What XJD said.
Carbs (approx 4 Calories) have less energy per gram than fats (approx 9 Calories) do.
If you weren't referring to calories per gram, but rather ATP synthesis and what not, then yes, the oxidation of glucose results in more ATP than the krebs cycle (with pyruvic acid produced from fatty acids created from fat breakdown, because there probably won't be a lot of pyruvic acid created during glycolysis, seeing as there isn't a whole lot of glucose around) (36 ATP compared to 2 ATP).
At least that's my interpretation of what my physiology book says.
uh. That's really long and rambling.
You should understand it if you have a basic grasp of the way ATP is created. Anyway, I'll make it more clear later on if no one else posts a clearer explanation. Class time.
well... fats avg 9 Kcal per gram, actually, but...caleb you can look that up anywhere. On any food label, if you like. But if you need an academic reference, there's pretty good summaries of how many Kcals (which is what energy is) are contained in each macronutrient, and how the absolute Kcal number translates to "usable" energy, in McArdle, Katch and Katch, Exercise Physiology.Easier and cheaper would be Nancy Clark's Sports Nutrition Guidebook, or Bernardot's Nutrtion for Serious Athletes, from Human Kinetics.the short of it though, is common knowledge:fats: 9 Kcal per gram, carbs and proteins both ahve 4 Kcals per gram, and alcohol has 7 Kcals. Sometimes you run into other things, like glycerol et al in sports products.... they vary, but generally around 4 Kcal per gram also.
caleb: It was a joke, don't take everything you read so seriously. I hope you didn't take the ACE test. When you tell me you simply "took a test," but neither specify the test nor list the preparatory information, it doesn't say much. Unfortunately, there are many PT organizations that teach flawed information.
Thanks for the correction, Ali.
Caleb,
The first quote I could put my hands on comes from Rob
Faigin, Natural Hormonal Enhancement, pg. 64:
Because carbohydrates have been hyped to death in
recent years as "energy food," in an effort to sell you
cheap, sugar-loaded drinks and candy bars (marketed as
performance supplements or meal replacements), people
assume that carbohydrates are the best energy source
for average daily activities. Only high-intensity
activities like weightlifting or running a sprint are
anaerobic and therefore draw heavily on glycogen [McArdle, Katch and Katch, Exercise Physiology, 1996,
p. 25]. As a fat-burner, you will be better able to
access fat for fuel, which is a much more reliable,
stable, and higher-yield energy source.
I've seen similar statements elsewhere as well.
On a different point, it's worth noting that no matter
what field we are talking about, there's a lot more
that we don't know than that we do. It's dangerous to
make absolute, unequivocal statements, because reality
is so complicated there's almost bound to be counter-
evidence or another point of view. Take nutrition: the
Asians have a totally different approach to nutrition
than we in the West do, but they somehow manage to stay
healthy with it. Experts don't like to be told they're
wrong--I know, I'm a college professor myself--but we'd
all do a lot better if we could recognize that
different points of view exist, and that disagreement
does not constitute a personal attack.
Yours,
Glenn Sunshine
What do you mean energy? and what do you mean nutrient?
If by energy you mean how many calories does it provide.... then yes, gram for gram alcohol has more energy than carbs. that doesn't mean you'll *feel* energetic...
e.g., caffeine does not give you 'energy' in any meaningful sense of the term, it won't provide Calories... yet you'll feel more energetic perhaps than after having a shot of whiskey.
But the only meaningful definition of energy from macronutrients is how many KCals they give. It seems like you mean something else, caleb, but what you mean is not at all apparent.
Caleb- check out the beek "Protein Power", not only will this give you a basic understanding of nutritional biochemistry, it will also explain how our genetics are designed to consume the paleolithic diet which they describe. Recently the head of the Harvard school of medicine was asked why the high carb, low fat diet has failed to stem the tide os diabetes, heart disease...
His response "Well, it was just a theory.."
If you go to the National Instutes of health web site (Pubmed in any search engine) and look up paleolithic diet you will find dozens of papers describing why this is the preferred way to eat. Then look up -exercise,macronutrient,performance enhancement and you will find the studies showing increased fat and protein consumption yeild increased performance. Another interesting one is www.evolutionaryfitness.com After you see Arthur Devany 65yr. 6"1 205lb 8% body fat and a biological age of 32 you may be a bit more persuaded. Also, if you really want to understand this stuff you have got to take a biochemistry and physiology class ( NOT the watered down ones, the stuff ment for med students and scientists. Let me know what you find
Isn't a Kcal equal to a Calorie? (with a capital c)
Question for Glenn though. What do you mean by asians having a different approach to nutrition than people in the west? From what I've seen, historically it was largely high carb (rice/millet), low fat and relatively low protein. That's similar to how the US is attempting to eat.
I should have been more clear there. Traditional diets
in the part of Asia I'm familiar with focus on a five-
element theory drawn, if I'm not mistaken, from Taoism.
They don't get into issues of carbs, proteins and fats;
they talk about the elemental energies of foods: some
foods are "earth," some "water," some "metal," some
"wood," and some "fire." Alternately, they are
described in terms of yin and yang energy. Alternately
still, they may be described in terms of the five basic
flavors. The object is then to balance the energies of
the foods you eat within your diet. Illness is
likewise caused by improper energy balances, and thus may call for "diet therapy" to restore the proper yin-
yang balance to your body.
Should you present this to a Western nutritionist, they
will probably tell you that it isn't a reliable system
for determining the nutrients you need; indeed, it does
not even talk about nutrients, just "energies," a term
that Western theory doesn't recognize (at least in the
sense its used in Asia).
The point I was trying to make had less to do with diet
than with methodology: people who are convinced that
they or the "experts" they rely on have all the answers
tend to be closed-minded about other approaches that
are unfamiliar or that challenge some of their sacred
cows. Dogmatic approaches aren't necessarily the best;
it pays to be open minded and look for the limitations
of our knowledge rather than to insist we've got it all
together. I was attempting (somewhat clumsily) to
point this out by trying to show that radically
different approaches to nutritional theory are possible
(the example from Asia), and to argue that things are
rarely as cut and dried as conventional wisdom suggests
they are.
I hope this clears up what I was trying to get across.
Yours,
Glenn Sunshine
I read in a recent newspaper article that the USDA (and perhaps NIH) has been charged with doing some major research into the real vs. stated benefits of a hi protein/lo carbohydrate diet. This has been driven by the argument over lo fat/hi carbs vs. hi protein/lo carbs. diet regimens. The final intent is to actually ammend the USDA nutrition pyramid that is pumped into so much of our eating life.
Be on the lookout for strong scientific evidence.
What does nobody argue with? It's better to eat less and exercise more if you are fat.