I am posting this as its own thread based on a suggestion that cranberrycat made to me about reposting some of what I had written in other threads about the whole ATP v. Calories debate.

It is my belief that when we talk about energy requirements, it doesn't matter whether we are talking about calories or the amount of ATP that can be generated from them, since they are really the same thing.

There has been a lot of discussion here of late about the claim that fat produces 3x the amount of ATP as carbohydrates and this is why fat is "high octane fuel" and carbohydrates are "low octane fuel". On this basis, we are told that it is ATP that matters and not calories. This assertion is often bandied about as a reason why an athlete following the Zone should be able to produce enough energy for gaining muscle, even in a large calorie restricted environment, because he or she will get enough ATP from fats even if he isn't getting that much in the way of calories.

These assertions seem to come from Dr. Sears' book "Toxic Fat" at page 27 where he wrote:

"One gram of fat can make three times more ATP than one gram of carbohydrate. This is why I consider stored fat high-octane fuel, and stored carbohydrate low-octane fuel."

The first thing I want to point out is that Dr. Sears is comparing GRAMS not calories. As we know, one gram of fat contains more calories than one gram of carbohydrate. Although we tend to round the calories per gram to the nearest whole number, from what I have been able to find, a gram of carbohydrate actually a little less than 4 calories per gram and a gram of fat is slightly more than 9 calories/gram. Turns out the ratio of calories per gram is actually about 2.4 F:C.

Now, in poking around on the net, I found out that a gram of glucose oxidizes to produce 0.2 moles of ATP and a gram of fat oxidizes to produce 0.49 moles of ATP. What is that ratio? Turns out this ratio is about 2.4-2.5. Pretty damned close to what the ratio for calories per gram is.

So it looks like fat is high octane fuel in the sense that an equal quantity produces more ATP than an equal quantity of carbohydrate, but to the extent it is meant to imply that 100 CALORIES (not grams) of fat produces more ATP than 100 CALORIES (not grams) of carbohydrate, it appears from what I have been able to find, that this is dead wrong.

So, if you are eating a calorie-restricted diet, even if it is high in fat, IT IS ALSO AN ATP RESTRICTED DIET.

The ratio between the calories contained in a gram of carbohydrate as compared with the calories contained in a gram of fat is pretty close to identical to the ratio between ATP that can be produced by each.

So the upshot is that talking in terms of calories is just another way of talking in terms of ATP and there is really no substantive difference between the two. On a calorie per calorie basis, fat and carbs produce the same amount of ATP in the body when oxidized.

Thanks for posting that, Matt!

I think it is an interesting point. It was discussed in another thread, but basically lost in that thread, so I am glad that you made it it's own topic.

From what I have read in Zone books, I was led to believe that fat produces more ATP than carbs do, as you state in your post. I had never taken the time to do the math--just accepted this as a fact.

Thanks CC.

I almost never take anything at face value. Even when an "authority" claims something is true, I want them to prove it to me. And to me, there is a particularly high onus of proof when someone claims something as fact that flies in the face of what has generally been accepted as being true.

The idea that an already lean person could gain substantial quantities on a calorie-restricted diet, so long as it is a "Zone" diet simply because it is relatively high in fat struck me as one such claim that simply didn't jibe with what I knew and what I saw in the real world and required proof. So, I started searching for this proof in various biochem sources throughout the web, and what I have arrived at from my search (unless I am missing something) is that the claim being made about fat being a "high-octane fuel" (at least on a calorie per calorie basis) cannot hold up to scrutiny.

You and I have both discussed before that neither of us like to take things on blind faith. We want to see proof. I feel the same way about the claim that high insulin levels are necessarily a bad thing. Whether you agree with me on the insulin issue or not, I think you encountered some frustrations getting a straight answer from Zone Labs for evidence to support their assertions about raising insulin levels being a bad thing (even following intense training).

Matt/CC - thanks for this thread. Very interesting indeed. So if I read this right Matt, your assertion that adding a block or just adding fat would have the same effect?

While reading Grants thread, I agreed, while I didn't post, that he was consuming too few calories. I wanted to see where the thread went and the discussion was good, so I didn't want to interrupt.

Thanks for all the research.

Actually, that is not quite the point of this thread, although this thread is a necessary step in making the argument about how much to eat. My point had more to do with the assertion that total calories don't matter in the Zone because you get all the ATP you need from fat, even in a reduced calorie diet. My point is that this is wrong. If your caloric requirements are 3,200 calories according to one of the various calorie calculators, they are STILL 3,200 calories if you are using the Zone (I choose 3,200 calories because that happens to be my approximate caloric requirements according to most calculators). Now, I am not saying that it doesn't matter what you eat to get to 3,200 calories. Quality matters. Ratios matter. Hormones matter. Inflammation matters. Insulin matters.

So, assuming you are fairly lean and no longer in fat loss mode and are looking to either stabilize your body weight or add body weight through increased muscle mass, you need to increase your calories for that purpose. The question becomes what to fill those calories with. That is a related, but slightly different, discussion.

There are differing views on that. The Zone method is to fill those extra calories with fat. For most people, that is probably the right answer. For people trying to put on muscle or serious athletes, I would argue that there are better and more effective methods of getting those extra calories that will provide more energy, allow for better performance, and build muscle faster. I have discussed some of those strategies on other threads, but the upshot is, no, I don't think (at least for strength/power athletes training intensely with weights) that adding fat blocks or adding additional total blocks are equal in terms of effective way to get those calories.

There are many references that are cited in Sears' books, but it would take me quite awhile to sort through it and try to figure out which reference applies to this or that. I wish that there were some footnotes in the books, so that one could go straight to the reference to find the evidence.

So, when I had asked for references via email, I was under the assumption that it would be quite an easy task for the staff to just point to the topic and give me a reference to it. Hmmm, I guess not quite as easy as that.

BTW, I should tell you that I persisted and had again asked for help in finding these references. So, guess what? An email showed up just recently with a few articles cited! But, don't get too excited. The articles are pretty old, and they really don't cover the issue that I was asking about.

Hmmmmm...

Maybe that should tell us something...

Hi Matt,

re "So, assuming you are fairly lean and no longer in fat loss mode and are looking to either stabilize your body weight or add body weight through increased muscle mass, you need to increase your calories for that purpose. The question becomes what to fill those calories with. That is a related, but slightly different, discussion.

There are differing views on that. The Zone method is to fill those extra calories with fat."


I've never seen Barry Sears recommending adding fat to build muscle. Where are you getting that info from? Just wondering. Thanks!



And, BTW, on the ATP and calorie thing, you're missing something. Enough said. I'll let you figure it out. I'm not interested in debate.

Sue:

Instead of being cryptic, why not tell me what I am missing? I genuinely want to know. Everything I have read on the subject leads me to the conclusion that a calorie's worth of body fat and a calorie's worth of carbohydrate in the body oxidize to produce almost exactly the same amount of ATP. If there is something you know, and I am missing, then just tell me what it is.

Also, I never claimed that Dr. Sears said that muscle is built from fat. What I said is that the EXTRA CALORIE REQUIREMENTS are filled by fat -- i.e., the recommendation that athletes in the Zone eat 2-3x the fat blocks. Obviously, protein is what builds muscle, but in a calorie deficit, protein is forced to be used as a very inefficient source of energy instead of to build muscle tissue.

Matt,
I think it is pretty clear to me that you are not suggesting using fat to build LBM. Going back to the other thread, it is obvious that you feel that if one is trying to build LBM, that he/she should increase the protein requirement.

The calorie deficit that you are talking about is from the strenuous activity that it takes to build that LBM. The energy (ATP) either needs to come from fat or from carbs, if I am understanding you correctly.

*****
So, that leaves us to the question that I am also curious about, what is wrong with Matt's numbers?
*****

Sue,
it would be very nice of you to enlighten us, rather than to let this whole thing drag on. We are all here to learn. You certainly don't want to see fellow zoners be misinformed, do you?

If I am wrong, I am wrong. If there is some factor I am not taking into account then so be it. I am not posting to win some Internet message board debating competition (despite all the fame and glory that go with it -- LOL). I am here in search for answers. If the answer I have arrived at is wrong, I would like to know where I went wrong.

I freely admit I am not a biochemist or a nutritionist. The last science course I took was in my Freshman year of college and the last chemistry course I took was in high school. So maybe I am not understanding the biochemistry textbooks I have referenced, or there is another factor at play that I am not considering, or the biochemistry textbooks are wrong. But telling me I am wrong and to go figure it without more out when I already have tried to figure it out and came to the conclusion I set forth above isn't particularly helpful in terms of correcting my error (if I have indeed made one).

<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Sue on 04/15/2009 10:21 PM


I've never seen Barry Sears recommending adding fat to build muscle. Where are you getting that info from? Just wondering. Thanks!



And, BTW, on the ATP and calorie thing, you're missing something. Enough said. I'll let you figure it out. I'm not interested in debate.</div>


<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Matthew on 04/15/2009 11:16 PM

Sue:

Instead of being cryptic, why not tell me what I am missing? I genuinely want to know. Everything I have read on the subject leads me to the conclusion that a calorie's worth of body fat and a calorie's worth of carbohydrate in the body oxidize to produce almost exactly the same amount of ATP. If there is something you know, and I am missing, then just tell me what it is.

Also, I never claimed that Dr. Sears said that muscle is built from fat. What I said is that the EXTRA CALORIE REQUIREMENTS are filled by fat -- i.e., the recommendation that athletes in the Zone eat 2-3x the fat blocks. Obviously, protein is what builds muscle, but in a calorie deficit, protein is forced to be used as a very inefficient source of energy instead of to build muscle tissue.</div>



Sue
- I would like to know what Matt is missing as well. The thing that bugs me is, it has been recommended over and over to use fat when the traditional blocks are not working for you in special circumstances. As Matt said extra calories should be filled by fat.

When you calculate what that does, it means that you will get 50% or better of your daily requirements from FAT. What about the nutrients you need from Carbs and Protein. I have never seen a high fat diet promoted as healthy in any way shape or form.

From what I can gather from Matt's posts, if you need more ATP to fulfill your calorie requirements, whether they are traditional or zone level, you have to fill that void with fat. I'm not thinking that is right.

So, please enter this debate and set us all straight if you have the info to do so.

I'm sorry if it seems I took this thread away from ATP, that was not my intent, it just struck me about the Fat % needed to accomplish what ATP from fat is supposed to per Zone guidelines.

Hi Matt,

My info was intended as a friendly tip, and I hadn't realized it might come across as cryptic. No offense meant. I appreciate your participation here. Thanks! :-)

<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Sue on 04/16/2009 7:35 AM

Hi Matt,

My info was intended as a friendly tip, and I hadn't realized it might come across as cryptic. No offense meant. I appreciate your participation here. Thanks! :-)</div>



Sue that still doesn't answer the question.

BTW, I was thumbing through my copy of "Enter the Zone" this morning. In "Enter the Zone" in the chapter about "Exercise in the Zone" Dr. Sears says that fat produces about 2x the energy of carbohydrates -- and get this... he is talking about CALORIES NOT ATP. So, in one book he is saying 2x and in another book he is saying 3x. Could Dr. Sears simply be round the number down in one case and round it up in the other case? This seems to be what makes sense to me when read in context. Particularly given that Dr. Sears is talking about the amount of calories (not ATP) needed to supply energy requirements for various forms of exercise.

In fact, in "Enter the Zone," Dr. Sears explains that he calls fat high octane fuel because your body has so much more of it than it has glycogen, and because it is more calorie-dense than glycogen (he mentions that a lb. of fat is 3,500 calories and that the bodies' stores of glycogen are fairly limited and run out quickly). I think some people may have taken what Dr. Sears has written about fat, glycogen, and high/low octane fuel a bit out of context of what Dr. Sears actually was saying and what he meant by it (and to add to the confusion, approximations using rounded numbers are being used by Dr. Sears).

I think when you read Dr. Sears' in context, and realize that his books aren't intended for a scientific audience where precise numbers out to 2 decimals are needed, it is clear to me that Dr. Sears is not saying that a calorie's worth of glycogen produces any less ATP than a calorie's worth of fat. In this case, perhaps Dr. Sears should have used more precision and specifically explained what he meant so as to avoid confusion, but reading it again in context, I think it is clear that Dr. Sears is actually saying the same thing that I am saying above. The problem is that some of the people reading what he has written have misinterpreted what that means (and I can see how it would be easy to do so) and what implications should be drawn from his statements on the subject.

The more I look at this subject and what Dr. Sears actually has said on the subject (in context) the more convinced I am that he would completely agree with what I am saying here, at least as regards ATP generation from glucose versus adipose tissue.

I think the point about using "high octane fuel" has more to do with the fact that being in the Zone allows an endurance athlete to use fat as an energy source more efficiently even at reasonably high intensities and thus decreases the need for carb-loading and carb-refueling during endurance events like running a marathon. I think Dr. Sears point in this regard is well-taken, since an endurance athlete "bonks" when his or her muscle glycogen levels are completely depleted (that is what the "bonk" is, BTW). So, being able to more efficiently use the larger gas tank in your body (fat) for endurance athletes is definitely a very good thing as far as performance goes because it allows the muscle glycogen to be depleted at a slower rate during endurance training.

But what Dr. Sears is NOT saying is that the ratio of ATP produced by a gram of fat as compared with a gram of carbohydrate is greater than the ratio of the calories found in each.

Here are a few excerpts from "Enter the Zone" that I think prove my point:

"Fat, not carbohydrate, is the primary source of energy for your muscles. Not only is fat a more efficient raw-material source for energy -- fat actually supplies more than twice the energy of carbohydrates -- it is also far more plentiful."

--p. 55

"Completing a typical marathon will require about 2,000 calories of energy. That also happens to be the maximum amount of carbohydrate a marathoner can store in the muscles and liver: about 2,000 calories. If the marathon runner uses only his stored carbohydrates, he or she may not have enough energy to complete the race."

--p. 55

"Since there are 3,500 calories per pound of fat, this amount of accessible fat potentially provides the runner with 42,000 calories of energy -- more than twenty times the energy available from stored carbohydrates. If he or she can use his own stored fat, the runner actually has enough energy to run more than twenty marathons!"

--p. 56

"When you're in the Zone . . . the fat you require to meet your energy needs can be released faster."

--p. 57

"Making this energy source [ATP] requires a lot of raw materials. So the workers (enzymes) in the factories use the best available raw materials (fat or carbohydrate). They'd rather have fat, because it's a more efficient energy source and the body has a lot of it. (Carbohydrate is less efficient and you can't store much of it.) But if they can't get the fat they prefer, the enzymes switch to carbohydrate."

--p. 57

Please note that at no point is Dr. Sears ever claiming that the yield of ATP from fat as compared with carbohydrate is any greater than what you would expect from just talking about calories. All he is saying is that there is a maximum amount of carbohydrate that can be stored in the muscle and liver that can be used to produce energy which limits its usefulness as an energy source for endurance athletes because it is not as dense in calories or as plentiful as fat stores.

Matt - so what all this means, if I've read it correctly is that the zone helps you use your stored fat, and it spares your carbs/glycogen. However, your stores of glycogen will still need replaced after a very strenuous work out and if you have a very low level of body fat, you will still need extra carb and protein calories to compensate.

Sue (non picture Sue):

That is how I would interpret this. Calories are a measure of energy, after all. And calories from carbs or fat represent the amount of ATP contained in each (it gets more complicated with protein, which can be used for energy if needed, but which is not a preferred energy source). So, your calorie requirements are your calorie requirements, regardless of whether you are in the Zone or not, but what your body is using to meet those energy requirements, fat versus stored carbohydrates, does depend a great deal on being in the Zone (at least when you are not exercising anaerobically). There is a limit to how much carbohydrate your body can store, and certainly carbohydrate consumption affects various hormones (like insulin and GH to name a couple).

But if you are lean, have high activity levels, and/or have as your primary goal adding lean muscle tissue, assuming you are getting adequate levels of protein to actually build new muscle tissue, you absolutely need more calories to support your energy requirements. If you don't get enough calories from your diet, and you don't have enough calories from fat to use to make up for your caloric requirements, and your body fat levels are too low to use body fat to supply the deficiency, your body will start using the protein in your diet for energy (which it is very inefficient at) instead of building muscle. Your body will also try to protect itself by lowering your metabolism and decreasing your energy (basically conserving energy) and possibly breaking down muscle tissue to provide energy in extreme cases.

Energy requirements are energy requirements. And a calorie's worth of carbs produces the same amount of energy as a calorie's worth of fat. There are hormonal differences, but that is not what this post was meant to address. I still doubt that there are any Zone athletes out there who have low body fat levels who are capable of adding and significant amount of muscle if they are operating in a large caloric deficit. The body's energy requirements need to come from somewhere, either from stored body fat or diet, and if those are insufficient, and there is not enough surplus protein to be used to build new muscle, new muscle won't be built.

My point from the other thread remains. Both the quality of what you what you eat and the quantity of what you eat matter. Inject a bodybuilder with 4% body fat with tons of steroids, HGH, IGF-1, and Insulin (all at the proper times and in the proper dosages) and even if that bodybuilder is following the Zone diet, but eating a 1,000 calories less than his caloric requirements, and he isn't going to gain any muscle... even with his chemical cocktail (and this is the chemical cocktail that many professional bodybuilders actually use to get cartoonishly huge and lean).

Matt - I see we agree on this. I too believe you need enough calories regardless what the body is using to burn. I know Grant's thread is where we are dealing with this and I did post a question on there, about % of different nutrients based on Zone principles of Elite athletes 2 or 3x their fat. I'll leave it there since this is not the thread for that.

I hope to head to the library to pick up an earlier zone book so I can read these references in complete detail. I am interested to see if this is what Sue was referring to.

They've taken to calling me sue with the little "s" as I didn't cap my name in my sig and Sue does. However I think the moniker you like is a bit nicer for yourself. I didn't use it here as you are the only Matt at this time posting on this thread. LOL

Wow, thanks "sexy" Matt (LOL) and "little" sue for expanding on that!

To me honest, I will have to take this home and review it in more detail later. Can't seem to focus on it (especially with the pile of other things in front of me that I should be doing right now).

Me, on the other hand, I have plenty of time for this nonsense seeing as how I have been in bed for about a week with the flu...

Ohh, that doesn't paint a very sexy picture!

BTW, it is definitely not nonsense. It is very good discussion, just wish that Sue would tell us what she thinks we are missing!

Matt,

(((quick healing vibes))) coming your way. Had that a while back and it is NOT fun. I too love this discussion and find it very helpful.

Sue - we'd still love to hear what you feel is missing.

***just wish that Sue would tell us what she thinks we are missing!***

Me too. Because when I read Dr. Sears more closely, it seems like he is actually saying exactly the same thing I am saying with regards to ATP production from carbs versus fat (although he is using round numbers instead of the more precise numbers I am using).

BTW, I was poking around doing some research on the issue of protein requirements for elite strength athletes. Some of the top research in the field comes from Dr. Lemon out of Kent State University, and it is on the basis of some of his research that many of the recommendations regarding 1.0g of protein per lb of LBM come from.

But I was reading a critique of some of the research with respect to the protein requirements of elite strength athletes. The critique concerns the fact that the research appears to focus primarily on nitrogen retention, and that while nitrogen retention is certainly one factor concerning protein requirements, it is a mistake to assume it is the only factor that determines how high your protein consumption should be and then when these other factors (hormonal and otherwise) are taken into consideration, the optimal levels of protein consumption for elite strength athletes are actually about 40% too low.

I may start another thread about how much protein strength athletes should be consuming to optimize results in another thread when I feel I have enough mastery of the subject matter to discuss it. However, the more I look into the subject matter, the more I realize that there is still a great deal of debate about how much protein is optimal. 1.0 g/lb might end up being right, but as the field of research continues to grow, it might turn out that it was too conservative.

I will tell you this... through years of trial and error a lot of practitioners and coaches have figured out what is optimal in terms of training and diet (and even in terms of illegal performance enhancing drug use). Science has often come along later and confirmed what practitioners already knew and what they have been doing for years. I am not saying that it hasn't gone the other way too and that science has discovered something that causes changes in training and nutrition, but generally speaking, in many ways, athletes already know what works, whether or not science has figured out a way to measure and test it yet.

One of the things that practitioners have figured out is that diets to support increases in lean mass for serious athletes training rigorously usually look at 1g/lb of protein per day as a minimum amount, not a maximum or even optimal amount. Precisely where the optimal amount is may be years away from precise scientific knowledge, but there is mounting evidence that it is significantly more than 1g/lb., at least for some small group of particular athletes.

Matt:

I would love to see a thread on protein for the elite athlete. It is an interesting field of study and I wish I had more time to devote to it, but I currently do not. If you fish anything out, please do share.

I also agree that most practitioners know what works for their clients and each of them are different as well.