Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Vegetarians and the Single Man
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 1248799" data-attributes="member: 115"><p>Sorry, I haven't done the best job explaining it. Let me try again, and if I'm over-simplistic, forgive me. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> </p><p>As I stated in my post above, there are molecules in the body that act as fuels basically, for reactions. ATP, GTP, and NADH are the most common of these, but there are numerous others (CTP, ITP, FADH<span style="font-size: 9px">2</span><span style="font-size: 10px">). When these are used, only a specific part of the molecule is lost, and these can be regenerated. </span><span style="font-size: 10px">The process this is done by is called glycolysis.</span></p><p> </p><p>The actual regeneration step of glycolysis requires two molecules named glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. A series of reactions between these two molecules are what regenerate the fuels I listed above. These molecules don't occur naturally occur in our diets, and they probably don't exist anywhere naturally, because they react easily. Our body has to make them.</p><p> </p><p>Our body can make these a number of ways - through dietary carbs, through fats, and through proteins. But, in order to make these, the body needs to spend energy. The <em>easiest</em> of these to convert is glucose, which only takes two ATPs, if I recall correctly. After that come other carbohydrates. Then comes the fats, which require a little more energy, and finally the proteins, which require the most energy to convert. This is mirrored in the way our body processes foods - it first uses carbs to make blood sugar (glucose), and if there isn't enough, uses fats. Rarely does it need to use proteins, but these <em>can</em> be used if there isn't enough fat to provide blood sugar.</p><p> </p><p>As I pointed out, this is exactly what happens when someone is starving (deprived of food <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />). You use up your store of carbs (very little, relatively), then your store of fat, and finally your store of proteins, usually the muscles first. As an interesting side effect, this also makes your breath smell like acetone, since that's one of the byproducts of converting most of the amino acids in the proteins.</p><p> </p><p>Alright, so we can get calories, really energy, from any of the three groups. However, because of the effort involved in converting fats and proteins into usable forms, you actually get <em>less</em> net energy from them. So you have to eat more. Thus, if you eat 2000 calories of fats and proteins, you're really only getting the equivalent of 1200 calories of carbs, as whatisitgoodfor stated above. Or, to put it in a better way, a diet of only fats and proteins produces about 60% of the energy of a calorie equivalent carbohydrate diet.</p><p> </p><p>This is the psychological deception of the Atkins diet - you're eating just as much, but you're getting less energy, and thus you have to burn more (using fats first, since there are no carbs), and thus you lose weight. And it's sound, especially for people who have eating disorders that result in over-eating. </p><p> </p><p>It really boils down to the definition of a calorie, and how deceptive it really is. A calorie isn't measured by any biological method, but a chemical one. 2000 calories of protein is the same as 2000 of carbs chemically, <em>in vitro</em>. However, they're most definitely not equal in humans, <em>in vivo</em>.</p><p> </p><p>Now, how does this affect metabolic rate? Relying on fats and proteins actually puts stress on the body by making it have to work <em>faster</em>. After all, there are more steps involved to getting them to a usable form for energy production. Chances are you're not being any less active either - in fact, if you're exercising you're being <em>more</em> active. So your body has to work at full blast to get enough energy for the body to use.</p><p> </p><p>Again, I haven't heard of any long-term studies, but chances are this increased level of metabolic stress on the body isn't good for it.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>This is why there need to be long-term studies. I don't know the point at which is crosses for okay to dangerous, and can only speculate that it is in part affected by the weight of the person.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Mmm, media bias. I will concede to this point though, since it does make sense. Damn you and your sense! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It depends on your definition of efficient. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p> </p><p>However, based on net energy gain, no. You need to eat more calories to get an equivalent amount of energy from fats and proteins.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I agree with everything you've said, completely. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p> </p><p>And yes, I do think white bread sucks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 1248799, member: 115"] Sorry, I haven't done the best job explaining it. Let me try again, and if I'm over-simplistic, forgive me. :) As I stated in my post above, there are molecules in the body that act as fuels basically, for reactions. ATP, GTP, and NADH are the most common of these, but there are numerous others (CTP, ITP, FADH[size=1]2[/size][size=2]). When these are used, only a specific part of the molecule is lost, and these can be regenerated. [/size][size=2]The process this is done by is called glycolysis.[/size] The actual regeneration step of glycolysis requires two molecules named glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate and dihydroxyacetone phosphate. A series of reactions between these two molecules are what regenerate the fuels I listed above. These molecules don't occur naturally occur in our diets, and they probably don't exist anywhere naturally, because they react easily. Our body has to make them. Our body can make these a number of ways - through dietary carbs, through fats, and through proteins. But, in order to make these, the body needs to spend energy. The [i]easiest[/i] of these to convert is glucose, which only takes two ATPs, if I recall correctly. After that come other carbohydrates. Then comes the fats, which require a little more energy, and finally the proteins, which require the most energy to convert. This is mirrored in the way our body processes foods - it first uses carbs to make blood sugar (glucose), and if there isn't enough, uses fats. Rarely does it need to use proteins, but these [i]can[/i] be used if there isn't enough fat to provide blood sugar. As I pointed out, this is exactly what happens when someone is starving (deprived of food :)). You use up your store of carbs (very little, relatively), then your store of fat, and finally your store of proteins, usually the muscles first. As an interesting side effect, this also makes your breath smell like acetone, since that's one of the byproducts of converting most of the amino acids in the proteins. Alright, so we can get calories, really energy, from any of the three groups. However, because of the effort involved in converting fats and proteins into usable forms, you actually get [i]less[/i] net energy from them. So you have to eat more. Thus, if you eat 2000 calories of fats and proteins, you're really only getting the equivalent of 1200 calories of carbs, as whatisitgoodfor stated above. Or, to put it in a better way, a diet of only fats and proteins produces about 60% of the energy of a calorie equivalent carbohydrate diet. This is the psychological deception of the Atkins diet - you're eating just as much, but you're getting less energy, and thus you have to burn more (using fats first, since there are no carbs), and thus you lose weight. And it's sound, especially for people who have eating disorders that result in over-eating. It really boils down to the definition of a calorie, and how deceptive it really is. A calorie isn't measured by any biological method, but a chemical one. 2000 calories of protein is the same as 2000 of carbs chemically, [i]in vitro[/i]. However, they're most definitely not equal in humans, [i]in vivo[/i]. Now, how does this affect metabolic rate? Relying on fats and proteins actually puts stress on the body by making it have to work [i]faster[/i]. After all, there are more steps involved to getting them to a usable form for energy production. Chances are you're not being any less active either - in fact, if you're exercising you're being [i]more[/i] active. So your body has to work at full blast to get enough energy for the body to use. Again, I haven't heard of any long-term studies, but chances are this increased level of metabolic stress on the body isn't good for it. This is why there need to be long-term studies. I don't know the point at which is crosses for okay to dangerous, and can only speculate that it is in part affected by the weight of the person. Mmm, media bias. I will concede to this point though, since it does make sense. Damn you and your sense! :p It depends on your definition of efficient. ;) However, based on net energy gain, no. You need to eat more calories to get an equivalent amount of energy from fats and proteins. I agree with everything you've said, completely. :) And yes, I do think white bread sucks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Vegetarians and the Single Man
Top