CHO=The ''non-essential macro''

[mattvdh]

I find it strange that carbs are considered a non-essential macro considering how many uses and functions it provides for the body. Fiber is a crucial aspect of any diet, as well as glucose--the body needs some glucose to burn fat efficiently and glucose is your go-to fuel source. When no CHO is available, the liver cannot break down fat completely.

Why are CHOs considered non-essential when they are clearly highly beneficial?

[MarcAWilson]

Gluconeogenesis.

[alan aragon]

I find it strange that carbs are considered a non-essential macro considering how many uses and functions it provides for the body. Fiber is a crucial aspect of any diet, as well as glucose--the body needs some glucose to burn fat efficiently and glucose is your go-to fuel source. When no CHO is available, the liver cannot break down fat completely.

Why are CHOs considered non-essential when they are clearly highly beneficial?

Non-essential for survival, yeah. However, carbs can be absolutely essential for optimizing the performance of certain types of training. Not to mention, you would not be optimizing rate of muscle anabolism without sufficient carbs.

[mattvdh]

Non-essential for survival, yeah. However, carbs can be absolutely essential for optimizing the performance of certain types of training. Not to mention, you would not be optimizing rate of muscle anabolism without sufficient carbs.

But even in terms of survival, how can you get by without fiber--you'd implode!

Thanks for coming to Ottawa btw, hope it was a good experience!

[mattvdh]

Gluconeogenesis.

Yeah their maybe a back up system in place when glucose isn't available, but try eating nothing but protein and fat and see how healthy you feel after a few days of non-pooping.

[alan aragon]

But even in terms of survival, how can you get by without fiber--you'd implode!

Thanks for coming to Ottawa btw, hope it was a good experience!

Ottawa was great! I'll be returning next year.

[mattvdh]

Ottawa was great! I'll be returning next year.

Awesome! I have a nutrition boner.

[germaine07]

Non-essential for survival, yeah. However, carbs can be absolutely essential for optimizing the performance of certain types of training. Not to mention, you would not be optimizing rate of muscle anabolism without sufficient carbs.

This ^

Depending on your sport, CHO can very much be considered "essential". When people say it's a non-essential macro, it just means that you won't die in absence of it through diet, unlike fats and proteins, in which you require EFAs and EAAs.

[WMLifting]

These threads again, Matt?

[lee__d]

Because 'non-essential' has a specific definition in nutrition.

[cumminslifter]

These threads again, Matt?

he wont learn

[mattvdh]

Because 'non-essential' has a specific definition in nutrition.

The choice of terms pretty much sucks if it's an industry specific definition. "Gurus" tend to figure out protein and fat percentages beforehand as if they are more important--why put such emphasis on this point, we aren't living in a life or death situation. There shouldn't be any prioritization of any macro, they are all equally important. If you're going to use the term non-priority use it with the 'x' variable to fill up the remainder of your calories on the IIFYM plan, at least that makes logical sense.
Anyway, I don't really care, just saying.

[racindude52]

I remember Alberto Nunez saying something in a video along the lines of "carbs may not be essential, but neither is greatness. To be great, you need carbs".. I lol'd. Then agreed.

[Lvisaa2]

The choice of terms pretty much sucks if it's an industry specific definition. "Gurus" tend to figure out protein and fat percentages beforehand as if they are more important--why put such emphasis on this point, we aren't living in a life or death situation. There shouldn't be any prioritization of any macro, they are all equally important. If you're going to use the term non-priority use it with the 'x' variable to fill up the remainder of your calories on the IIFYM plan, at least that makes logical sense.
Anyway, I don't really care, just saying.

I have a theory that respawn and you are the same person. I refuse to believe that two idiots like you two can continue to post in these forums

[psychodiver9]

The choice of terms pretty much sucks if it's an industry specific definition. "Gurus" tend to figure out protein and fat percentages beforehand as if they are more important--why put such emphasis on this point, we aren't living in a life or death situation. There shouldn't be any prioritization of any macro, they are all equally important. If you're going to use the term non-priority use it with the 'x' variable to fill up the remainder of your calories on the IIFYM plan, at least that makes logical sense.
Anyway, I don't really care, just saying.

So if they are all equally important why does absolutely nobody suggest a 1:1:1 intake. You are either a moron, the worst failed troll ever, or synthetics brother

[shesprints]

I remember Alberto Nunez saying something in a video along the lines of "carbs may not be essential, but neither is greatness. To be great, you need carbs".. I lol'd. Then agreed.

I love and must remember this quotation.

If you are completely sedentary and don't care about physical achievement or performance, can you do without carbs? OF COURSE. (You can even do this if all you want to do is super long slow distance running, as you can stick with burning mostly fat... but I can barely think of a more miserable way to live...).

Seriously, why do it that way, with no energy, no fuel? Sure, you may have a great-looking car, but you're letting it sit in the driveway without any gas in it.

I feel and perform a million times better while eating carbs, so I agree. Yes. Earn your carbs, then consume them.

[mattvdh]

I love and must remember this quotation.

If you are completely sedentary and don't care about physical achievement or performance, can you do without carbs? OF COURSE. (You can even do this if all you want to do is super long slow distance running, as you can stick with burning mostly fat... but I can barely think of a more miserable way to live...).

Seriously, why do it that way, with no energy, no fuel? Sure, you may have a great-looking car, but you're letting it sit in the driveway without any gas in it.

I feel and perform a million times better while eating carbs, so I agree. Yes. Earn your carbs, then consume them.

So you believe in nutrient timing?

[shesprints]

So you believe in nutrient timing?

I don't know what you mean by 'believe in.' I find that eating certain foods at certain times of day works for me, but as everyone's energy needs, schedules, and exercise schedules differ... not sure how you got 'believes in nutrient timing' from my post. The phrase 'nutrient timing' is highly unspecific.

[mattvdh]

Earn your carbs, then consume them.

This implies that carbs should be timed after your workouts.

[cumminslifter]

This implies that carbs should be timed after your workouts.

dude, how many times do we have to go through this

[mattvdh]

So if they are all equally important why does absolutely nobody suggest a 1:1:1 intake. You are either a moron, the worst failed troll ever, or synthetics brother

I didn't imply that the ratios are of equal importance, I just mean each macro serves a useful purpose, therefore it's senseless to prioritize.

[mattvdh]

dude, how many times do we have to go through this

Tell that to shesprints, you're right, we've (you and I) already been over this.

[cumminslifter]

Tell that to shesprints, you're right, we've (you and I) already been over this.

and you didnt get enough?

[shesprints]

This implies that carbs should be timed after your workouts.

Then I phrased it poorly, because that's not what I meant. I meant 'live a lifestyle that requires carbs, and simultaneously consume them." I apologize for phrasing it poorly, but I'm glad I gave you something to nitpick and get your jimmies rustled about, as you clearly enjoy that.

[mattvdh]

and you didnt get enough?

Yeah I got plenty, I'm full.

[mattvdh]

Then I phrased it poorly, because that's not what I meant. I meant 'live a lifestyle that requires carbs, and simultaneously consume them." I apologize for phrasing it poorly, but I'm glad I gave you something to nitpick and get your jimmies rustled about, as you clearly enjoy that.

It's not nitpicking, nor were my jimmies rustled. I was just clarifying your stance because you did imply a nutrient timing with that phrase. Carry on...

[necon76]

Then I phrased it poorly, because that's not what I meant. I meant 'live a lifestyle that requires carbs, and simultaneously consume them." I apologize for phrasing it poorly, but I'm glad I gave you something to nitpick and get your jimmies rustled about, as you clearly enjoy that.

It's not your phrasing that's the issue ITT, believe me.

[mattvdh]

This implies that carbs should be timed after your workouts.

So you don't think she was implying nutrient timing with this phrasing? You mustn't understand English

[shesprints]

Whoa, for a bunch of people who ostensibly eat carbs, why are we being so grumpy up in here?

Carbs should make you happier, not militant...

[necon76]

So you don't think she was implying nutrient timing with this phrasing? You mustn't understand English

I love that you asked that of yourself.