at work or at school), you can eat carbs and sugars
in moderation as long as you eat them very gradually. When
you're coming up on time when you can exercise, you can
have a high-protein meal like a steak, as long as you'll be
able to do the exercise later. Since you've only been
eating carbs gradually throughout the day, your glucose
level shouldn't be too high, so you should be able to start
burning fat from exercising -- and the protein will also
turn to muscle mass so you'll be able to burn more calories
per minute in the future. This way, your also don't have to
let your blood sugar drop down while you're trying to work
or study (it only drops down while you're exercising, so
you can get to the fat burning).
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about carbs vs. fat is correct -- i.e. that you can
avoid gaining weight from carbs if you eat them in
moderation spread out over a long period, but for fats, it
makes no difference whether you eat them gradually all at
once. And it seems logical to have the blood-sugar-lowering
and fat-burning take place when you're already in pain
anyway (i.e. exercising), rather than while you're working
or even just reading and you need your brain to work.
-Bennett
If you eat 9000 cal extra per momth, you will put on a
kilo of fat.

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

17 April 2004, 03:48 UTC #14

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 23:19:47 +0200, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:
Quoted message said:
"Bennett Haselton" <[email hidden]> pÃse v
diskusnÃm prÃspevku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if my
logic about
Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is
that while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is
quite a quick process, converting fat to glucose takes
much longer time
Does it? I daresay it is happening to a limited extent all
the time, whenever blood glucose is low, anyway. Then only
about 10% of the fat molecule can be converted to glucose.
Quoted message said:
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood.
Any insulin?
And bg only has to drop a little to liberate more from
wherever it is avialable.
On a eucaloric diet (that which ideally everyone of normal
weight should be eating), ALL of their ingested fat is
burned as energy.

Report
Skinny
Archived post

17 April 2004, 07:06 UTC #15

MattLB said:
Skinny said:

Speaking of glycerol.... Does it require insulin to get
from the bloodstream into the brain? When pure
glycerol/glycerine is eaten, does it require insulin to
digest it? What can insulin do to it or with it?
Glycerol is transported into cells via water channels in
the membrane, so has no requirement for insulin at all.
Into brain cells, or into all cells?
Quoted message said:
The only influence insulin may have is indirect. Glycerol
taken up by the liver from the blood can be used:
a) to make triglycerides
b) to make glucose
c) in glycolysis The presence of insulin will cause the
liver to be in triglyceride-synthesis mode, so glycerol
will be used for that rather than glucose production or
glycolysis.
MattLB

Report
Skinny
Archived post

17 April 2004, 07:26 UTC #16

MattLB said:
Skinny said:

Speaking of glycerol.... Does it require insulin to get
from the bloodstream into the brain? When pure
glycerol/glycerine is eaten, does it require insulin to
digest it? What can insulin do to it or with it?
Glycerol is transported into cells via water channels in
the membrane, so has no requirement for insulin at all.
The only influence insulin may have is indirect. Glycerol
taken up by the liver from the blood can be used:
a) to make triglycerides
b) to make glucose
c) in glycolysis The presence of insulin will cause the
liver to be in triglyceride-synthesis mode, so glycerol
will be used for that rather than glucose production or
glycolysis.
MattLB
How does what you're saying relate to what mxsmanic
says here:
Glycerol (the preferred name of glycerine when it is being
discussed in a nutritional context) is converted to glucose
by the liver. Since glycerol is a by-product of the normal
metabolism of fat, the liver has normal mechanisms for
converting the glycerol to glucose, even though pure
glycerol usually isn't ingested as part of a normal diet.
Once converted to glucose, of course, it behaves like any
other glucose in the body.
Because glycerol is metabolized to produce energy, it's not
calorie-free by any means, so beware.
Quoted message said:
It seems to be helping me a lot. Certainly lost my taste
for other sugars and pastas etc. Does it by-pass insulin
resistance?
No, because it ends up as glucose anyway. However, it takes
longer to convert glycerol to glucose than it does to simply
absorb glucose directly (or produce it from other sugars),
so glycerol may not produce the spike in blood sugar that
glucose or other sugars do.
Quoted message said:
Does it cause insulin to be produced?
The glucose that is produced from glycerol in the liver has
the same effect on insulin levels and the body as glucose
from any other source would have.
So, while glycerol might be useful in certain foods or in
whatever way you care to use it, remember that it's not any
lower in calories than a carbohydrate would be, and it still
gets turned into glucose eventually (which means that it can
raise your blood sugar, and that it can make you fat just as
any other food can).
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Report
Mirek Fidler
Archived post

17 April 2004, 09:25 UTC #17

"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood.
Any insulin?
Basically, yes. Insulin inhibits glucogenesis.
Quoted message said:
And bg only has to drop a little to liberate more from
wherever it is avialable.
If BG drops, insulin disappears and glucagon gets
secreted, causing release of BG from glycogen first and
glucogenesis later.
Mirek

Report
Skinny
Archived post

17 April 2004, 17:06 UTC #18

Mirek Fidler said:
"Moosh🙂" <[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or there
is insulin in blood.
Any insulin?
Basically, yes. Insulin inhibits glucogenesis.
Quoted message said:
And bg only has to drop a little to liberate more from
wherever it is avialable.
If BG drops, insulin disappears and glucagon gets
secreted, causing release of BG from glycogen first and
glucogenesis later.
While the insulin is in the blood, does it join with the
glucose preventing the glucose getting into the brain?
Skinny

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

18 April 2004, 03:47 UTC #19

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:53:52 +0200, "Mirek Fidler" <[email hidden]>
posted:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
No. Actually, converting glucose to fat is quite easy,
and happens as long as glucose is elvated (and insulin
present).
But of course it is only "elevated" in people who are
ill, and who need to do something about it.
No, it is elevated as soon as hi GI is ingested.
Only very slightly. It is of no concern in healthy folk.
When it goes too high then medical intervention is required.
Quoted message said:
It is just elevated only a little in healthy people. It is
also true that body is smart enough to start producing some
insulin in the moment you start eating carbs, that is
before they get ingested.
Really? What is the mechanism of this? Does it happen for
all foods?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
And of course glucose won't be converted to fat unless a
considerable amount has been ingested IN EXCESS.
Yes, but the problem is not "in excess" calories, but "in
excess" as momentary amount absorbed.
It is then surely stored as glycogen then. Fat in the diet
will be temp stored as fat in the liver and so on.
Quoted message said:
You cannot expect to eat sugar or beer without
immedietely storing its calories as fat (as long as you
fill your glycogen stores, but that really does not take
that much...)
About 2000 calories? If you are eating with full glycogen
stores, then you are eating too much.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Guess what, fat is easy to convert to fat. Happens at the
speed of light.
Right. But does not block glucogenesis.
Why would you want it to? Unless you are ill?
Quoted message said:
And, btw, does not raise VLDL levels. Some of dietery fat
even never gets to the blood (AFAIK).
So how does it get into the body? Osmosis? Ever seen a blood
sample taken soon after a fatty meal?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
As I understand it:
As long as BG is high, insulin is secreted to convert BG
to fat (in liver, by synthetising triglycerides and
sending them packed in VLDL

to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
adipose tissue and muscles). If BG drops below normal,
insulin drops too, glucagon gets secreted and
triglycerides and protein get

converted
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to BG and keton bodies.
So what happened to glycogen?
Right. Anyway, glycogen stores are relatively small - they
get full quite quickly.
Two thousand calories? They only fill up quite quickly if
you eat when they are full and eat way too much.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The key issue in this process IMHO is that feedback
mechanism for glucogenesis is insulin again - when BG
raises high enough, small

amount
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
of insulin is secreted and inhibits further glucogenesis
(and, that

way,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
burning your body fat). BTW, this is also why T1
diabetics get ketoacidosis - without insulin
glucogenesis has no means to stop and ketone bodies
concentrations grow without limits.
No, without insulin, and with energy needs that the
available glucose could satisfy with some insulin, fat
must me metabolised at a great rate to satisfy this
"starvation" energy need and so the extra ketone bodies
produced which are very acidic cause the blood pH to
lower to dangerous levels (~ 7)
No. Read some biochemistry. It is the lack of insulin as
the feedback mechanism.
That's what "without insulin" means, doesn't it? The
immediate treatment for DKA is administration of insulin so
that the cells demanding all the energy from fat metabolism
can switch to glucose for their requirements, (and of
course, measures to return the blood to the correct pH).
Quoted message said:
That is why carbs restriction is dangerous for T1, but
works well for
T2.
Depends of course whether the type 2 still supplies enough
of their own insulin. But carb restriction for type one is
not particularly dangerous so long as you keep the insulin
and sugar levels appropriate, but it begs the question of
why you would want to do this.

Report
Moosh:)
Archived post

18 April 2004, 09:05 UTC #20

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:43:55 +0100, MattLB
<[email hidden]> posted:
Quoted message said:
Moosh:) said:
Quoted message said:
> > Am I on the right track? I'm particularly curious if
> > my logic about
>
> Generally, yes. One thing you should also consider is
> that while raising blood glucose by ingesting carbs is
> quite a quick process, converting fat to glucose takes
> much longer time - and never happens as long as BG is
> high enough or there is insulin in blood.
>
> Mirek
I thought many of the sources that I looked up, said
that fat cannot be converted to glucose. In fact, just
Googling the phrase "fat cannot be converted to glucose"
turns up quite a few 🙂
Did you mean to type "converting GLUCOSE to FAT takes
much longer time
- and never happens as long as BG is high enough or
there is insulin in blood"?
-Bennett
Part of triglyceride fats can be converted to glucose.
The glyceride part. Roughly 10% of it.
Glycerol itself isn't a fat, so you're not making glucose
from fat.
Not trying to be a pedant, but triglycerides ARE fats. And
you can make glucose from the glyceride part. Are you
confusing fatty acids? The bits left when the glyceride
moiety is removed?
Quoted message said:
A triglyceride is a fat only because of the three fatty
acids in it.
Well, the fatty acids are only called "fatty" coz they form
fats with glycerine 🙂
Quoted message said:
Once a TG is hydrolysed to glycerol and fatty acids the two
take different routes to the liver and have different
metabolic destinations.
Agreed, but strictly speaking, fatty acids are not fats.
Quoted message said:
Fatty acids can't be made into glucose, but glycerol (well
two of them) can.
Agreed.

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread