4 ms·
I used an exaggerated ratio to drive the point home. To clarify, I'm not talking as much about absorption, more-so about things like how a macronutrient affects
by KoftaBob 5y ago
I used an exaggerated ratio to drive the point home. To clarify, I'm not talking as much about absorption, more-so about things like how a macronutrient affects insulin sensitivity.
Carbohydrates decrease insulin sensitivity more than protein and unsaturated fats would. Decreased insulin sensitivity means increased insulin resistance.
"Having insulin resistance means that the walls of the cells within the body that need to take in glucose for energy, have a much-lowered sensitivity to insulin. This makes it harder for the cells to receive the necessary glucose through the cell wall.
That glucose then remains in the bloodstream, resulting in high blood sugar levels, which the liver then has to manage. When this excess sugar reaches the liver, it is converted to fat. The fat cells leave the liver via the bloodstream and cause weight gain. If left unmanaged this can lead to obesity."
- jkhdigital 5y agoIt is shocking to me how few people are aware of this. I read Good Calories, Bad Calories almost 15 years ago and the idea that macronutrients have a meta-metabolic effect (i.e. on insulin sensitivity) now seems so trivially obvious that you wonder how it was ignored for so long. And yet people are still repeating the CICO mantra as though we are still in the dark ages.
- maccard 5y agoBut the amount matters in your exaggerated ratio and far less in real life. Can you share a source on how much is actually burned with some foods? Because if you're burning 30 calories digesting a 1000 calorie meal, then just eating 2 less fries with your Big Mac meal will be a better use of your time.