Thoughts on how to develop bodies ability to use fat as fuel more efficiently

Conundrum wrote:

Granted sugar and carbs are the main sources of fuel for short runs but for longer runs the body needs to be able to use fat as fuel more efficiently or else you risk bonking. Fat is processed slowly but in the later stages of longer races its use is important addition.

I am not sure how this plays out for different distance races. Ultra athletes develop the bodies ability to use the bodies fat as fuel and its important for their performance. How big a factor this would be for the half I'm not sure but it would have to be a factor for the marathon.

I have read a theory about developing this through long slow runs where one doesn't use energy drinks or gels and doesn't fuel up before the run. Just use water to train the body to become more adept at using body stores of fat for fuel.

Thoughts on this?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

biochemistry wrote:

Yes most books show the Meyerhof pathway of 1920. In Meyerhof day, electron transfer was unkown. The guy who discovered it in the 1950's, Rudolf Marcus was actually born a year after Meyerhof was awarded his nobel prize for Chemistry, and Marcus himself also received the Nobel prize for Chemistry for that work 70 years after Meyerhof.[/quote[

Excellent history lesson, however, again, this does not directly address my question.

[quote]biochemistry wrote:Applying electron transfer theory to glycogenolysis and glycolysis (redox reactions) reveals the lactate will be the end product and not pyruvate. But don't expect the text books to be updated any time soon, even though this theory has been around for 50 years due to the work of George Brooks.

You need to be much more clear in your response if you want us to follow/agree with you. I produced you quote from a 2013 journal article stating that pyruvate is the end-product of glycolysis. I don't think this would be published if it was flatly incorrect. So again, you are not entirely addressing the issue.

When you, and others, state that "lactate is the end-product of glycolysis," it can only mean one of the following:

1) you/others are referring to glycolysis as ONLY the pathway of glucose breakdown where pyruvate is converted to lactate, which is popularly known as anaerobic glycolysis. And yes, the steps creating the initial ATP are indeed done so without oxygen (thus the anaerobic). But as we know, the step in which lactate is produced can occur even when sufficient oxygen exists in the muscle, cell, therefore "anaerobic" conditions are not necessary for this step to occur.

HOWEVER... the other fork in the road, where glucose is broken down to pyruvate and THEN converted to acetyl CoA, and and then makes its way through krebs and ETC resulting in further ATP production, you do NOT refer to as "aerobic GLYCOLYSIS" (as if often or popularly the case), but simply a part of "aerobic respiration." If this is the case, then the dispute is only a matter of terminology, not biochemistry.

2) Instead, you believe that in all cases of glucose being broken down for energy, after pyruvate is created, lactate conversion/creation is ALWAYS the next step (thus , the statement that "lactate is the end product of glycolysis). After that, sometimes the lactate is then reconverted to pyruvate and then onto acetyl CoA, etc (aerobic respiration, which I am sure you are not denying exists). In this case the dispute is about the steps in the process.

If you believe the latter, please provide evidence that pyruvate is ALWAYS initially converted to lactate. As far as I know, this is simply untrue. If I am wrong, educate me with concrete citations.