tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post7057900885905018917..comments2024-02-20T16:22:10.042-05:00Comments on Tuit Nutrition: Fuel Partitioning 101: Human Body as Hybrid CarAmy B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08471580967464668110noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-11279326928144962852018-08-07T01:05:02.970-04:002018-08-07T01:05:02.970-04:00Kinda makes you wonder why we've been told for...Kinda makes you wonder why we've been told for so long to eat carbs for energy, when fat provides so much more of it.Used BMW 325i Cars For Salehttps://www.sbtjapan.com/used-cars/bmw/?model=325inoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-76903574675819444632016-09-07T16:40:15.732-04:002016-09-07T16:40:15.732-04:00Well actually, it doesn’t make me wonder so much, ...Well actually, it doesn’t make me wonder so much, as it seems to all go back to the Ancel Keyes flawed study of “saturated fat is bad for you” where he didn’t differentiate between naturally occurring saturated fats (like tallow, lard, goose fat, coconut oil, palm oil) and the man-made hydrogenated garbage fats (margarine, shortning) that he actually used. He also cherry-picked the data, so a good scientist he is not. THEN he convinced our government, who made incorrect low-fat & high carb recommendations, and the rest is (bad) history following bad science, which led to the upside-down food pyramid and the low-fat/no-fat fad that is still with us today. <br /><br />Mary G. Enig, PhD lipid biochemist, presented numerous times before Congress but they preferred the lies and flawed science proposed by Keyes. I think that the bottom line there was ultimately money in probably more than one fashion. Who paid whom? Who lobbied? Who benefitted financially? Who remained in power? The lies of health and nutrition run deep indeed, but the truth will always out, eventually.<br />http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/#more-1778 <br />http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/diet-mythology-ancel-keys-fat-fallacy.html <br />http://www.stop-trans-fat.com/ancel-keys.html <br />Great post, great info, great site! Thank you!<br />Molly<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-41918271663484878812015-11-06T23:11:12.458-05:002015-11-06T23:11:12.458-05:00I'm not exactly sure about the ATP "per c...I'm not exactly sure about the ATP "per carbon," but as this post shows, the ATP per molecule of a fat is *way* higher than per molecule of glucose. :) (Kinda makes you wonder why we've been told for so long to eat carbs for energy, when fat provides so much more of it...)Amy B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08471580967464668110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-60817789667562123042015-11-06T20:32:12.262-05:002015-11-06T20:32:12.262-05:00Personally, I view fats like diesel fuel and carbs...Personally, I view fats like diesel fuel and carbs like nitrous. But I'm a boy, so it resonates with me. Interestingly, IIRC, the Krebs cycle shuffles the carbons around, and glucose yields about 6 ATP per carbon, and fatty acids yield 8 ATP per carbon. I don't entirely remember, because fatty acid metabolism was barely mentioned in my A&P class. The only mention of Krebs in pretty much any personal trainer certification is within the context of glucose metabolism, and entry level physiology courses seem to only reference glucose metabolism as well. This is a huge problem, as only people that are super geeked on physiology and understand the differences between the two main fuel sources "get it" that fat is the better fuel source, especially saturated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00628664399261103605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-10184086233797783762014-05-13T18:02:48.393-04:002014-05-13T18:02:48.393-04:00It's never too nerdy! I might not understand i...It's never too nerdy! I might not understand it all, but that doesn't mean it's too advanced...just too advanced for *me.* I think I follow you, though. If the bottom line is that we get far more ATP from fats than from carbs, that much I can stand behind. ;-) Thanks so much for the compliment, too. Really flattering that you'd share this with your students.Tuit Nutritionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708859914305178756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833628955058077617.post-87496727635761811672014-05-13T16:26:05.742-04:002014-05-13T16:26:05.742-04:00This is a great discussion of the relative efficie...This is a great discussion of the relative efficiency of the two "fuel sources" (and I really mean it; this post is probably going to feature as one of my resources for my older students for teaching them to communicate science well). What might make it even more powerful for the more nerdy amongst us is to add to the chart the relative molecular masses of the molecules. You've asserted that "molecule for molecule" (so far so good, it's demonstrated by the ATP/molecule breakdown in the table), "gram for gram, fats give us more energy than carbohydrates" - well, you could justify the latter by showing that lauric acid, C12H24O2 (rfm 200), has a remarkably similar relative molecular mass to glucose, C6H12O6 (rfm 180). This means that the molecules are roughly comparable, and after doing a simple crunch-of-the-numbers, you'd find that they give (respectively) 0.2 and 0.475 moles of ATP per gram of fuel. This translates to about two and a half times the ATP per gram from lauric acid versus glucose. <br /><br />Too nerdy? Ah well, I'm a chemistry teacher. Can't see a biochem problem without trying to make it more maths-y.AKAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17302238105720256255noreply@blogger.com