 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2006brain and carbs
I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting > a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... People make up all sorts of stupid stories and this is one of them. Same as kidney damage from low carbing or whatever. Nonsense. If the brain needs dietary carbs, then Inuits all die of stupidity, right? The brain can do aerobic respiration same as any other organ and that means it can burn all of the fuel types. >If the brain needs dietary carbs, then Inuits all die of stupidity, >right? >The brain can do aerobic respiration same as any other organ >and that means it can burn all of the fuel types. Somewhat true. When not in ketosis, the brain uses glucose as a source of energy. When in ketosis, the brain is able to switch to primarily using ketones for energy but still requires some glucose to function. However, the brain's glucose requirements in ketosis are fairly minimal (20g to 30g per day in ketosis vs. 100g when not in ketosis, iirc). Keep in mind that your body can acquire glucose from a variety of sources: dietary carbs, dietary protein, or from breaking down muscle. So you're not going to suddenly become stupid if you low carb; there's plenty of places to get that glucose from. Ketosis is a starvation response to prevent us from dying. The body switches to primarily fat burning to use the stores it saved up during the times of plenty. It would be weird for us to evolve over millions of years with a mechanism for storing excess calories but then have our bodies break down a lot of muscle tissue to keep our brains working. joe > >If the brain needs dietary carbs, then Inuits all die of stupidity, > >right? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So you're not going to suddenly become stupid if you low carb; there's > plenty of places to get that glucose from. 1) Aerobic respiration uses acetyl-CoA. That can be made inside the mitochondria from glucose or in the liver from fatty acids and flow through the blood. 2) When fat is burned each molecule is cut into a glycerol and 3 fatty acids. Two glycerols are combined into one glucose. As a result roughly 10% of the energy from fat is in the form of glucose. 3) Glucose comes from burning protein as well. > Ketosis is a starvation response to prevent us from dying. No. Ketosis is a predator response triggered by eating the foods eaten by predators. Okay, your statement isn't false it just misses my more important point. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with ketosis so calling it a "starvation response" does not state what ketosis is really for. > The body > switches to primarily fat burning to use the stores it saved up during > the times of plenty. Or when we've eaten like a successfull predator. > It would be weird for us to evolve over millions > of years with a mechanism for storing excess calories but then have our > bodies break down a lot of muscle tissue to keep our brains working. The starvation response bit actually does that. Lean is burned in preference to fat during actual starvation because lean tissue takes more fuel. This is why folks on low protein diets lose lean and end up "skinny fat" with shrunk muscles. :: joseph.beck@gmail.com wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] :: wrong with ketosis so calling it a "starvation response" does not :: state what ketosis is really for. Thank you, doug. You kept me from having to say something similar. People assume that ketosis has something to do with starvation specifically because the body switches over to ketones once glucose is depleted. But obviously, one can not be starving and still be in ketosis, so it should be clear that ketosis isn't a starvation response. ::: The body ::: switches to primarily fat burning to use the stores it saved up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: takes more fuel. This is why folks on low protein diets lose lean :: and end up "skinny fat" with shrunk muscles. > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting > a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... The brain needs glucose, which comes from either protein or carbs. The brain doesn't care where you get the glucose from. The brain actually runs better on ketones, and will choose to run on them if they're available. Susan At one time in the past years I could almost swear my PCP told me the heart and brain prefer to run on ketones. He never had one problem with me low carbing. Most WLS patients are encouraged to eat LC, lowfat, and low cal. Though it is a challenge, it can be done. I eat such small amounts that I do eat more carby foods some daysthan others but it all balances out by the serving size for most things. When I mean carbier I may just eat 4 or 5 large strawberries for a meal instead of protein or I may eat 3 Milton's crackers instead of 2 for a snack. Laureen 410/180/180 http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/freakinlunachick/album?.dir=/90dd&.src=ph&.tok=phh J9gCBLmL1VUob > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > runs better on ketones, and will choose to run on them if they're > available. If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? It certainly makes sense that we use something that the body can manufacture from our reserves - fat - when we do not have sufficient food available. It doesn't make sense that if ketones were a better choice than glucose that the body didn't make them a permanent source of energy rather than one that is only created when the body is under dietary stress. I think that if the brain really preferred ketones it would burn every bit of fat as soon as it became available - we would all be stick figures. :) One size really would fit all. ;) Suze :: Susan wrote: ::: x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones :: more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? Why does that need explaining? :: It certainly makes sense that we use something that the body can :: manufacture from our reserves - fat - when we do not have sufficient :: food available. You can have plenty of food availabe and still have the body use ketones - that's what LCing is. It doesn't make sense that if ketones were a better :: choice than glucose that the body didn't make them a permanent :: source of energy rather than one that is only created when the body :: is under dietary stress. LC dieters aren't under dietary stress and the body uses ketones freely. Also, why have only one source of energy? Better to have means for run under a multitude of conditons. :: I think that if the brain really preferred ketones it would burn :: every bit of fat as soon as it became available - we would all be :: stick figures. :) Why? It only needs so much. :: One size really would fit all. ;) :: :: Suze Nope. > :: Susan wrote: > ::: x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why does that need explaining? Because you're a retard? > :: It certainly makes sense that we use something that the body can > :: manufacture from our reserves - fat - when we do not have sufficient > :: food available. > > You can have plenty of food availabe and still have the body use ketones - > that's what LCing is. Like I said, you're a retard. LCing is just cutting carbs and not all who cut carbs are in ketosis. Skinny people who low carb never go into ketosis. Guess that's something you'll never get to experience fat boy. > It doesn't make sense that if ketones were a better > :: choice than glucose that the body didn't make them a permanent [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why? It only needs so much. You really have that retard schtick down pat, don't you fat boy? She said burn every bit of fat and everyone'd be stick figures, you had to ask why. Well retard, with every bit of fat gone, I guess she meant that everyone'd be skinny. How'd you get to be such a dumb sh.t? > :: One size really would fit all. ;) > :: > :: Suze > > Nope. Hey Suze, you are wasting your time with this bunch. They know nothing, think they know everything, forget that they are supposed to be in a support group and attack everybody that doesn't try to kiss their a.ses. It doesn't matter how much evidence that you find to back up anything you say, if they don't agree they will claim to have evidence that puts the lie to yours. They are a joke, a f.cking joke. These land-whales spend years trying to get slim and don't even get close, but still think that they know all about the best way to lose weight. Most of them are dickheads and totally full of sh.t. Most of them are so fat that they barely have the energy to waddle unless it is to the fridge. They lie and say their diet's working but years later they're still here trying to lose weight, and they don't give a f.ck about genuinely helping people. The worst are those that are on ASLC and alt.support.diabetes too. Has Ted the moron had a go at you yet? He is their welcoming committee. Guy is the head retard and most accomplished liar, the rest are his apprentices. If you want to learn about how deceptive and stupid fat people are get yourself a job working at a resort or on a cruise ship. You won't believe how they stuff their faces after asking about low fat or low carb diets, or saying they are diabetic and asking for diabetic menus. They bitch if there isn't a diabetic menu, then never eat from it when they get one. Stupid fat f.cks. They have had to reduce the carrying capacity of lifeboats and life rafts because of all the fat people. You come back here in three or four years and you will see the same stupid bullshit from the same stupid FAT people. You are wasting your time here, you won't get support or good advice from this bunch of know nothing morons. Salty > If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones > more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? Most of your muscles preferentially use glucose as fuel. While fat and protein can be converted to glucose, the process is somewhat slow - which is why people who workout hard need some carbs, because hey need the glucose faster than their bodies can make it. > It certainly makes sense that we use something that the body can > manufacture from our reserves - fat - when we do not have sufficient > food available. It doesn't make sense that if ketones were a better > choice than glucose that the body didn't make them a permanent source of > energy rather than one that is only created when the body is under > dietary stress. Fat is not just a "reserve" though. Even people on low-fat diets eat fat. Your body uses it all the time, not just on low-carb. Your body metabolizes fat all the time, and hence makes ketones all the time, not just when under "dietary stress." The brain and heart use ketones for fuel, as well as glucose. They're the most important bits for survival purposes, so it makes sense they'd have the most flexibility with regards to fuel use. Most of the muscles only use glucose though. And for most people, who do not do heavy exercise, the body makes plenty of glucose from other foods even without eating any carbohydrate at all. > I think that if the brain really preferred ketones it would burn every > bit of fat as soon as it became available - we would all be stick > figures. :) No. The brain doesn't actually burn that many calories. Thinking isn't exactly a lot of physical work. Even thinking *hard* doesn't burn much more calories than sitting in front of a TV. >>If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones >>more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > isn't exactly a lot of physical work. Even thinking *hard* doesn't > burn much more calories than sitting in front of a TV. Do you have any insight on why the blood flow to the brain is so huge for only a 3 1/2 pound organ? I'm a great follower of the advice that if you are cold, put on a hat. Because the high blood flow to the head makes your head a large source of heat loss in cold weather. There might be a good reason for all of this cranial blood flow. But, what it is escapes me.  Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > There might be a good reason for all of this cranial blood flow. But, > what it is escapes me. Feedback loops. The brain sends out hormones to turn glands on-and-off throughout the body, then reads the levels of chemicals in the blood to decide what to turn on or off next. It has to read the blood constantly to adjust it's instructions. > Do you have any insight on why the blood flow to the brain is so huge > for only a 3 1/2 pound organ? The brain is an inefficient computer for power consumption, so it needs the fuel in the blood and it uses the outgoing blood for cooling. > I'm a great follower of the advice that if you are cold, put on a hat. > Because the high blood flow to the head makes your head a large source > of heat loss in cold weather. Hot weather, brain needs cooling. Cold weather, brain generates usefull heat. > There might be a good reason for all of this cranial blood flow. But, > what it is escapes me. It's so you can figure out good .signatures like this: > -- > 1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book > 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book > 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins > book > 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) :: Jbuch wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: needs the fuel in the blood and it uses the outgoing blood for :: cooling. On what basis do you say it's inefficient? > :: Jbuch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > On what basis do you say it's inefficient? Vary poor basis since objective comparisons are poor. The brain uses more enery than resting muscle but more than working muscle, but how to compare computation with physical movement? The brain uses less energy per any sort of estimated computing power than any computer technology but the trend of Moore's Law does not abade and at some point computers with more cycles than a brain will exist and they will likely sjrink to smaller than one. So the best I can offer is the heat produced by the human brain as a percentage of total metabolism. It's high enough that humans have needed to evolve an assortment of features. Bidirectional blood flow in the skull, longer hair over the brain and so on. It's high power comsumption can be called inefficient from a fuel standpoint, but it's clearly worth it given the success of humanity. >>:: Jbuch wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > computers with more cycles than a brain will exist and > they will likely sjrink to smaller than one. A growing number of 'experts' believe that the ordinary comparison of the current computer model and brain functioning is inappropriate. In a fundamental sense, in electronics, the idea of "Memory" is quite crisp. In humans, the idea of "Memory" is far less clear. We can identify specific physical structures and mechanisms in the computer for "memory". We still do not have a fundamental working model for what constitutes "memory" in human brains. Other experts believe that we are misguiding ourselves by the temptation to make computer-brain analogies at this stage. I have finally come around to the viewpoint that the computer model of a human brain is not very productive or useful. On the other hand, 40 years ago, I believed the opposite. In 40 years, maybe you will change your mind..... or have a new one inserted in a ZIF socket (Zero Insertion Force). > So the best I can offer is the heat produced by the human > brain as a percentage of total metabolism. It's high enough [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a fuel standpoint, but it's clearly worth it given the success > of humanity. Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) =>Susan Robinson wrote: => =>> If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones =>> more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? => =>Most of your muscles preferentially use glucose as fuel. While fat and =>protein can be converted to glucose, the process is somewhat slow - =>which is why people who workout hard need some carbs, because hey need =>the glucose faster than their bodies can make it. Actually, according to some studies(aqua sports), upper body prefer glucose and lower body prefer fat as fuel. This explains why swimmers look bumpy and runners look skinny. => =>> It certainly makes sense that we use something that the body can =>> manufacture from our reserves - fat - when we do not have sufficient =>> food available. It doesn't make sense that if ketones were a better =>> choice than glucose that the body didn't make them a permanent source of =>> energy rather than one that is only created when the body is under =>> dietary stress. => =>Fat is not just a "reserve" though. Even people on low-fat diets eat =>fat. Your body uses it all the time, not just on low-carb. Your body =>metabolizes fat all the time, and hence makes ketones all the time, not =>just when under "dietary stress." => =>The brain and heart use ketones for fuel, as well as glucose. They're =>the most important bits for survival purposes, so it makes sense they'd =>have the most flexibility with regards to fuel use. => =>Most of the muscles only use glucose though. And for most people, who =>do not do heavy exercise, the body makes plenty of glucose from other =>foods even without eating any carbohydrate at all. => =>> I think that if the brain really preferred ketones it would burn every =>> bit of fat as soon as it became available - we would all be stick =>> figures. :) => =>No. The brain doesn't actually burn that many calories. Thinking =>isn't exactly a lot of physical work. Even thinking *hard* doesn't =>burn much more calories than sitting in front of a TV. --- The more we know, the less we know. Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving. k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m >>If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones >>more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which is why people who workout hard need some carbs, because hey need > the glucose faster than their bodies can make it. Just to make things clearer so that newbies don't miss understand and think that they need glucose to fuel activity -- and because I've got some time this AM.... The muscle's use of FFA as a fuel is direct. The bodies stores of fat are in the form of triglycerides in adipose tissue and a very small amount within muscles. Triglycerides (TG) break down to 3 FFA and 1 glycerol -- only the glycerol is converted to glucose via the liver. The 3 FFA can go directly to the mitochondria to make ATP (and acetyl-CoA) -- which is the end of the fuel line for all sources: glucose, FFA and ketones. At times when need for fuel (ATP) is low/slow FFA is a major fuel source for muscles. Its when the need to replenish ATP fuel starts going up that use of FFA lessens because -- 2) the oxidation process takes time and 2) the release of FFA from tissue can take time. My personal belief (after some reading, research and personal experience) is that after adapting to training on LC, the use of intramuscular triglycerides speeds up and occurs -- much faster than someone who trains on a carb based eating plan. Whats really interesting is the amount of energy FFA can produce. I recently read that FFA can produce 129 to 300 ATP but, glucose makes only 36-39 ATP. Another reason your bodies just loves fat, its very effienct. Added tidbit: the heart muscle, actually prefers the ketone body acetoacetate over glucose and gets most of its fuel from FFA. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm RRzVRR ha scritto: > Whats really interesting is the amount of energy FFA can produce. > I recently read that FFA can produce 129 to 300 ATP but, glucose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Added tidbit: the heart muscle, actually prefers the ketone body > acetoacetate over glucose and gets most of its fuel from FFA. We can't make broad statements like that There are different body types, there are body with more fat cells, there are bodies with lower glucose receptors in the cell membranas, there are bodies more sentitive to glucose and less sensitive to lyposis. I'm a supporter of low carb diets and low carb high protein dieter myself but it's no wonder so many people think low carb diets are fads if all we do is making absolute unsubstantiated assumptions There is enough evidence that even after adaptation glucose will always be the fastest fuel pathway during exercise I've known several natural bodybuilders who even after two years of very low carb diet couldn't sustain the amount of strenuous and very hard weight lifting workout while on ketosis or very low carb intake, they wasted a huge amount of lean body mass and increasing a bit the amount of carbohydrate consumed (so that at least their workout was fueled by carbs) made an impressing difference. They still respect me because unlike other low carbers I didn't say they were idiots who couldn't follow the diet to a T or that the fault was theirs and not the diet. Other people with different body types do well even on exercising on ketosis even if almost all of them improve their resistence and strength by rising their intake of carbs There a good low carb forum called the "active low carb" forum where many low carbers reported the same problems while following a strenuous exercise program and all of them had to add carbohydrates. None of them could sustain a strenuous physical workout routine on a zero carbs diet. We should also keep in mind that what we may consider strenuous is probably a child play for those I'm talking about. And in defense of low carb diets because I consider them a valid and healthy lifestyle and it's sad so many people are afraid to try them because of the fad aura created by the absurd claims of many low carb gurus, there's no evidence that the brain prefers ketones over glucose. On the other hand while many people function great on ketosis others are just foggy zombies while on ketosis even if they've been followed the diet to a T for more than two years. Some brains function better on glucose and it's no one fault. I stopped my low carb zealot attitude and realized that it's all the better for the low carb lifestyle that really changed and improved my life if we are all more honest and don't try to ignore all the "failure to thrive" quite a few people are experiencing on very low carb diets or blame it all on them. David > RRzVRR ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there are bodies more sentitive to glucose and less sensitive to > lyposis. True, but I've seen the fact that the heart muscle's preference many times by objective sources. > I'm a supporter of low carb diets and low carb high protein dieter > myself but it's no wonder so many people think low carb diets are fads > if all we do is making absolute unsubstantiated assumptions > There is enough evidence that even after adaptation glucose will always > be the fastest fuel pathway during exercise Right it is the fastest, but the issue I was addressing was the statement from the other poster (jackiepatti): "While fat and protein can be converted to glucose, the process is somewhat slow - which is why people who workout hard need some carbs, because they need the glucose faster than their bodies can make it." While that statement is true, and I know that poster understands a the subject, it can also be read in a way that someone could believe that muscles must have glucose to function and that glucose is the ONLY fuel used in exercise. I also wanted to make sure that people knew that FFA doesn't have to be converted into ketones to be used by the body -- a pretty common assumption many new people have after only reading a few diet books on LC. > I've known several natural bodybuilders who even after two years of > very low carb diet couldn't sustain the amount of strenuous and very [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > diet. We should also keep in mind that what we may consider strenuous > is probably a child play for those I'm talking about. As someone who has a TKD and to a lesser extent CKD for many, many years I understand what your getting at in your post. But as someone who has WT trained on LC and who has also trained for a marathon on LC, I stand by my statement that after an adaptation period I think LC'ers may tap into the intramuscular triglycerides faster than those trained on the standard diet. > And in defense of low carb diets because I consider them a valid and > healthy lifestyle and it's sad so many people are afraid to try them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the diet to a T for more than two years. Some brains function better on > glucose and it's no one fault. I agree. > I stopped my low carb zealot attitude and realized that it's all the > better for the low carb lifestyle that really changed and improved my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > David You make valid points, but the point of my post was to try and explain to the readers of this LC newsgroup a few of the basics of fuel use and FFA. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm RRzVRR ha scritto: > > RRzVRR ha scritto: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > explain to the readers of this LC newsgroup a few of the basics > of fuel use and FFA. Forgive me. English is not my native language and I must have misunderstood you. Actually my post was a reaction to everything I read in this long thread so I shouldn't have addressed just yours because it was the last one If I understood you right you were trying to put at the rest the myth that we get fuel from fatty acids only when we follow a ketogenic diet from some book. Of course you're right, even people on very high carb diet get fuel from fatty acids especially when they sleep or when it's past some time after a meal or when they exercise > I stand by my statement that after an > adaptation period I think LC'ers may tap into the intramuscular > triglycerides faster than those trained on the standard diet. Yes, compared to standard diet. But what about a low/moderate carb diet? Also I think the difference is between physical activities that are usually fueled mostly by carbs and those who are fueled mostly by fatty acids. So even if adaptation would increase the speed of the fatty acid fueling pathway it would still be less effective for an activity that function better on a glucose/glycogen pathway, isn't it? David > Forgive me. > English is not my native language and I must have misunderstood you. > Actually my post was a reaction to everything I read in this long > thread so I shouldn't have addressed just yours because it was the last > one No Problem. > If I understood you right you were trying to put at the rest the myth > that we get fuel from fatty acids only when we follow a ketogenic diet > from some book. > Of course you're right, even people on very high carb diet get fuel > from fatty acids especially when they sleep or when it's past some time > after a meal or when they exercise What I was trying to address was the fact that muscles uses FFA as a fuel and that it doesn't need to convert FFA to ketones. Over the years I've seen many posters on this NG who believe that fat must be converted to ketones to be used by the body. >>I stand by my statement that after an >>adaptation period I think LC'ers may tap into the intramuscular [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fatty acid fueling pathway it would still be less effective for an > activity that function better on a glucose/glycogen pathway, isn't it? Right. Glycolysis is going to occur in high intensity, anaerobic activities and if an athlete is depleted of glycogen they're performance will suffer. I doubt any competitive sprinters LC. That said, a majority of exercisers aren't running 100m sprints or power-lifting. What I believe is that the average LC person who has adapted and who trains (standard WT or aerobic activity) tapes into intramuscular triglycerides faster than someone who trains on a standard diet. If that occurs then they won't deplete glycogen stores as quickly. This has been studied in regard to endurance activities. And I found this to be true when I was training for a marathon. What you and I seem to be addressing is if that holds true for WT. This is a question of both degree and individuality. When I'm WT training extensively and pushing hard to progress in WT, I use a low-level TKD plan. When I'm moderately training in WT, I don't find the need to replenish glycogen stores via TKD -- following a fairly standard LC eating plan works. There have been others here who have WT progressively and claim to never attempt to replenish glycogen stores via carb intake. And of course there have been others find they need more carbs to progress. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > Right. Glycolysis is going to occur in high intensity, anaerobic > activities and if an athlete is depleted of glycogen they're > performance will suffer. I doubt any competitive sprinters LC. > That said, a majority of exercisers aren't running 100m sprints > or power-lifting. I've posted before about using candies to titrate the amount of carb you need for exercise. Right now, it's spring, so my primary exercise is gardening. Bits of it are strenuous, and anyone who turns soil with hand tools know this! I also mow my 1/2 acre lawn with a manual mower, no engine! Cheaper than a Y membership. ;) The thing about this type of work is... while I may indeed be doing physical labor for 5 or 6 hours in a day, it is *not* consistent. I may mow for a half hour, then weed for an hour, then dig for a half hour, then haul compost in the wheelbarrow for a while, then plant seeds, etc. Different muscles are used and bits of it are aerobic, but there's no sustained exercise stressing specific muscles for any significant amount of time. At the end of the day, my bg is lower than usual, and I'm sore all over, and my blisters have popped open, and I've burnt up quite a bit of calories. But I don't need any extra carbs to do this sort of work. It's not the type of exercise that requires carbs. It's not the consistent type of exertion that depletes glycogen stores. On-going aerobic exercise and/or intense weight-lifting might require some carbs to sustain, and that's the sort of thing I was discussing titrating with candy for. Roger's long bike rides are a good example. But the longest I "ride" a bike is 15 minutes to grind grain the bike is attached to, I don't need carbs for that (and the grain is used to bake bread for my non-low-carbing hubby). The exercise most of us do regularly doesn't really require carbs. >>Right. Glycolysis is going to occur in high intensity, anaerobic >>activities and if an athlete is depleted of glycogen they're >>performance will suffer. I doubt any competitive sprinters LC. >>That said, a majority of exercisers aren't running 100m sprints >>or power-lifting. > The thing about this type of work is... while I may indeed be doing > physical labor for 5 or 6 hours in a day, it is *not* consistent. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over, and my blisters have popped open, and I've burnt up quite a bit > of calories. Being an apartment dweller in NYC I envy your "practical strength" exercise. > On-going aerobic exercise and/or intense weight-lifting might require > some carbs to sustain, and that's the sort of thing I was discussing > titrating with candy for. Right...and I knew that's where you were coming from. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm > Being an apartment dweller in NYC I envy your "practical > strength" exercise. I find it's a lot easier to keep exercising when there's a task to be completed as opposed to just the exercise itself. I really enjoy this sort of work very much. > > On-going aerobic exercise and/or intense weight-lifting might require > > some carbs to sustain, and that's the sort of thing I was discussing > > titrating with candy for. > > Right...and I knew that's where you were coming from. What I was trying to describe... it is really easy for someone who hasn't moved much in a long time to classify their exercise as "intense" and think they need carbs because they've heard it is needful for intense exercise. But what most of us do is just simply not in that category. The work I'm doing is pretty intense for me. My hands have popped blisters all over them. My abdomen is covered in bruises from walking into the mower when it jams. I'm sore all over almost every day when I go to bed, though the soreness is usually gone by the next day. But I'm maintaining this work on the same 40-50 grams of carbs I ate all winter when there was no yard work to do. I was attempting to explain what "intense" doesn't mean with a practical example. If someone isn't used to working out, they can work very "intensely" for them and not need any extra carbs for fuel at all. The only extra "fuel" I'm needing is more water - I get very thirsty working out there. Seems like no matter how much water I take out with me, it's never enough. > If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ketones > more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain that? Simple chemistry. Ketones are violatile. They will disolve through skin and any other tissue. They will evaporate out of our bodies and there's nothing our protein/fat/carb driven chemistry can do about it. This is why there's an odor and taste while in ketosis. So our kidneys don't even attempt to filter ketones back into the blood. Ketones in the blood will flow into the urine and vice versa the same as ketones will evaporate out through our skin and lungs. And really we don't excrete ketones because our body is trying to eject them either. We excreet them because that can't be stopped any more than ketones can be hoarded. Thus our bodies burn ketones while they are present but do nothing to hoard them. Ketoacidosis isn't a build-up of ketones - It's production of them that goes crazy. ||| If that was the case it seems strange that the body excretes ||| ketones more rapidly than glucose. How would you explain [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] || nothing to hoard them. Ketoacidosis isn't a build-up of || ketones - It's production of them that goes crazy. Carbs can be hoarded, I believe it is called fat. Signature-- Read: http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/ "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy > || Simple chemistry. Ketones are violatile. They will disolve > || through skin and any other tissue. They will evaporate out [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Carbs can be hoarded, I believe it is called fat. Funny, but not the same thing. Our bodies can and do hoard blood glucose - The kidneys actively filter glucose out of the urine. So a healthy person will not have glucose in their urine. Glucose does not evaporate through skin and muscle the way ketones do so it is chemically possible to hoard. Conversion to fat is a separate issue from whether it *can* be retained within the body or not. Glucose can be retained; ketones can't. :: Carbs can be hoarded, I believe it is called fat. Not at all. The body can only store about 2000 calories as glucose. If that gets depleted, then it starting making it, using mostly protein but some fat. > :: Carbs can be hoarded, I believe it is called fat. > > Not at all. The body can only store about 2000 calories as glucose. If > that gets depleted, then it starting making it, using mostly protein but > some fat. Compare with ketones. The body can't store any of them whatsoever. > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting > a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... You've gotten good answers from people already, I just wanted to add... The brain can be used to read the FAQ or one of the many good low-carb books out there. > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm > starting a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... Yes, your brain will starve and die. I had mine preserved and shellacked, and keep it on the mantle as a conversation piece. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://www.myspace.com/aaronbaugher "No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having it." > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting > a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... I can't recall ever having had a brain. What good are they? With the internet, I never need to actually read a book anymore. I just ask and somebody gives me the answer. So, again, my question is "Who needs a brain?" Don't worry about it at all. Sincerely, Strawman from Oz Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) "Jbuch" <jbuch@revealed.net> wrote in > So, again, my question is "Who needs a brain?" Politicians certainly are not using theirs! LOL Don't worry, your brain is so small it doesn't require energy. HTH >I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting > a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... > Don't worry, your brain is so small it doesn't require energy. HTH The voice of experience speaks. >>I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm starting >>a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... Salty >> Don't worry, your brain is so small it doesn't require energy. HTH > > The voice of experience speaks. Yes, I experience small brains like yours everyday. You don't need to be worried. Other foods can also give energy to your brain. Let's not exagerate your concern. Conny http//sweetpaprika.lipblogs.com |I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I think that about some of the people who post here. No, seriously! .... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.