Does cheese make you fat?

Catari Jaguar

If so, which are the worst??

Rented Mule

cherub rock wrote: »

If so, which are the worst??

Everything (except water) makes you fat.

Everything in moderation.

Catari Jaguar

Rented Mule wrote: »

Everything (except water) makes you fat.

Everything in moderation.

Ok right, well let's say I have a toasted cheese sandwich. I know the bread is fattening.. Is the cheese worse than that?

How bad is cheese on pizza? Or is it the pizza base that's bad? Should I even bother with low fat cheese on a pizza or is that the equivalent of ordering a diet coke with my Big Mac meal?! :rolleyes::D

Is there much difference health/fat wise between light/ extra light/ regular Philadelphia or is it a marketing ploy?

PS. I'm intolerant to dairy so will bloat/ store fat on my middle but just to know in general. I do love cheese despite it all.

Xiney

Eating more calories than you burn is what makes you fat.

Bread is quite calorie dense for the satiation (feeling of fullness) that you get from it - so people tend to eat too much of it and this can make them fat.

Cheese is extremely calorie dense as it is mostly fat with a bit of protein (for cheddar, typically around 2/3 of the calories come from fat and the remaining 1/3 is protein). 100g of cheddar is easily 400 kCal - even though plenty of people stick 100g (or more) on a sandwich and think nothing of it.


So yes, cheese can be fattening - but it's all to do with how much energy you're taking in overall and how much energy you're burning with exercise and your day to day life.


Otherwise, cheese is high in B12 and calcium so it's not all bad.

El_Dangeroso

I don't think you can point to any one food (even bread!) and say 'that would make anyone fat'.

Some people can't gain weight despite trying to eat over 10,000 cals a day so in that sense it's extremely individual. I did an insane experiment about 2 years ago where I was shoving 3,500 cals back a day for a week, a lot of which was cream cheese, I didn't gain a lb. I then know someone else who only has to look at dairy and she starts to rapidly gain weight.

Personally me, cheese doesn't make me fat, but then again I find cheese really filling so find it very hard to eat a lot in one go. Some people are divils for cheese and these are usually the people who shouldn't eat it.

In any case one meal is not going to make or break weightloss. It's what you eat on a continuous basis that determines what set point your body will defend from weight loss or gain. It's the staples in your diet that matter the most, the things you eat every single day. So if your eating pizza every day, then I'd say you'd probably get tubby unless you have the metabolism of a teenage boy.

EileenG

Full fat cheese is 300-400 cals per 100g, depending on the type. Bread is around 280-300 cals per 100g, so there isn't a huge difference in calories, gram for gram. But a small portion of cheese is a lot more filling than a small portion of bread.

Cottage cheese is around 100 calories per 100g for the full fat version, so that's the best bet.

Yumee

Hard cheeses such as parmesan and gruyere generally contain the most fat. Soft cheeses such as brie and mozzarella contain least but still range from 250-350 calories. If you get a really strong tasting cheese, you'll probably end up using less whilst not compromising on taste. Actually edam cheese is a good alternative to the fattier chedder. Cottage cheese does not satisfy my cheese cravings atal atal!!

ApeXaviour

cherub rock wrote: »

How bad is cheese on pizza? Or is it the pizza base that's bad? Should I even bother with low fat cheese on a pizza or is that the equivalent of ordering a diet coke with my Big Mac meal?! :rolleyes::D

Got it in one...

I really don't miss pizza, what a craptastic meal.

Shmatter

cherub rock wrote: »

PS. I'm intolerant to dairy so will bloat/ store fat on my middle but just to know in general. I do love cheese despite it all.

Im lactose intolerant too so have that problem with dairy, you're meant to have two portions a day, so surely 60g of cheese a day is in line with keeping with a healthy diet. It's the only dairy I can have! (Hard cheeses by the way)

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I did an insane experiment about 2 years ago where I was shoving 3,500 cals back a day for a week, a lot of which was cream cheese, I didn't gain a lb.

tbh, thats doesn't really show anything. A week is nothing, its take longer to get fat.

3500 is prob only 500-1000 over maintenance for you. Which is only 3,500-7,000 over a week.
If all of this was store as fat, you'd only gain 1-2 lbs, but seeing as the excess was cheese, the protein would of been excreted, so the weight that was stored could of easily be missed out due to water levels.

You'd have to do it for 10 weeks.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

tbh, thats doesn't really show anything. A week is nothing, its take longer to get fat.

3500 is prob only 500-1000 over maintenance for you. Which is only 3,500-7,000 over a week.
If all of this was store as fat, you'd only gain 1-2 lbs, but seeing as the excess was cheese, the protein would of been excreted, so the weight that was stored could of easily be missed out due to water levels.

You'd have to do it for 10 weeks.

You'd think I'd bloat or something on that many cals but oh god, I really couldn't do it for 10 weeks! But my point was about a single meal making you fat which is what you were saying, it's the low slow process.

BTW there is the Vermont prison experiment where they fed some men 10,000 cals a day for weeks on end and some of them didn't gain any weight at all. Most did but once they stopped the experiment they shed the weight just as quickly. Lends credence to the body has a weight 'set-point' that it will defend from loss or gain.

Why would I automatically excrete the protein in cheese? I haven't heard that before. I was eating cream cheese too so not much protein.

EileenG

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

BTW there is the Vermont prison experiment where they fed some men 10,000 cals a day for weeks on end and some of them didn't gain any weight at all. Most did but once they stopped the experiment they shed the weight just as quickly. Lends credence to the body has a weight 'set-point' that it will defend from loss or gain.

I have a nasty feeling that if they did the same experiment in a women's prison, they'd find it took a lot longer to lose the extra weight.

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

I have a nasty feeling that if they did the same experiment in a women's prison, they'd find it took a lot longer to lose the extra weight.

LOL! Probably! But only because most women have ruined their metabolism with constant yoyo dieting.

ApeXaviour

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

LOL! Probably! But only because most women have ruined their metabolism with constant yoyo dieting.

Does that actually happen? Is it not only temporarily messed up (barring insulin resistance from binging on sugar) and fixes itself after a couple of weeks of eating at or above maintenance when your hormone levels (glucagon, leptin etc) normalise?

Blatter

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Does that actually happen? Is it not only temporarily messed up (barring insulin resistance from binging on sugar) and fixes itself after a couple of weeks of eating at or above maintenance when your hormone levels (glucagon, leptin etc) normalise?

No, it does fix itself! I ate 1000 calories+ below my maintenance for a sustained period (couple of months) and got my metabolism back on track after a couple of weeks.

ApeXaviour

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

No, it does fix itself! I ate 1000 calories+ below my maintenance for a sustained period (couple of months) and got my metabolism back on track after a couple of weeks.

Indeed I've done the same... seemed to take about 2 weeks for me before I stopped dreaming about food, wanting to eat everything in sight and never feeling full. I unfortunately let myself eat too much during this time. Next time those two weeks after cutting is gonna be called dieting at maintenance!

Hunchback

Rented Mule wrote: »

Everything (except water) makes you fat.

Everything in moderation.

i dunno, i do recall hearing that there are so few calories in celery that you actually burn more calories chewing it than there are calories in the celery itself. if this is true ( IF ), then i guess it wouldn't make you fat... then again maybe its a myth

Frogdog

The celery thing is a myth.

El_Dangeroso

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Does that actually happen? Is it not only temporarily messed up (barring insulin resistance from binging on sugar) and fixes itself after a couple of weeks of eating at or above maintenance when your hormone levels (glucagon, leptin etc) normalise?

It depends how you calorie restrict. A lot of women restrict their protein intake when dieting which results in a higher level of lean mass loss. So you reduce the metabolic output. We do have several trials showing that semi-starvation results in higher fat mass long term.

That's why fat loss, not weight loss should be the goal. Calorie restriction will cause weight loss for sure, but you want to lose the right kind of weight.

EileenG

Ruining your metabolism through yoyo dieting is a bit of a myth. It's more that you learn how to starve and binge efficiently. But there have been enough studies to show that your metabolism recovers pretty quickly from short term under-eating, even if you repeat it.

However, I do believe that the female body is more inclined to store extra calories as fat and not release them as easily as the male body.

ApeXaviour

EileenG wrote: »

However, I do believe that the female body is more inclined to store extra calories as fat and not release them as easily as the male body.

It's true, testosterone being one of the (possibly many) reasons. It's not difficult to imagine the evolutionary function behind that.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote:

Why would I automatically excrete the protein in cheese? I haven't heard that before. I was eating cream cheese too so not much protein.

Not just the excess in cheese, all excess protein.
The body excrets protein if it doesn't have a need for it.
It's almost never stored as fat.

Frogdog wrote: »

The celery thing is a myth.

Celery is a myth, but some do exist.
Diet soft drinks, water, ice etc
But its such a small amount that its pointless recomending it for eight loss as you see in fad diets

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

Ruining your metabolism through yoyo dieting is a bit of a myth.

I'm not so sure about that. Ancel Keys did semi-starvation experiments in the 1940's where men were subjected to horrifically restricted diets. (lots of cabbage and stewed vegetables and pretty much nothing else) Once the patients began to eat normally their weight stabilised a substantial amount of pounds higher than when the experiment began. This is consistent with the studies that have been carried out since. I'm not saying it always happens and perhaps 'ruining your metabolism' is a misnomer, perhaps it should be 'raising the fat-mass setpoint', but it is a real phenomenon.

Mellor wrote: »

Not just the excess in cheese, all excess protein.
The body excrets protein if it doesn't have a need for it.

I don't think it does for the most part, it gets converted to glucose in the liver in a ratio of roughly 2g protein to 1g glucose. In any case, in my experiment I controlled for protein at 55g/day to keep insulin to the absolute minumum.

EileenG

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Ancel Keys did semi-starvation experiments in the 1940's where men were subjected to horrifically restricted diets. (lots of cabbage and stewed vegetables and pretty much nothing else) Once the patients began to eat normally their weight stabilised a substantial amount of pounds higher than when the experiment began. This is consistent with the studies that have been carried out since. I'm not saying it always happens and perhaps 'ruining your metabolism' is a misnomer, perhaps it should be 'raising the fat-mass setpoint', but it is a real phenomenon.

But he did real starvation. Some of the pictures from that experiment are scary. The same stone going on and off and on again has no real effect on your metabolism, except that it teaches you bad eating habits.

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

But he did real starvation. Some of the pictures from that experiment are scary. The same stone going on and off and on again has no real effect on your metabolism, except that it teaches you bad eating habits.

They were on 1,200-1500 cal a day diets, not unheard of in dieting circles, having said that they were normal weight to begin with. I don't think a controlled experiment has been done since the Ancel Keys one. But we do know what happens in rats, I know rats aren't furry little humans but it does give an insight into possible theories on human metabolism:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-485RRRB-10F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9262c8a4abe22429818097ec464b274f

weight loss occurred at half the rate and regain at three times the rate in the second cycle. Several physiological changes were associated with this cycling effect. At the end of the experiment, cycled animals had a four-fold increase in food efficiency compared to obese animals of the same weight who had not cycled. These data suggest that frequent dieting may make subsequent weight loss more difficult.

I admit to being biased by personal experience though, this has been exactly my story when I did slimfast and Rosemary Connelly and cabbage soup and Gillian McKeith etc. My weight rebounded (as it does with 99.5% of dieters) and then some. I really don't think I could have gotten to 14.5 stone without yoyo dieting. We need a controlled experiment on this thing. Any volunteers? :P

brianthebard

Mellor wrote: »

Not just the excess in cheese, all excess protein.
The body excrets protein if it doesn't have a need for it.
It's almost never stored as fat.

What do you define as excess protein?

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I don't think it does for the most part, it gets converted to glucose in the liver in a ratio of roughly 2g protein to 1g glucose. In any case, in my experiment I controlled for protein at 55g/day to keep insulin to the absolute minumum.

Didn't think protein resulted in much of am insulin response, but I don't know much about insulin tbh.
As for conversion to glucose your wrong i'm afraid. At last in this context.

It can be converted to glucose when needed for energy, but in this case we are talking about excess protein, which by definition means that maintenance is met, blood glyco levels are full etc.

Here the body excrets it rather than convert to glucose, which would then turn to fat as there is no need for it.

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you define as excess protein?

I'd assume that excess is everything you body doesn't have a use for. So energy requirements, muscle repair, enzyme creation, plus any other uses I can't think of right now.
Why do you ask?

El_Dangeroso

Can I get a link on the protein excretion thing? Just I've always read the opposite, that the excess protein gets sent to the liver to be deaminated.

From wikipedia:
The amino group is removed from the amino acid and converted to ammonia. The rest of the amino acid is made up of mostly carbon and hydrogen, and is recycled or oxidized for energy.

All I can see on protein excretion is proteinuria when the kidneys aren't functioning right. I'm not saying some of it can't be excreted in the normal run of things, just that I don't think much is.

But as I said, I did control for protein as protein elicits an insulin response (it also elicits a glucogen response which 'balances' the insulin). I really doubt any of the 55g a day protein I was eating got excreted.

brianthebard

Mellor wrote: »

I'd assume that excess is everything you body doesn't have a use for. So energy requirements, muscle repair, enzyme creation, plus any other uses I can't think of right now.
Why do you ask?

Because what you define as excess will change hugely the amount of protein that is excessive. You may know about the old nugget that if you eat more than 30g of protein in a sitting you'll piss the rest out for instance.

Now you mention energy requirements; if you eat more protein than your muscle repair, enzyme creation, skin, hair and nails maintenance, AND energy requirements, then I think it more probable that carbs and fat will be stored as fat, rather than the body excreting the extra protein.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Can I get a link on the protein excretion thing? Just I've always read the opposite, that the excess protein gets sent to the liver to be deaminated.

Without getting too specific, but not all amino can even be converted to glucose. Leucine and lysine are two that can't I think. Also, check what happens during deamination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Excess_consumption

wiki link wrote:

Excess consumption
The body is unable to store excess protein. Protein is digested into amino acids which enter the bloodstream. Excess amino acids are converted to other usable molecules by the liver in a process called deamination. Deamination converts nitrogen from the amino acid into ammonia which is converted by the liver into urea in the urea cycle. Excretion of urea is performed by the kidneys. These organs can normally cope with any extra workload but if a kidney disease occurs, a decrease in protein will often be prescribed.

protein>AAs>ammonia>urea
You know where urea goes right

another area to check is bilogical value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_value
I'll admit, I don't fully undetstand it, but basically it's a measure of how much protein is available for synthesis. Therefore, some is unavailble (for certain functions)

Here's Lyle McDonald on the subject,
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excess-protein-and-fat-storage-qa.html

Lyle would be considered by most to be pretty much the expert on ketogenic diets.

while the biochemical pathways for the conversion of protein to fat do exist in humans, the likelihood of it ever happening in any but the most absurdly non-physiological circumstances are effectively nil.

brianthebard wrote: »

Because what you define as excess will change hugely the amount of protein that is excessive. You may know about the old nugget that if you eat more than 30g of protein in a sitting you'll piss the rest out for instance.

But i don't see how the definition for excess could change.
Excess is pretty clear cut. I personally don't know every single thing the body used protein for, anything above, the total for all possible uses would be excess. Energy would include storing muscle glycogen.

I personally think the 30g is a myth, the body deals with food and nutritients over hours, not the 10 mins you spend eating.

Now you mention energy requirements; if you eat more protein than your muscle repair, enzyme creation, skin, hair and nails maintenance, AND energy requirements, then I think it more probable that carbs and fat will be stored as fat, rather than the body excreting the extra protein

If protein is being used for energy, then carbs and fats are depleted. Or else the body would use these first.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)#Excess_consumption

protein>AAs>ammonia>urea
You know where urea goes right

Ammonia is only a byproduct of deamination that is disposed of in urine but that still doesn't account for the remaining carbon and hydrogen. They get converted to glucose. Now let's say you eat 50g of extra protein which is a fairly hefty extra amount, I'd say most people's satiation would kick in far before that but let's hypothesise..

Roughly 50% of that would get converted to glucose(25g), factor in that a few extra calories are required for deamination, I read somewhere it's about 180cals a day when you are meeting all your glucose needs from protein, so even if it is half that, it almost breaks even, calorie wise.

I think that's what Lyle means when he said you can't get fat from protein, he's speaking in generalities, some people definitely can get fat on excess protein, but something generally needs to be up.

Also, leucine cannot be converted to glucose but is converted to Acetyl-CoA and Acetoacetate (a ketone body), which are both energy sources for cells.

brianthebard

Mellor wrote: »

But i don't see how the definition for excess could change.
Excess is pretty clear cut. I personally don't know every single thing the body used protein for, anything above, the total for all possible uses would be excess. Energy would include storing muscle glycogen.

I personally think the 30g is a myth, the body deals with food and nutritients over hours, not the 10 mins you spend eating.

Some people might only be referring to excess as in extra protein after muscle synthesis, I wanted to know what you meant first, that's all.

If protein is being used for energy, then carbs and fats are depleted. Or else the body would use these first.

I don't see why this is?

Asphyxia

All foods can make you gain weight it depends on how you consume them etc. portion size , over snacking between meals and how much exercise you do afterwards, food that's not worked off the body turns to sugar and then fat.

Mellor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ammonia is only a byproduct of deamination that is disposed of in urine but that still doesn't account for the remaining carbon and hydrogen. They get converted to glucose. Now let's say you eat 50g of extra protein which is a fairly hefty extra amount, I'd say most people's satiation would kick in far before that but let's hypothesise..

Ammonia is the hydrogen too, NH3, doesn't leave a whole lot for glucose.
This is my point. It converts to glucose, until it reaches excess, at which point you start excreting ammonia instead. I'm sure the body has a way of dealing with the carbon.

I think that's what Lyle means when he said you can't get fat from protein, he's speaking in generalities, some people definitely can get fat on excess protein, but something generally needs to be up.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't.
He clearly said that protein to fat conversion isn't something that happens in any sort of real life situation.

See, I never said that you can't get fat from excess protein, which is what you are using as a proof. I'm talking about protein turning directly into fat.
Basically, all normal sources of protein, have some sort of fat with them, maybe carbs too. So if you are taking in a maintenance level of protein, and using it, excreting some etc. The body still has a load of fat to deal with, which is going to be stored. That makes you fat.

Which is a moot point any way, as for a man maintenance might be 2800, which would be 700g of protein, which is about 2.8kg of beef, not happening.

Using huge amounts of isolated protein as an example is what I think he refered to by made up scenerios.

Also, leucine cannot be converted to glucose but is converted to Acetyl-CoA and Acetoacetate (a ketone body), which are both energy sources for cells

Yes I know, but ketones won't be converted to fat.
Aren't they present in urine too when ketogenic.

brianthebard wrote: »

Some people might only be referring to excess as in extra protein after muscle synthesis, I wanted to know what you meant first, that's all.

Ah I see, no i meant everything, ever possible use. Basicly, the point at which the only think possible left to do would be to store it.

I don't see why this is?

Carbs will be used first as I understand it, convert easiest and quickest to glucose prefered fuel.

But even still, it makes no difference to my point. Even if there are carbs and fats becoming body fat, I never said you can't get fat, I said it wasn't the protein, as the excess is excreted.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

Ammonia is the hydrogen too, NH3, doesn't leave a whole lot for glucose.
This is my point. It converts to glucose, until it reaches excess, at which point you start excreting ammonia instead. I'm sure the body has a way of dealing with the carbon.

That's not true, even with ammonia, excess amino acids convert to protein convert to glucose in the ratio of roughly 2g protein to 1g glucose. Gluconeogenesis is a basic biochemical fact. You're going to have to provide credible evidence to prove this doesn't happen. Btw, any idea as to the metabolic pathway that the body 'deals' with the carbon?

Mellor wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he wasn't.
He clearly said that protein to fat conversion isn't something that happens in any sort of real life situation.

See, I never said that you can't get fat from excess protein, which is what you are using as a proof. I'm talking about protein turning directly into fat.
Basically, all normal sources of protein, have some sort of fat with them, maybe carbs too. So if you are taking in a maintenance level of protein, and using it, excreting some etc. The body still has a load of fat to deal with, which is going to be stored. That makes you fat.

Which is a moot point any way, as for a man maintenance might be 2800, which would be 700g of protein, which is about 2.8kg of beef, not happening.

Using huge amounts of isolated protein as an example is what I think he refered to by made up scenerios.

Now you are changing the goalposts, you are saying it's about the fact that you cannot convert protein to fat,(even though it is entirely possible through gluconeogenesis, though unlikely for the reasons I outlined in my previous post). You said that excess protein is excreted. I am saying, no, it isn't, in a healthy person it's deaminated, the ammonia is excreted and the resulting carbon and hydrogen convert to glucose or ketone bodies.

BTW, 230g of protein is the lower threshold for protein poisoning so the 700g protein is not only unlikely, but highly dangerous.

Mellor wrote: »

Yes I know, but ketones won't be converted to fat.
Aren't they present in urine too when ketogenic.

Ketones can be excreted directly through urine I'll give you that, but that is a long way from saying 'protein is excreted', there's many steps in between.

In any case this entire conversation is moot, because in my 3,500 calorie a day experiment I kept protein to the bare minimum.

brianthebard

Mellor wrote: »

But even still, it makes no difference to my point. Even if there are carbs and fats becoming body fat, I never said you can't get fat, I said it wasn't the protein, as the excess is excreted.

Yes I understand that you didn't say you would get fat, and to clarify I didn't intend to suggest that you did. I'm just trying to say that the body has a lot of systems in place to make sure as much energy as possible from food is used or stored, I don't understand why protein would be excreted, when as El D is pointing out the body is capable of converting protein to glucose, which could then be used as energy or stored. There seems to be a number of buffers in place to specifically deny the exretion of nutriants?

Mellor

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't understand why protein would be excreted, when as El D is pointing out the body is capable of converting protein to glucose, which could then be used as energy or stored. There seems to be a number of buffers in place to specifically deny the exretion of nutriants?

I never said it can't convert to glucose, obviously it can. The body doesn't store glucose btw,
I said it stops at excess.
There was a pretty big thread on fitness about this, surprised you missed it.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That's not true, even with ammonia, excess amino acids convert to protein convert to glucose in the ratio of roughly 2g protein to 1g glucose. Gluconeogenesis is a basic biochemical fact. You're going to have to provide credible evidence to prove this doesn't happen.
Btw, any idea as to the metabolic pathway that the body 'deals' with the carbon?

Now your just changing what I said.
I never said protein can't be converted to glucose??? Of course it happens. I said it happens already, when the body needs energy.

But you are suggesting that it continues to happen at the same rate. Which is wrong imo.

Aminos are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. In various combinations obviously.
When energy is required, the liver and kidneys, through gluconeogenesis, convert protein to glucose (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen). This we agree on, correct?

When we get to excess levels of protein. Through deamination, the body begins to convert amino groups to ammonia (nitrogen and hydrogen). Still agree I hope.

Ammonia is a toxin, so the body has to remove it. So, its converted, via the urea cycle, along with carbon dioxide to urea (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen). This process happens after deanimation, but its not considered part of the process.

So, this alone means that the conversion to glucose can't continue at the same rate (if at all), as the at least some of the required pieces have been excreted as urea. Obviously above i've left out the ratios in each.

This is what I was lead to believe was happening, excess protein results in an increase of urea, which means its coming from somewhere. I was more than a little skeptical at first. We aren't talking about a huge amount of protein here.

Now you are changing the goalposts, you are saying it's about the fact that you cannot convert protein to fat,(even though it is entirely possible through gluconeogenesis, though unlikely for the reasons I outlined in my previous post). You said that excess protein is excreted. I am saying, no, it isn't, in a healthy person it's deaminated, the ammonia is excreted and the resulting carbon and hydrogen convert to glucose or ketone bodies.

I don't see how its moving the goal posts. The two are the same thing. Excess protein is either excreted or stored as body fat (the body doesn't store glucose). There is no other option. Conversion to glucose does happen, I never said it didn't, but when the body is converting it to glucose, it is using it for energy or muscle gylcogen and therefore its not excess by definition.
I think that's the problem, you are confusing what I mean by excess.

In any case this entire conversation is moot, because in my 3,500 calorie a day experiment I kept protein to the bare minimum

Agreed. I was just making an observation. I was never suggestinjg to plow away, nothing can happen, it can obviously knock to consumption of other nutrients, ie fats and carbs the next day when muscle glycogen is full etc. We went way too far into it imo.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

Agreed. I was just making an observation. I was never suggestinjg to plow away, nothing can happen, it can obviously knock to consumption of other nutrients, ie fats and carbs the next day when muscle glycogen is full etc. We went way too far into it imo.

LOL! You're right, it did give me a chance to brush up on my biochem though!

One last few points and then I'll give it a rest I promise, you acually can convert glucose to fat, it's called denovo lipogenesis. And the whole equation with ammonia excretion still leaves a lot of raw material for glucose. I couldn't actually track a paper down that shows what happens with protein (and overall calorie excess), most of the stuff I found is on ketogenic diets.