Serge
Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2020
- Messages
- 179
Something I thought was true by default:
1. Most of the energy we burn is used to cover our basal metabolic needs.
2. At rest, when basal metabolic needs prevail, fats are mostly burnt.
Logically, unless you are killing yourself with excercise, from 1 + 2 it follows that most of the energy used by the body is fats anyway. So when people talk about a shift from fat to glucose burning, wouldn't it mean that instead of 70% of metabolic energy coming from fat, you'll be burning 65% at best? It's not going to be 30%, right, there must be physiological boundaries?
I don't doubt one can improve one's glucose metabolism and benefit, but can you really significantly change this proportion of fat/carbs burnt to live through the Randle cycle or whatever? Any studies on that?
1. Most of the energy we burn is used to cover our basal metabolic needs.
2. At rest, when basal metabolic needs prevail, fats are mostly burnt.
Logically, unless you are killing yourself with excercise, from 1 + 2 it follows that most of the energy used by the body is fats anyway. So when people talk about a shift from fat to glucose burning, wouldn't it mean that instead of 70% of metabolic energy coming from fat, you'll be burning 65% at best? It's not going to be 30%, right, there must be physiological boundaries?
I don't doubt one can improve one's glucose metabolism and benefit, but can you really significantly change this proportion of fat/carbs burnt to live through the Randle cycle or whatever? Any studies on that?
