Excess sugar burned off as heat??

[DEBEET]

Hi everyone. Im relatively new to this way of eating but already have seen good results(dropped some weight, BP lower, joint pain eased, more energy) but Im a bit confused about what Dr mac says about excess carbs being stored as glygogen or burned off as heat (p.3 MWL book). I always thought any excess calories your body doesnt need would be stored as fat. On page 3 of book doc says "sugar is not readily converted to fat in your body and consequently doesnt affect your weight.." but doesnt excess sugar raise insulin and get dumped in fat cells? Also if sugar gets burned up why the limit on dried fruit? Im obviously missing something so would be grateful if any of you more experienced at this than me could explain it to me or direct me to links that might help. Thank you

[Katydid]

This is my own understanding, so take that for what it's worth . "Sugar" like "carb" can mean many things. There are many different types of sugars. Starches, like rice and potatoes, break down during digestion into glucose. Glucose is the primary fuel for your body. As pure glucose it is used to feed the brain, converted to glycogen it powers the muscles, an yes, excess glucose is burned as fuel. You have to eat massive amounts of glucose, and do virtually no exercise before the body would even think of converting glucose to fat. The fructose in sugar/sucrose (which is half glucose and half fructose) and the fructose in fruit can - in some individuals- be converted to fat by the liver. Fructose has the wrong shape to be converted to glycogen by the enzymes in the muscles. It has to be converted to glycogen by the liver. If you don't burn it off by exercise, the liver converts it to fat to get rid of it. That's why sedentary kids who drink too much sugar or HFCS sweetened sodas end up with fatty liver disease.

So you can eat (almost) unlimited whole unprocessed starches (glucose) on MWL without fear of adding fat, but need to limit fruit (fructose). Not everyone is sensitive to fructose. But if you find that your triglycerides (the fat the liver makes from fructose) run high, best to stick to Dr. McDougall's fruit restrictions.

Kate

[DEBEET]

Thank you so much Katydid. That makes loads of sense!

[vgpedlr]

Excess calories over time will be converted to fat. But there is quite a bit of wiggle room. For one, people have been studied with calorimeters, and excess carbohydrate is indeed burned off through wiggling, fidgeting, i.e. involuntary movement. So while this does not mean you can eat as much as you want, there is room for error. The body also uses the macronutrients differently, protein is for repair, carbs are for energy, and fat is for storage energy. On this WOE, there is very little fat to store, adequate protein, and the carbohydrate fuels body and brain very efficiently. Kate's comments about glucose vs fructose are important regarding fruit. Dr. McD thinks the palatability of fruit can lead people to overeat fruit and therefore fructose. I think the calorie density of fresh fruit is low enough to to be a problem. Dried fruit is very calorie dense. I personally don't find fruit that satiating compared to starch, and dried fruit is just too dense period!

[ronald11103]

Here's the other side of the coin, and as with Kate, this is my understanding of how things work, so take it for what it's worth. (¢ not $$ )

The body is extremely efficient at burning carbs for energy, very inefficient at burning fat for energy, and extremely efficient at storing fat as fat. Therefore, if the body gets enough carbs to meet our daily energy needs, it doesn't need the fat calories for energy and stores them as fat reserves. This may explain why westerners on a high-sugar, high-fat diet are getting so fat. It's not the sugar, per se, but the fact that they get more then enough calories for energy production from their sugar intake (and the few other carbs) that the body doesn't need any of the large amounts of fat calories so the body does what it does best, and stores the fat as fat. And sugar gets the blame!

Even if your are very strict in your compliance with following a WFPB diet (which many, (most?) of us are not super strict) you are still getting 10% or more of your calories from fat. If you follow the "eat all you want" mantra (which is not exactly what Dr. McDougall says) regarding starch and veggies then your body probably won't need all of the fat calories, even though they are very few. You may not gain any weight or maybe a little, but it will sure be difficult to lose any weight!

Please correct me if I am wrong!

[vgpedlr]

Here's the other side of the coin, and as with Kate, this is my understanding of how things work, so take it for what it's worth. (¢ not $$ ) Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sure.

The body is extremely efficient at burning carbs for energy, very inefficient at burning fat for energy, and extremely efficient at storing fat as fat.

No. The body is very efficient at burning fat. It is always burning a mix, and can be made even more efficient through training. But fat is very energy dense, and so the body can easily be overwhelmed by a rich diet.

Therefore, if the body gets enough carbs to meet our daily energy needs, it doesn't need the fat calories for energy and stores them as fat reserves. This may explain why westerners on a high-sugar, high-fat diet are getting so fat. It's not the sugar, per se, but the fact that they get more then enough calories for energy production from their sugar intake (and the few other carbs) that the body doesn't need any of the large amounts of fat calories so the body does what it does best, and stores the fat as fat. And sugar gets the blame!

Spot on. It's not an issue of efficiency, but diet. In addition, remember that the carbs in the SAD are mostly refined, which absorb quickly and provoke a high insulin response. Insulin promotes fat storage and inhibits fat burning. So the sugar is burned, that fat is stored, all very quickly. Then the crash comes, and the cycle repeats...

[ronald11103]

Thanks vgpedlr. Here's a quote from Dr. McDougall in his March 2009 newsletter:

After eating, dietary fat (from lard, butter, meat, cheese, nuts, olive oil, etc.) is absorbed from the intestine into the bloodstream and transported to the millions of cells designed for storage—the body fat (adipose) cells. The metabolic cost for this transfer is relatively inexpensive (3% of the calories consumed).

So storing fat as fat is efficient. Somewhere else I read, or listened to, Dr. McDougall or another WFPB guru say the metabolic cost for burning fat as energy was 30% of calories consumed, making fat an inefficient source of energy. However, I don't know the guru's source of that info. If I can find that reference, I'll post it.

[DEBEET]

Thank you all for your input. Your knowledge is so appreciated in helping me stick to this WOE. Understanding the reasons for things is a major factor for me to stick with it. I hope to be of help to others as time goes on.

[Morris]

For all those who responded, many thanks. I also had the same question.

[Jumpstart]

Will the body burn excess carbs as heat instead of storing them? Yes, it will do this up to a point. My take is that this will happen for a good number of years before the body puts a stop to it and make you insulin resistant and at some point type 2 in order to protect itself. You can only push so much excess high octane fuel into your muscle cells generating abnormal levels of heat for so long before you start to damage those cells (ever notice how warm you feel after a big pasta dinner. Your body temp actually has risen). After years of this kind of abuse the cells start shutting down insulin receptors. The result is insulin resistance and high glucose levels in the blood. The body will do everything in its power to reduce those levels and that's when you see the conversion of glucose into trigs. The body will store those trigs as fat. Congrads, you've just become by accident what the high fatters try to do intentionally, become a fat burner. In my opinion glucose is not the preferred fuel of the body, the brain yes, but not the body. Fat is the preferred fuel of the body. Yes, the body will burn glucose first but not because it's preferred, but rather because the high levels of glucose are toxic to the body. The body will do everything in its power to reduce those levels to an average of five grams per hour max including dumping massive amounts of insulin once your become insulin resistant. It is only in the last 10,000 years or so that we've had a constant supply of carbs to fuel our bodies, before that time we functioned for long periods on our fat. I'm talking about daily life not athletic performance.

What's the cure for the damage you've done pounding excess calories into your system? There is only one; an isocaloric diet where you take in fewer calories in food than you burn. This give the cells a break from the excess carb load and it can start healing while burning your own stored fat as fuel. The McDougall program isn't based on excess carb, but instead on the right amount of carbs for the cells. Getting in just the right amount or less is what heals type2 on this program.