Sorry, but that is way too many words for "simple". It's the kitchen sink, with fotos. :-D
iguess context is important
sorry if that wasn't clear
what I presented *is* horribly simplified version of the fat conversion to ATP process. that's what I meant by "way simple" but perhaps simplifiedis a clearer term?
so ya question or am I missing something you'd like me to take from your. comment for a future post?
or juzt dont use the word simple?
Just thinking back to how i was taught, "brief overview" is 5min or less when speaking or 500-1000 words of text, which is the same thing based on the reading ability of an average person, not a speed reader.
Synopsis is a synonym for this concept, and what you presented was a full article. I think you just wanted to trick people into reading more than they thought they would... ;-)
When you see the First Page of a published paper, its usually one or two paragraphs. That's a brief overview. You have dedicated sections to carbs and ATP, and "why" people would like to burn more fat than sticking to the "how". I say that only based on the assumption someone reading your article already is aware of the "why" on some level.
You have this wonderful desire to share information with us all, and we're grateful, but it takes a while to get to the meat(or is it.. fat?), with all the extra detail. Links to similar brief overviews or a few sentences on ATP, Carbs, protein, et. al, will give details to those interested in pursuing them, and allow those that desire the "fat" of the subject to get to it with ease.
what i've now done is extended the last paragraph to be more explicit about what's reviewed in the post:(brief blurb on role of fat followed by)
...And so we look for ways to burn it off.
The goal of this article is to take a 50thousand foot view (ie really simplified view) at part of what's going on with that burn off, and why therefore fat is our super fuel and seemingly super nemesis.
What i mean by simplified view? Here's a map of the metabolic process:
[image of vastness of metabolic processess]
We're considering a wee fraction of this and only partially of what's going on in here [image of simplified version of one postage stamp of process in that map]
These maps help to get that this is complex cool stuff. we are amazing. The above maps let us ask the question - how do we get the good stuff out of fat to use? and to appreciate how a little bit of fat goes a really really long way.
Hope that bit of extra mapping is an assist. each of the topics points to a header in the article. alas there's no easy way in blogger to make these into anchor tags. so hopefully scrolling and scanning willl be ok. Thank you,These maps help to get that this is complex cool stuff. we are amazing. The above maps let us ask the question - how do we get the good stuff out of fat to use? and to appreciate how a little bit of fat goes a really really long way. To get to that, we need to consider what energy from fat means. And that means taking a look at ATP, the primal fuel block (what fat and other nutrients in large part become), and also situating fat a bit relative to other nutrients like carbs and protein in this fuel-making process (nothing shines out like a comparison). We'll take a wee look at what can increase the fat burn in cells (mitochondria) and finally, where this should lead: why fat, while it burns all the time, is still a challenge to shed.
MC - You mention that fat burns better in the presence of carbohydrates then in their absence. Could you expand on that a bit?
first, sorry - i didn't see your post, and thanks D for stepping in. to rif a bit further on d-rockMC - You mention that fat burns better in the presence of carbohydrates then in their absence. Could you expand on that a bit? I've heard it said but have never understood why and I don't ever see anyone advocating a no-carb diet anyway. It is my impression that carbohydrates raise insulin levels turning the body toward fat storage and actually blocking fat burning as well as producing triglycerides which are the only form of fat that can be stored in the body. This would lead me to say that it is possible to loose fat while eating carbohydrates but that it is not optimal, and that fat burning would be easier in the absence of carbs since we know that this state induces similarities with starvation. This is in exact oposition to your statement.
Is it possible that you mean that fat burns better in the presence of carbohydrates in people who are accustomed to eating carbohydrates, because their bodies have not yet developed the enzymes necessary to proces ketones and fats more efficiently? When carb-eaters go into ketosis ketones are excreted in the urine because they cannot be used efficiently - after a few weeks of easing into ketosis though, ketones all but cease to be excreted in the urine because they are being used by the organs and muscles.
Also, you mention fat as being a nemesis because of the density of the energy it contains although, typically, people who eat high-fat and protein and low-carb have a greater level of satiety and therefore tend to eat fewer total calories.
Thanks MC for the clarifications! I'll have to chew on them for a while but I appreciate your well thought out response.
I didn't realize that the energy (ATP) difference was so great :19 ATP vs 460 ATP - that's huge. I know the question isn't black and white (because all of the processes are happening all of the time) but it seems like you're suggesting that the body cannot use the citric acid cycle (in conjuntion with gluconeogenisis) to sufficiently to meet the body's energy demands during endurace-type work while eating low-carb. Is that correct?
After the first 90 min on the bike what kind of fuel would Lance Armstrong's body be using predominantly and through which process? I ask because he is working at a very good intensity so I would assume that he has already burned most of the glycogen stores in the muscles and liver and is burning fat primarily for the duration - and it seems to work pretty well for him. Or is he eating carbs continually? I honestly don't know and don't follow the sport at all.