View Single Post
  #18   ^
Old Sun, Apr-06-14, 19:52
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

It occurs to me that glucose is required by cells, not necessarily for energy, but more specifically as function. For example, to begin the Krebs cycle, one molecule of glucose is needed, but after that the cycle keeps going without the help of glucose. Or at least that's my naive understanding off the top of my head. Anyway, the point is in this respect, glucose could be seen more as the spark plug in an engine rather than as the fuel that generates the power to move the car. The spark plug ignites the fuel, but then once fuel starts to burn, it's hot enough to keep burning without the help of the spark plug, so there's no need to send electricity to the plug anymore. In a way, trying to run a body on glucose would be like trying to run a car on a thousand spark plugs, but with little actual fuel. When you think about the total amount of various substrates the body can store, it makes sense that glucose wouldn't be used as primary fuel, if at all as fuel. And then from this, it makes less sense to conclude that dietary carbs are needed to burn fat better. Granted, there's no physiological plausibility here (i.e. what we are actually adapted to eat), it's just logic derived from quantities.
Reply With Quote