Blog

2

Got to thinking today (dangerous for me...lol)! To me, the very fact that the human body converts excess sugar (read excess carbs) or calories into adipose tissue (read fat) is biological proof that the human genome has adapted to burn fat as the most efficient fuel. If evolution or natural selection (survival of the fittest) has any merit whatsoever, would it not be logical to conclude the biological response is to store the most efficient source of energy as fuel to burn during times of want? What say the experts???

flag
I was debating this with my doctor who feels that ketosis is only for times of starvation? – Chinaeskimo Jul 15 at 3:47
Except that the human body barely ever creates fat out of glucose. – Bill1102inf Jul 15 at 18:41
2 
@Bill1102inf: except that it does: livestrong.com/article/… - "Glucose is a six-carbon sugar molecule. Your body first converts this molecule into two three-carbon pyruvate molecules through the process of glycolysis and then into acetyl CoA. When your body requires immediate energy, acetyl CoA enters the Citric Acid Cycle creating energy molecules in the form of ATP. When glucose intake exceeds your energy needs.. acetyl CoA begins the process of fatty acid synthesis becoming triglycerides that are stored in the fat tissues of your body." – raydawg Jul 15 at 18:58
1 
Even monkeys get diabetes from too much sugar, starch and too little activity. Even if you can consider humans fairly well adapted to carbs thats within certain reasonable limits, and in the context of alot of activity. I have yet to see a bakery full of healthy lean people. – Jamie Aug 17 at 9:41
1 
people went with out carbs all winter...'Times of starvation' is not really starvation and pretty natural. – Andrew Aug 22 at 20:00

8 Answers

8

Really great thought. Most people conclude that carbs (glucose) must be the preferred fuel source, since the body with burn it first. However, when you flip that around, and say that the body is trying to get rid of that fuel (and/or store excess as fat) things become a little more clear.

But, I agree with Alligator, that we are well adapted for the use of both fuels . . . but the proportions should tell us something. Short bursts of high intensity (catching prey, or eluding predators) uses glucose - normal activity (walking, gathering, playing, etc.) uses ketones. Over consumption of carbs shuts down our fat burning machinery (or at least turns it off) - and should be an indication that we are running sub-optimally . . . or as Tommy (Snatch) would say "It's not in sync with evolution."

link|flag
Agreed. we are adapted for both, but we tend to lose our ability to use fat unless we let ourselves do it on a regular basis. Also we burn glucose because it is toxic beyond a certain threshold. – RaiseFitness Jul 15 at 14:18
4 
Alcohol is burned even before carbohydrate. Alcohol is most certainly not the bodies most preferred fuel. So that argument that carbohydrate are preferred is kindof moot. – Glaceaus Jul 15 at 17:18
5

You are only seeing part of the picture. We are all fat burners at low intensities, because i takes more time to break fat down for use. At higher intensities, we are all glucose burners. If you don't consume glucose, then the excess protein in your diet or the protein in your muscles broken down for energy. You see? We are fat burners at low intensities, and sugar burners at high intensities.

Using your same logic, one could just as well say that we store (1200-2000 calories) as glycogen within our muscles and liver..it's proof we're sugar burners!

We burn sugar when it's conducive to X activity, and we burn fat when it's conducive to Y activity. Try burning fat when sprinting. You simply CANNOT. You burn fat after sprinting though.

link|flag
6 
Problem is even the most highly trained individual has a very limited capacity for stored glycogen, and except what is stored in the liver, which is only about 100g or less, the rest is muscle specific and can't be shared with any other muscle. Fat doesn't work that way. Even myself with 5% bodyfat has roughly 28,000 kcal in stored energy. – RaiseFitness Jul 15 at 3:17
1 
I understand this, but I'm saying that high intensity exercise demands glucose, regardless if you are consuming it from food or not- it will get it. So in that sense, we're all sugar burners too. – alligator Jul 15 at 3:36
3 
Funny.... I am a marathon runner and I train in a fasted state since going paleo!!! I have more energy in a fat burning mode ( fasted, no carb load) than when I train carbed up. This includes sprint work..... I ALWAYS have more energy and can do 4 more sets of hill sprints when i am fasted versus carbed up. – JasonAC556 Jul 15 at 3:38
I'm another one who trains best fasted, regardless of the intensity or duration of the workout. – David Jul 15 at 4:28
2 
The question is then, why do we store unlimited fat, but a small reserve of glucose? – Matt Jul 15 at 5:25
show 4 more comments
4

Your body gets the glucose it needs regardless of if you eat carbs or not...amino acids, lactate and glycerol...yep, even from fat.

link|flag
Well, glucose from aminos (or muscle cells) as gluconeogenesis for red blood cells and certain types of nerves, and the rest of the body runs off ketones. – raydawg Jul 15 at 19:03
3

That is one hypothesis. There are other theories on why we store energy as fat, a common one being that fat is more energy dense than carbs and this means more efficient energy storage.

If you want to evaluate this theory on the basis of species adaptation, look at other animals; it's pretty common for fat to be the basis of energy storage in the body regardless of the macronutrient content of the animal's natural diet. I'm currently not aware of a species that stores excess carbs (or other macros) as huge amounts of glycogen or another carbohydrate storage polymer, though there could be.

Fat could be the preferred energy substrate, but such an observation is not proof. It leads to a hypothesis, which can then be tested. But it's not proof.

link|flag
2

Yup. Also reducing carbohydrates (glucose, fructose, etc) are reactive molecules. They contain aldehydes and ketones that can undesirably react with other biological moieties, such as amines (think: protein/DNA). Fats are not nearly as reactive towards other molecules. So just based on the stability for storage, fats make sense.

link|flag
Exactly! This is what I was thinking! – JasonAC556 Jul 15 at 2:39
2

1 gram of fat = 9 calories 1 gram of carbs = 4 calories 1 gram of protein = 4 calories

Fat has more energy per gram than the other macros. It makes more sense to store fat as a reserve energy source for this reason. Healthy BF% levels are from 10% to 25% for Men (up to 30% for women). This means a person weighing 150 pounds with 20% BF is carrying approximately 30 pounds of 'dead' weight as energy. To carry the same energy in another macro form would require 67.5 pounds or an additional 37.5 pounds of 'dead' weight. I imagine this would put you at a disadvantage when you are running from a tiger on the serengeti. :)

link|flag
1 
25% for men is pretty high. – RaiseFitness Jul 15 at 14:21
For women 12-25% for men 5-18% – RaiseFitness Jul 15 at 14:23
25% for men is presposterous, its fat city. – Bill1102inf Jul 15 at 18:44
I agree that it is high. I was referencing ACE which is just okay. – Mark Jul 16 at 2:36
1

Stored body fat is not proof humans are fat burners. We can just store more energy in fat cells. In these times of plenty there is more likelihood of over-stuffing our fat cells. We were never meant to have such a surplus of energy hanging about.

link|flag
1 
I think you've answered your own answer there - "proof" is that the normal state is to have some lean/famine times, esp. in winter, so in those states, we absolutely will burn stored fat. We only need a little bit of glucose for red blood cells and certain types of nerve cells. The rest of the body can use ketones. – raydawg Jul 15 at 19:04
1

Perhaps stored body fat is merely a reflection of our environment, which does not prove that fat is better than carbs or protein really. We live in an obesogenic environment is all. Sure some say that humans evolved the ability to store more body fat than lean tissue as compared to most animals as a keen survival mechanism. But perhaps our exquisite ability to store body fat easily is more a sign that we must try to remove the abundance of extremely calorie dense foods from our environment, or introduce a lot more daily activity (or both), rather than a sign that we should be dipping our steaks in coconut oil.

Anyway, I thought this was a good read: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/11/02/the-fattest-ape-an-evolutionary-tale-of-human-obesity/

link|flag
"The new appetite for meat didn't mean we lost our passion for sweets, though. As Berkeley's Milton points out, the brain's growth may have been facilitated by abundant animal protein, but the brain operates on glucose, the sugar that serves as the major fuel for cellular function. "The brain drinks glucose 24 hours a day," she says. The sugars in fruit and the carbohydrates in edible grains and tubers are particularly good sources of glucose." Read more: time.com/time/magazine/article/… – anonymous Aug 22 at 20:51

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.