long story short I was listening to a podcast a science writer/blogger participated in where he cited a couple of reasons why carbohydrate intake is not essential.

two of them were based on the body's mechanisms which convert other substances into glucose.. one was lactic acid buildup in muscles.. he said this could be converted, via gluconeogenesis, in the liver to produce glucose. he also said the glycerol component (making up 10%) of triglycerides can be broken down into glucose.

my question is.. aren't glycerol and lactic acid (lactose?) already sugars? The point seems circular... the body doesn't need carbohydrate because it has other processes that can break substances down into sugar, but the substances being broken down already contain sugar themselves or some derivative thereof. He's saying we can use carbohydrate to make carbohydrate.. It's like saying you don't need to eat protein if you take in plenty of amino acids.

what am I missing? It would make sense if protein was adduced as a potential sugar source, as I believe the body can make tiny amounts of glucose through this medium, but the other mechanisms seem nonsensical.

This post was edited by hoipolloi on Sep 19 2016 04:24pm

lactic acid isn't lactose. lactic acid is only in your body momentarily before it becomes lactate which consists of hydrogen ions (correct me on this)

at least from the articles i've read a high fat/protein diet doesn't have any performance benefits at least in endurance training in fat burning other than a high fat diet slowing the rate at which glycogen is used...


however a high carb diet does see improvements to performance.

lactate/ lactic acid only forms in the muscle when glucose is broken down? seems like the point would stand



This post was edited by hoipolloi on Sep 19 2016 08:10pm