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

that's because the 'feedback' was over the top. I'm interested to hear what people think about VESPA, but could give a sh&t about comments like 'the stupidest thing I ever read' and 'take this and fuel like a wasp! BAM!'

runner who professee wrote:

Most serious runners don't replace all their carbs and are often running on fumes (fat). I see little value in depleting even further. One would quickly crash and burn. Indeed, part of me thinks that overtraining is best viewed as chronic glycogen deficit.

One of the top marathon coaches in the world sees value in further carb depletion. That should be enough to make anyone interested in running fast consider implementing this type of training.

800 dude wrote:

learn some real biochemistry wrote:

No it doesn't. This is a common misconception. Fat metabolism uses less oxygen not more to produce the same amount of energy. The disadvantage is that you don't get an anaerobic contribution with fats as you do with glycogen.

Where are you coming up with this? Maybe you're thinking of the common misconception that the respiratory quotient denotes the difference in absolute oxygen consumption per energy produced, which is obviously not true.

But there is a difference in absolute energy production that favors carbohydrates. Carbohydrate metabolism produces 5.05 calories per liter of O2, and lipid metabolism produces 4.73. This is smaller than the difference in RQ, but still substantial when we're talking extended exercise at a very high aerobic level.

Glycogen/blood glucose metabolism (lactate production and respiration) produces heat during the LDH reaction equivalent to 7-8% of the energy in the glucose molecule. Fat metabolism doesn't produce heat. So it's not true to say that fat metabolism uses more O2 to produce the same amount of energy.

Of course carbohydrate metabolism is favorable in a marathon, but both carbs and fats are used by all marathon runners and this will not change even when the top guys are running under 2 hours. The better trained runners will produce a better balance of carbs and fats all the way through the race, whereas the less well trained, or those who go off too fast as you have pointed out, will always bonk slighly or a lot depending on their pace and coditioning.

biochemistry wrote:

Glycogen/blood glucose metabolism (lactate production and respiration) produces heat during the LDH reaction equivalent to 7-8% of the energy in the glucose molecule. Fat metabolism doesn't produce heat. So it's not true to say that fat metabolism uses more O2 to produce the same amount of energy.

I somewhat suspect that this was not written by a biochem major. The dominant mechanism by which energy is harnessed from glucose during marathon running is via glycolysis -> krebs cycle -> electron transport chain. It is most certainly not fermentation to lactate to recycle NADH, which yields about 15 times fewer ATP per glucose. Also, the last sentence above is non-sequitor and I'm not sure what what the poster is trying to say.

But back to the OP's question, I'm not really a marathon runner but from what I have read a lot of the top coaches prescribe glycogen-depleting workouts to some degree, but in careful moderation. A workout that makes you bonk seems to be one that is an enormous stress that takes a lot to recover from and hence they are used sparingly, but to good effect. Programmes I have seen tend to feature these at a frequency of perhaps 1 a month or thereabouts.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

The people with the lowest CVD rate and some of the longest lived people in parts of Japan, including Okinawa, eat a 80-90% carb diet.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

The Japanese also have the lowest birth rate in the world. Guys over there are more interested in video games than humping their wives. You know why? Because their testosterone is demolished from all that soy and the lack of saturated fat.

If that's what you want, go ahead and eat your high carb diet. But leave us alpha men alone.

Firstly, your simplistic explanation (diet alone, no cultural factors) for why Japan has a low birth rate is pretty dumb. Also, there are plenty of fat americans who like to pay video games and can't get laid either. Furthermore, we were having a discussion on the heart health effects of lots of sat fat and cholesterol. There may be some benefit to some sat fat intake for testosterone production, but one should weigh that against the negative effects. If you want a high testosterone level, damn the long-term health effect, take steroids!

But let's look at your other incorrect paleo/low-carb dogma "facts"-

"their testosterone is demolished from all that soy"

There is little evidence that soy intake negatively effects testosterone levels:

"Effect of protein source and resistance training on body composition and sex hormones

Douglas Kalman*, Samantha Feldman, Michele Martinez, Diane R Krieger and Mark J Tallon

Abstract-

Methods: For 12 weeks 20 subjects were supplemented with 50 g per day of one of four different protein sources (Soy concentrate; Soy isolate; Soy isolate and whey blend, and Whey blend only) in combination with a resistance-training program. Body composition, testosterone, estradiol and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) were measured at baseline and week 12.

Results: Protein supplementation resulted in a significant increase in lean body mass independent of protein source (0.5 ± 1.1 and 0.9 ± 1.4 kg, p = 0.006, p = 0.007). No significant differences were observed between groups for total and free testosterone, SHBG, percentage body fat, BMI or body weight.

Conclusion: This investigation shows that 12 week supplementation with soy protein does not decrease serum testosterone or inhibit lean body mass changes in subjects engaged in a resistance exercise program.

---------

Next up:

".... testosterone is demolished....If that's what you want, go ahead and eat your high carb diet."

Carb's effect on testosterone production:

The aim of this study was to determine if a change in protein/carbohydrate ratio influences plasma steroid hormone concentrations. ... Testosterone concentrations in seven normal men were consistently higher after ten days on a high carbohydrate diet (468 +/- 34 ng/dl, mean +/- S.E.) than during a high protein diet (371 +/- 23 ng/dl, p less than 0.05) .... By contrast, cortisol concentrations were consistently lower during the high carbohydrate diet than during the high protein diet (7.74 +/- 0.71 micrograms/dl vs. 10.6 +/- 0.4 micrograms/dl respectively, p less than 0.05)

-------

Influence of dietary carbohydrate intake on the free testosterone: cortisol ratio responses to short-term intensive exercise training

Eur J Appl Physiol

Abstract

This study examined the effect of dietary carbohydrate (CHO) consumption on the free testosterone to cortisol (fTC) ratio during a short-term intense micro- cycle of exercise training. The fTC ratio is a proposed bio- marker for overreaching–overtraining (i.e., training stress or imbalance) in athletes. The ratio was studied in two groups, control-CHO (»60% of daily intake, n = 12) and low-CHO (»30% of daily intake, n = 8), of male subjects who performed three consecutive days of intensive train- ing (»70–75% maximal oxygen consumption, 60 min per day) with a dietary intervention (on the day before and during training). Resting, pre-exercise blood samples were collected under standardized-controlled conditions before each day of training (Pre 1, 2, 3) and on a fourth day after the micro-cycle (Rest). Bloods were analyzed for free tes- tosterone and cortisol via radioimmunoassay procedures.

Statistical analysis (ANCOV A) revealed the fTC ratio decreased significantly (p `` 0.01) from pre-study resting measurement (Pre 1) to the Wnal post-study resting measurement (Rest) in the low-CHO group (-43%), but no change occurred (p %% 0.05) in the control-CHO group (-3%). Findings suggest if the fTC ratio is utilized as a marker of training stress or imbalance it is necessary for a moderately high diet of CHO to be consumed to maintain validity of any observed changes in the ratio value.

So go ahead Cult-Fit-Guy, go low carb, overeat meat, and enjoy your low testosterone levels and CVD. Really, enjoy!

Just because you format your font bold doesn't make that garbage any more valuable.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

If that's what you want, go ahead and eat your high carb diet. But leave us alpha men alone.

I thought you escaped from a mental institution.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Just because you format your font bold doesn't make that garbage any more valuable.

"garbage", huh? Just what I expected from you: ignore studies that contradict your nutrition ideology, and focus on on the style of my post (the fact that I bold-faced some parts. That was to highlight some parts, but I made a mistake and the 2nd half came out all bold).

But I will break it down for you nice and simple, with NO bold.

Here's a quick summary:

SOY AND TESTOSTERONE:

a fairly long term study I quoted found no negative effect on testosterone levels in strength training athletes when consuming a high amount of soy protein. It was just as good as whey in building muscle (other studies have found whey slightly superior)

Other large studies have confirmed this result.

"A meta-analysis of Fifteen placebo-controlled treatment groups with baseline and ending measures were analyzed. In addition, 32 reports involving 36 treatment groups were assessed in simpler models to ascertain the results."

RESULT(S):

No significant effects of soy protein or isoflavone intake on T, SHBG, free T, or FAI were detected regardless of statistical model.

CONCLUSION(S):

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that neither soy foods nor isoflavone supplements alter measures of bioavailable T concentrations in men.

-----

HIGH CARB INTAKE AND TESTOSTERONE:

The studies I posted showed that high Carb intake and testosterone levels were positively related (the more you ate, the higher your T levels). Low Carb diets with higher protein resulted in lower T levels and higher cortisol levels.

So you were incorrect about BOTH soy and carbs. But of course, this doesn't fit in with Paleo/X-fit dogma (dog$hit when it comes to being factual), so just dismiss it. You guys refuse to acknowledge any facts that contradict your nutrition or fitness ideology/dogma. Sad.

I recommend converting your body into a large blob of fat. In this state, it will be forced to use this fat for energy production and, over time, use it more efficiently.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

The people with the lowest CVD rate and some of the longest lived people in parts of Japan, including Okinawa, eat a 80-90% carb diet.

The Japanese also have the lowest birth rate in the world. Guys over there are more interested in video games than humping their wives. You know why? Because their testosterone is demolished from all that soy and the lack of saturated fat.

If that's what you want, go ahead and eat your high carb diet. But leave us alpha men alone.

I wish letsrun provided a "Stupid Post of the Day" link, so I could click it for this post.

Obviously you've never been to Japan or spent any time among Japanese.

all metabolism produces heat metabolism=rate of heat production, read a book. also free fatty oxidation produces up to 130 ATP as opposed to 36 from aerobic glucose of 2 by anaerobic, it requires far more oxygen than glucose which is why you do not burn as many free fatty acids during intense exercise in which less oxygen is available

LACARPETRON DOOKMARRIOT wrote:

all metabolism produces heat metabolism=rate of heat production, read a book. also free fatty oxidation produces up to 130 ATP as opposed to 36 from aerobic glucose of 2 by anaerobic, it requires far more oxygen than glucose which is why you do not burn as many free fatty acids during intense exercise in which less oxygen is available

I think the way you phrase this doesn't represent the process well. A fatty acid will require more total oxygen than glucose because it contains more total energy than glucose. However, when we consider 'power', that is the energy generated within a certain time, availability of molecular oxygen is not the rate-limiter in the aerobic process (again, we should try not to ferment glucose to lactate when marathon running).

The 'aerobic' process in cellular respiration - the only place in which molecular oxygen appears - is the electron transport chain. This chain is fed by the Kreb's cycle, and the Kreb's cycle is fuelled by Acetyl-CoA. Acetyl-CoA can be generated by glucose via glycolysis->pyruvate->Acetyl-CoA, or it can be generated by beta-oxidation of a fatty acid. Beta-oxidation involves significantly more steps and hence generates Acetyl-CoA at a slower rate than via the glycolysis route. In particular, transporting the fatty acid across the mitochondrial wall is believed to be the rate-limiting step.

Trying to say it more simply, in the aerobic regime higher power outputs utilise higher amounts of glucose not because of the availability of oxygen but rather because Acetyl-CoA is formed at a faster rate by glycolysis than by beta-oxidation of a fatty acid.

If we want to kick the power up even higher then we have to start making lactate, and if we want it higher still then we can very briefly invoke the creatine phosphate system. I'd recommend against trying to rely on either of those when marathon running.

At least that's how I understand it. I'd love it if a Biochemist could wade in and tell me if I've got it right or not. Like I said, it's not my primary field.

Limey UK runner wrote:

biochemistry wrote:

Glycogen/blood glucose metabolism (lactate production and respiration) produces heat during the LDH reaction equivalent to 7-8% of the energy in the glucose molecule. Fat metabolism doesn't produce heat. So it's not true to say that fat metabolism uses more O2 to produce the same amount of energy.

I somewhat suspect that this was not written by a biochem major. The dominant mechanism by which energy is harnessed from glucose during marathon running is via glycolysis -> krebs cycle -> electron transport chain. It is most certainly not fermentation to lactate to recycle NADH, which yields about 15 times fewer ATP per glucose.

You can't have glycolysis without lactate production. The lactate is reconverted to pyruvate then -> krebs cycle -> electron transport chain.

LACARPETRON DOOKMARRIOT wrote:

all metabolism produces heat metabolism=rate of heat production, read a book. also free fatty oxidation produces up to 130 ATP as opposed to 36 from aerobic glucose of 2 by anaerobic, it requires far more oxygen than glucose which is why you do not burn as many free fatty acids during intense exercise in which less oxygen is available

Read a book yourself. Or this:

biochemistry wrote:

You can't have glycolysis without lactate production. The lactate is reconverted to pyruvate then -> krebs cycle -> electron transport chain.

No, that is simply not correct. Glycolysis converts glucose to pyruvate. That's all. What happens to the pyruvate afterwards depends on whether or not there is an abundance of oxygen. If it is in short supply then you get the conversion of pyruvate to lactate. In this case some people use the terminology "anaerobic glycolysis", but that term can confuse people as glycolysis occurs without molecular oxygen. You are correct that lactate is eventually converted back to pyruvate for kreb's cycle then ETC but that process does not come under the term 'glycolysis'

The relatively simple process is shown in the image below.

There is no need for people to read your lengthy link, which appears to be about how to measure the relative contributions of energy production from the combined aerobic and anaerobic pathways.

I have no interest in a flame war but your posts really don't strike me as coming from a biochem major. They feel a bit more like a relatively bright person having a bit of a google.

Limey UK runner wrote:

In this case some people use the terminology "anaerobic glycolysis", but that term can confuse people as glycolysis occurs without molecular oxygen.

That sentence is a bit ambiguous. Below is better.

In this case some people use the terminology "anaerobic glycolysis", but that term can confuse people as glycolysis ALWAYS occurs without molecular oxygen.

everything you have said is wrong and yes you can very well have glycolysis without lactate

lactate is always produced tho even at rest so wrong

Conundrum wrote:

Thoughts on this?

How many bodies are you trying to develop?