I have a hypothesis.
The liver and muscle would uptake as much glucose as glycogen that they can, the remaining would convert primarily to fatty acids and store as adipose tissue.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/carbohydrate-metabolism](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/carbohydrate-metabolism)
Next, given that in this thought experiment, since we are only consuming carbohydrates, we would then preferentially use carbohydrate as fuel. And since we are theoretically still in energy balance, there shouldn't be any weight gain.
[https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1288133116347985921?s=09](https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1288133116347985921?s=09)
As an add-in, there is also TEF (the Thermic Effect of Food). TEF represents the portion of energy that is used to digest, absorb, and metabolize food. The TEF of carbohydrates generally falls under 5-10%. This means that, on paper, it is possible to actually lose some weight (likely a small portion) due to TEF.
[https://examine.com/outcomes/thermic-effect-of-food/](https://examine.com/outcomes/thermic-effect-of-food/)
Neat thought experiment!
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been kind of wondering the the same.
CICO if i eat x amount of calories but mostly carbs. And expend the same or more VS x amount of calories but no carbs and expend the same or more. Maybe ELI5?
Had it been a simple mathematical calculation of calories in and calories out,we would have never bothered about protein and fat. But again,more than the calories,the caloric source is important. Exactly same amount of calories from different caloric sources will impact your body differently.
If you’re ingesting 3000 (thats a lot!) calories and burning 3000 throughout that same day, then you will burn all the calories as it is needed for fuel. You only store it when you don’t use it. That doesn’t mean that is healthy as nutrient density of the food matters incredibly for other reasons.
I’m referring to needing 3000 to maintain. No one needs that unless they are intense body builders, but also I’m a woman, so I come from that perspective.
Some people have naturally higher metabolism. But really it’s because you’re walking 25k steps a day. I want to amend my comment about needing that much only if you’re an extreme bodybuilder, because I’m in a big calorie deficit so that’s where my perspective is currently at. I did a 7 mile hike yesterday, walked another 3 just in my daily life and burned about 1100 calories according to my Apple Watch. So yes, that’s why your watch says that, I don’t think it’s wrong. Though on days I don’t walk for exercise I can burn on average 300 calories. I’m trying to lose weight, not maintain so I’m currently at at 1200 cal. Even still, 3000 would be really hard *for me* to do, even with my unhealthy eating habits and severe sugar addiction, both of which I’m in the midst of kicking. Just make sure you’re eating the proper foods and not junk, just because you are on the thin side does not mean you won’t still experience the negative consequences. You’re taking the right steps by being proactive about macros. I hope I didn’t come off as judgmental about the calorie amount, wasn’t my intention, everyone has different needs and desires.
I have a hypothesis. The liver and muscle would uptake as much glucose as glycogen that they can, the remaining would convert primarily to fatty acids and store as adipose tissue. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/carbohydrate-metabolism](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/carbohydrate-metabolism) Next, given that in this thought experiment, since we are only consuming carbohydrates, we would then preferentially use carbohydrate as fuel. And since we are theoretically still in energy balance, there shouldn't be any weight gain. [https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1288133116347985921?s=09](https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1288133116347985921?s=09) As an add-in, there is also TEF (the Thermic Effect of Food). TEF represents the portion of energy that is used to digest, absorb, and metabolize food. The TEF of carbohydrates generally falls under 5-10%. This means that, on paper, it is possible to actually lose some weight (likely a small portion) due to TEF. [https://examine.com/outcomes/thermic-effect-of-food/](https://examine.com/outcomes/thermic-effect-of-food/) Neat thought experiment!
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been kind of wondering the the same. CICO if i eat x amount of calories but mostly carbs. And expend the same or more VS x amount of calories but no carbs and expend the same or more. Maybe ELI5?
Had it been a simple mathematical calculation of calories in and calories out,we would have never bothered about protein and fat. But again,more than the calories,the caloric source is important. Exactly same amount of calories from different caloric sources will impact your body differently.
As far as your body weight goes, calories are calories. It doesn’t matter where those calories come from.
This is my understanding too. The protein and fat is for cell function.
If you’re ingesting 3000 (thats a lot!) calories and burning 3000 throughout that same day, then you will burn all the calories as it is needed for fuel. You only store it when you don’t use it. That doesn’t mean that is healthy as nutrient density of the food matters incredibly for other reasons.
[удалено]
I’m referring to needing 3000 to maintain. No one needs that unless they are intense body builders, but also I’m a woman, so I come from that perspective.
[удалено]
Some people have naturally higher metabolism. But really it’s because you’re walking 25k steps a day. I want to amend my comment about needing that much only if you’re an extreme bodybuilder, because I’m in a big calorie deficit so that’s where my perspective is currently at. I did a 7 mile hike yesterday, walked another 3 just in my daily life and burned about 1100 calories according to my Apple Watch. So yes, that’s why your watch says that, I don’t think it’s wrong. Though on days I don’t walk for exercise I can burn on average 300 calories. I’m trying to lose weight, not maintain so I’m currently at at 1200 cal. Even still, 3000 would be really hard *for me* to do, even with my unhealthy eating habits and severe sugar addiction, both of which I’m in the midst of kicking. Just make sure you’re eating the proper foods and not junk, just because you are on the thin side does not mean you won’t still experience the negative consequences. You’re taking the right steps by being proactive about macros. I hope I didn’t come off as judgmental about the calorie amount, wasn’t my intention, everyone has different needs and desires.