br_e_co's Journal, 10 March 2020

Great post and info, ty! Jimmiepop and tomlong from here also explained to me that this also helps explain why good deep sleep is so critical to weight loss! 

And this is where exercise comes in for those who can. It can help so much for losing. The heavier a person is the more calories they can burn.  

Um with all of you, keyten, Ireland, Jen - exercise and deep sleep - awesome combo.  

When we breathe Cellular respiration requires the "Reactants" of Glucose and Oxygen to produce the "Products" of Carbon Dioxide (and Water). Some think "A calorie is a calorie" but, the process *requires* Oxygen and Glucose (C6-H12-O6) not just-some-'calorie'. This process is important because as you point out that-is-how-we-burn-most-of-our-fat :) This is why when I drop my dietary carbs for extended periods, I burn 'real fat'. It is not just 'water weight'. 

Real fat is lost via a calorie deficit and has nothing to do with your carb percentage. If anything, fat intake should be reduced before carbs since fat needs no special process to turn into body fat. Hence the name. 

Br_e_co, that was interesting to find out when I did. Pretty crazy. 

Wow. I had no idea. Thanks for sharing that! 

You bet Cynthia! diablo I’m just blown away by the percentages It is definitely shocking to me. It’s good info to know for sure. Best to get the science. Adeweb I hadn’t heard that glucose/oxygen bit - will look it up tomorrow.  

@br_e_co - I was just pointing out that the reason we breathe in oxygen is to cause the chemical reaction to produce ATP (adenosine triphosphate) that powers our cells (and therefore our body). We require six molecules of oxygen (6O2) to break down one molecule of glucose (C6-H12-O6). I only bring this up to point out that it is *specifically glucose* that is being broken down, not some 'mysterious calorie we consumed'. The oxygen *must* have a chemical reaction with glucose molecules. If I don't consume enough carbs to create sufficient glucose my body *must produce that glucose*. It has various methods, for example gluconeogenesis (synthesis of glucose from nonsugar precursors such as amino acids from protein). If that is not sufficient it must break down fat. This process will happen no-matter-how-many-calories-I-have-consumed. If I stop "cellular respiration" I die. That process requires the glucose molecules 👍🏾😁 

😂 Except countless metabolic ward studies have proven CICO despite the amount of carbs. Japanese, Italian etc populations who are much thinner than Americans who ingest most of their calories from carbs also negate these hypotheses. 400 carbs a day and I have no issue burning fat daily. No matter how many calories. Ok, that's why you have to fast and eat 1k calories a day to lose. But no, it's not the calories. OK. 

Sure, @adef, i understand what you are citing - certainly oxygen, for obvious reasons, is required for all metabolic functions in our body. i was more, as i have a small brain, fascinated by the percentages. i thought a greater percentage would have been in urination and sweating. in general, since i found Martin Berkhan many years ago, i have a good handle on things - but am happy to find out new info daily. i do not subscribe to elimination diets or extreme fasting, neither is sustainable for me. and while i am a firm believer in CICO, i think the quality and makeup of those calories matters - i.e. 200 calorie dove bar vs 200 calories of apple slices are handled differently in our body, again, for obvious reasons. personally, the bounce back from any extreme in dieting is significant for me - and i don't want to run the risk of any metabolic damage due to elimination or restriction. i did find two more articles that go into the deep dive of fat metabolism that were useful - https://caloriebee.com/diets/Where-Does-the-Fat-Go-When-You-Lose-it & https://ketoschool.com/the-science-behind-fat-metabolism-60f7a3f678d0. All so fascinating. and while one is from a keto sight, and i understand ketosis, keto diets are not my thing either.  

@br_e_co - I understand. I don't want to be "that guy" who is critical of people on their Journals, so I apologize if I came off that way. My intention was to support the scientific point you highlighted. I won't say anything further :) 

sure @adefweb ... i am not taking anything personally, all science is good science. to each his own. say all you want. you are speaking about your diet.