View Single Post
  #22   ^
Old Thu, Sep-13-12, 11:30
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

Here's one way to look at the difference between fat, carbs, and calories, with regards to their metabolic effects, with regards to the graphs.

If we eat 2,000 kcals, made up of 40% fat, 40% carbs, and 20% protein, then add 25% more calories mostly in the form of carbs, we end up with a difference in the significance of those differences. The difference in calories is 25% (2,000 kcals vs 2,500 kcals). But the difference in carbs is 62.5% (200g vs 325g). Or 2.5x that of calories. If only one plays a role, then it's obvious that carbs is the most likely culprit. If both play a role, it's just as obvious that carbs play the biggest role.

If we add 25% calories in the form of fat, we still end up with a difference in fat of 62.5%. But, that's 55g. Carbs is 125g. Or 2x that of fat. Here again, it's more likely that carbs play either the only role, or the biggest role.

I've simplified for the sake of argument. But even from such a simplified model, it's obvious to me that it's unlikely that serious research will show it to be untrue, i.e. that a difference of 25% calories will be more significant in its metabolic effects than a difference of 62.5% carbs.
Reply With Quote