I read a post that claims the metabolic advantage does not exist because calories burned to process fats and proteins are taking into account for nutritional labels. Is this true? And does this factor in the conversion rates for fat and protein into glucose? I read that fat conversion rate is 10% and protein has a 58% or 59% conversion rate into glucose.
Doug Freyburger 14 August 2006 18:39:53 [ permanent link ]
lowcarb.0.automata@spamgourmet.com wrote:>
I read a post that claims the metabolic advantage does not exist
On the one hand, for folks who claim the metabolic advantage does not exist, it does not because they keep redefining terms to keep it from existing and they ignore experimental results. But experimental results keep saying that low carbers lose about 4% more than low fatters or other dieters calorie for calorie for the first six months.
On the other hand, for folks who claim the metabolic advantage exists they frequently treat it as a magic excuse for overeating and it isn't. Or they decline to mention that it's proporational to the amount of excess fat left to lose and it falls to zero somewhere in the range of 10-20 pounds left to lose (the 6 months mentioned in study results). Or they exaggerate how much the advantage is (the 4% mentioned in study results).
Insulin moves fat into storage, glucagon moves fat out of storage. Low carbing decreases insulin. High fatting increases glucagon. Once fat has moved out of storage the calorie count no longer works as "calorie is a calorie is a calorie". It is very easy to exaggerate the meaning of this. It is very easy to deny the effect happens. Both make the term too loaded.
because calories burned to process fats and proteins are taking into> account for nutritional labels. Is this true?
No it is not true. Labels have the caloric value that the fat or protein yield when burned in a fire.
And does this factor in> the conversion rates for fat and protein into glucose?
Not it does not.
I read that fat> conversion rate is 10% and protein has a 58% or 59% conversion rate> into glucose.
That's correct but it ignores much. Carbs are NOT the one and only source of energy in the biological universe. Those conversion rates explain why people who drive towards zero carbs don't keel over and die of low blood sugar, but they do NOT account for the energy gotten from other metabolic paths.
When fat is burned for fuel 10% of the energy does indeed come through carbs. Glycerols are converted to glucose. But that does not mean that the other 90% of the energy is lost. It follows the several fatty acid pathways. Fatty acids are converted into acetyl-CoA and/or ketones and those products are burned.
When protein is converted into glucose the efficiency of the process is near 50%. But that does not mean the only energy gained from burning protein is through being converted to protein.
Calorie is NOT a calorie is NOT a calorie, but nowhere near the extent you're asking for.
