Bodyfat and Performance

[Raul Ramaya]

So there's a thread over in the doping forum that is kind of veering into this question but seems more appropriate to discuss here. Are there any decent studies that show a tradeoff between maintaining a low body fat and cycling performance? Anyone have personal experiences they'd like to share?

During the off season I shaved off the "final" five pounds I've always carried around - figuring it would make me a better climber. Recently took a bodyfat test (Hydrostatic) and came away with 7%. Given that my weight was more or less constant for my 2 months of base riding, I'm presuming I was at and maintained the 7% through the duration.

Now that I'm adding intensity, however, I am hungry all the time and my weight has been increasing. Thus far (3 wks in) I've been allowing the weight to go up figuring that if I don't satisfy my hunger, my power/performance will suffer.

The question: am I right? Should I let hunger be my guide and forget sticking to the 7%? My hesitation comes from other sources (Friel etc) that claim ideal weight for climber is 2lbs per inch.

 

[elapid]

So there's a thread over in the doping forum that is kind of veering into this question but seems more appropriate to discuss here. Are there any decent studies that show a tradeoff between maintaining a low body fat and cycling performance? Anyone have personal experiences they'd like to share?

During the off season I shaved off the "final" five pounds I've always carried around - figuring it would make me a better climber. Recently took a bodyfat test (Hydrostatic) and came away with 7%. Given that my weight was more or less constant for my 2 months of base riding, I'm presuming I was at and maintained the 7% through the duration.

Now that I'm adding intensity, however, I am hungry all the time and my weight has been increasing. Thus far (3 wks in) I've been allowing the weight to go up figuring that if I don't satisfy my hunger, my power/performance will suffer.

The question: am I right? Should I let hunger be my guide and forget sticking to the 7%? My hesitation comes from other sources (Friel etc) that claim ideal weight for climber is 2lbs per inch.

I personally don't think that the 2lbs/inch is anymore applicable than BMI. Rough guide at best, but definitely not a rule. I have a stocky build and at 9% body fat I am still considered overweight according to BMI calculations for my build.

In regards to eating and putting on weight and the effect that this will have on your performance, I think the best advice I can give is that you should consult either a nutritionalist and/or cycling coach. I know having read many cycling books that professional cyclists are in a perpetual state of hunger and eat very little, even on heavy training days. However, having said that, there are different philosphies regarding which nutrients provides satiety and which do not. Typically, high carb diets do not provide the same satiety as high fat/high protein diets. While there is strong evidence for high carb diets for endurance athletes, there is also mounting evidence for the use of high fat/moderate protein diets.

 

[durianrider]

Elapid, can you show us any athletes that eat protein and fat to avoid bonking?
Maybe some scientific explanation of why its better to consume fat and protein vs sugar to restore glycogen?

As far as I know its carbs athletes eat to avoid bonking.

I might be wrong though. Im pretty sure those gel, banana looking things and sports drinks cyclists take in the TDF are all sugary. I could be wrong though. Maybe they eat steak during a ride up a big alp to improve performance? Prolly works just great. Big steak sitting in your digestive system sapping blood flow from the legs and lungs.

Here is a photo of me from a few days ago. I find high carb low fat for the last 12 years works just great. I don't have to starve either.

Check out my recent Ashton Kutcher Fruitarian Parody video if you want to full shot.

 

[durianrider]

So there's a thread over in the doping forum that is kind of veering into this question but seems more appropriate to discuss here. Are there any decent studies that show a tradeoff between maintaining a low body fat and cycling performance? Anyone have personal experiences they'd like to share?

During the off season I shaved off the "final" five pounds I've always carried around - figuring it would make me a better climber. Recently took a bodyfat test (Hydrostatic) and came away with 7%. Given that my weight was more or less constant for my 2 months of base riding, I'm presuming I was at and maintained the 7% through the duration.

Now that I'm adding intensity, however, I am hungry all the time and my weight has been increasing. Thus far (3 wks in) I've been allowing the weight to go up figuring that if I don't satisfy my hunger, my power/performance will suffer.

The question: am I right? Should I let hunger be my guide and forget sticking to the 7%? My hesitation comes from other sources (Friel etc) that claim ideal weight for climber is 2lbs per inch.

Friel is right. You gotta get rail thin if you want your best VAM. Obviously the best climbers are taking more than fruit and pasta but thats for the Clinic to discuss. Nutritionally Friel eats 80% of his total calories from carbs and is pretty thin.

Still I feel you are focusing on weight too much. You need to focus on what numbers you are hitting on Strava/training peaks etc with your power meter. I have mates that are clinically anorexic and STRUGGLE to ride a bike up a hill. Any hill for that matter. So yeah, you gotta be thin (18- 20 BMI ideally) but there is a fine line. Focus on power instead and just eat high carb low fat and your body will get rail thin on its own accord. Never seen otherwise.

Eat high carb/low fat/low protein diet to get skinny.
Climb at big power to get fast.
Combine the 2 to get skinny AND fast.


Remember that excess salt consumption will create edema pretty quickly if you aint training it out. The fat you eat is the fat you wear. Eat like a Kenyan to look like a Kenyan- rice, corn, fruit, sugar, water, potatoes..all steamed/baked vs fried. If you starve and run your glycogen low consistently you will run your immune system right down and lose fitness.

Avoid those high fat/protein low carb atkins paleo fatkins style diets. Aim for MINIMUM 10g of carbs per kg of bodyweight per day. Look at me. Look at my watts per kg on strava. I don't even drink coffee or tea..This works brah. Its nonsense you can starve and ride hard. How does that work? Riders just write that in books to sound hardcore but any club rider can debunk that 'gotta starve to ride hard' mentality. Go starve and do fast bunch rides and you will be dropped pretty quick. You won't be able to back up training. Your haemoglobin will drop. You will become anemic. NEVER cut calories, just eat right. Its NOT calories in calories out lol! Otherwise I would be obese and my mother would be rail thin.

 

[elapid]

Elapid, can you show us any athletes that eat protein and fat to avoid bonking?
Maybe some scientific explanation of why its better to consume fat and protein vs sugar to restore glycogen?

As far as I know its carbs athletes eat to avoid bonking.

I might be wrong though. Im pretty sure those gel, banana looking things and sports drinks cyclists take in the TDF are all sugary. I could be wrong though. Maybe they eat steak during a ride up a big alp to improve performance? Prolly works just great. Big steak sitting in your digestive system sapping blood flow from the legs and lungs.

Here is a photo of me from a few days ago. I find high carb low fat for the last 12 years works just great. I don't have to starve either.

Check out my recent Ashton Kutcher Fruitarian Parody video if you want to full shot.

Unlike you, DR, I don't rely on anecdotes. You may have missed that I wrote "strong evidence for high carb diets for endurance athletes". For evidence of high fat/moderate protein/low carb diets for athletes read "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance". All primary references are included in the book. I am not saying that this is the way for everyone or even the vast majority, but the science is there to support this approach for those that are interested in trying something different.

 

[hiero2]

While I will still carbo-load for a long ride, for weight loss, I ran across a very interesting presentation of a study on you-tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

In 25 words - Stanford presentation, study by PhD, longitudinal examination, comparing low carb/hi carb diets, and hi-protein, med fat, low carb worked best for weight loss. The PhD is a vegetarian - so the results surprised even him.

Be mindful, this is for weight loss, not energy maintenance for riding. Personally, I've always found it more than extremely difficult to lose weight while riding heavy miles - it has always been utterly impossible. I have to cut my miles way back or the hunger is just overbearing.

I also have to say this study surprised me - I'd always considered the whole hi-protein diet thing to be a fad. I really like the study approach, too. They ran the study like a REAL LIFE exercise, not an ideal, controlled, environment like so many diet proponents want. He examined what ppl could really do, on their own, when somebody wasn't dictating exactly what you ate. Most people can't afford a fat farm in real life, eh?

He also found a relation between insulin resistance and which diet worked well, AND how well the diet worked.

 

[hiero2]

So there's a thread over in the doping forum that is kind of veering into this question but seems more appropriate to discuss here. Are there any decent studies that show a tradeoff between maintaining a low body fat and cycling performance? Anyone have personal experiences they'd like to share?

During the off season I shaved off the "final" five pounds I've always carried around - figuring it would make me a better climber. Recently took a bodyfat test (Hydrostatic) and came away with 7%. Given that my weight was more or less constant for my 2 months of base riding, I'm presuming I was at and maintained the 7% through the duration.

Now that I'm adding intensity, however, I am hungry all the time and my weight has been increasing. Thus far (3 wks in) I've been allowing the weight to go up figuring that if I don't satisfy my hunger, my power/performance will suffer.

The question: am I right? Should I let hunger be my guide and forget sticking to the 7%? My hesitation comes from other sources (Friel etc) that claim ideal weight for climber is 2lbs per inch.

I wish I could say I knew of studies - but I will add what I remember - when you are below 12%, you are probably (there IS individual variance) in an unmaintainable range, and you will eventually lose power trying to maintain this level.

Don't stop looking for studies - I think I'm right - but there is more work been done on diets in the last 20 years then ever. You could find something. Maybe you could send a message to Christopher Gardner at Stanford - he is working in the field, and might know of something. And, you could probably get his email from the Stanford website.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Now that I'm adding intensity, however, I am hungry all the time and my weight has been increasing. Thus far (3 wks in) I've been allowing the weight to go up figuring that if I don't satisfy my hunger, my power/performance will suffer.

The question: am I right? Should I let hunger be my guide and forget sticking to the 7%? My hesitation comes from other sources (Friel etc) that claim ideal weight for climber is 2lbs per inch.

=============================================

It's possible that the additional intensity is building new muscle, and perhaps that explains some of the increased body weight. No need to over do it, but make sure you eat enough protein for muscle maintenance & growth, and especially soon after an exercise session.

Eating 'to hunger' is probably not best because it is typical to eat more than is necessary (just in case a famine happens soon), and especially if you get a lot of enjoyment / pleasure from eating. It is also wise to avoid situations that cause 'social' or 'nervous' eating / snacking.

Perhaps doing a simple fingertip skinfold test periodically would be a good way to monitor your body fat.

For endurance athletes, the standard nutrition advice is to get most calories from good quality carbs, adequate protein and fat.

Also, genetics plays a large role in your body composition 'tendencies'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Raul Ramaya]

Thanks to all who've responded. Apart from perhaps DurianRider I'm not sure my question was understood so let me try and clarify:

I am looking for opinions as to whether my new low body fat can be maintained through the season without sacrificing power (performance). If the answer is "depends on the person" - then my next question is how will I know (short of sacrificing this season to find out).

The velo thread linked in the Clinic thread (lovely indirection there), is filled with stories of people who found out the hard way that their level was not sustainable. I guess I'm hoping for early indications so I can adjust without ruining my season...

For context I've gone from 156lbs to 150lbs (6'1 tall). I've pretty much maintained 156-158 for the last 10 years I've been cycling.

 

[elapid]

Thanks to all who've responded. Apart from perhaps DurianRider I'm not sure my question was understood so let me try and clarify:

I am looking for opinions as to whether my new low body fat can be maintained through the season without sacrificing power (performance). If the answer is "depends on the person" - then my next question is how will I know (short of sacrificing this season to find out).

The velo thread linked in the Clinic thread (lovely indirection there), is filled with stories of people who found out the hard way that their level was not sustainable. I guess I'm hoping for early indications so I can adjust without ruining my season...

For context I've gone from 156lbs to 150lbs (6'1 tall). I've pretty much maintained 156-158 for the last 10 years I've been cycling.

The balance between power output and body weight does depend on the person because at some stage you have to start losing protein when your body fat is too low. However, at 7%, I don't think you're near there yet. To test whether your weight loss is affecting your power output, you need to do standardized testing (20-60min TT over the same course is ideal) to compare your W/kg when you were at 156lb and now you're at 150lb. You don't have to ruin a season to make these calculations.

 

[elapid]

While I will still carbo-load for a long ride, for weight loss, I ran across a very interesting presentation of a study on you-tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

In 25 words - Stanford presentation, study by PhD, longitudinal examination, comparing low carb/hi carb diets, and hi-protein, med fat, low carb worked best for weight loss. The PhD is a vegetarian - so the results surprised even him.

Be mindful, this is for weight loss, not energy maintenance for riding. Personally, I've always found it more than extremely difficult to lose weight while riding heavy miles - it has always been utterly impossible. I have to cut my miles way back or the hunger is just overbearing.

I also have to say this study surprised me - I'd always considered the whole hi-protein diet thing to be a fad. I really like the study approach, too. They ran the study like a REAL LIFE exercise, not an ideal, controlled, environment like so many diet proponents want. He examined what ppl could really do, on their own, when somebody wasn't dictating exactly what you ate. Most people can't afford a fat farm in real life, eh?

He also found a relation between insulin resistance and which diet worked well, AND how well the diet worked.

Welcome to the world of real people, Hiero. There is a wealth of evidence suggesting that low carb/high protein diets are the most effective for weight loss and maintaining weight loss. Read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for a comprehensive review on the topic (and he addresses the so-called "fad" diet aspect of these diets), a summary of the science behind it (supported by references), and how we got where we are.

Like you, I also have trouble losing and maintaing weight when just riding. For this reason, as well as curiosity, I have been considering a high fat/low carb/moderate protein diet as described by Joe Volek in "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance".

I don't think there is one shoe size that fits everyone and, for people like you and me, it is perhaps worthwhile investigating other options to see if they do work or not. Not saying it is right or wrong, but certainly keeping an open mind.

 

[hiero2]

Thanks to all who've responded. Apart from perhaps DurianRider I'm not sure my question was understood so let me try and clarify:

I am looking for opinions as to whether my new low body fat can be maintained through the season without sacrificing power (performance). If the answer is "depends on the person" - then my next question is how will I know (short of sacrificing this season to find out).

The velo thread linked in the Clinic thread (lovely indirection there), is filled with stories of people who found out the hard way that their level was not sustainable. I guess I'm hoping for early indications so I can adjust without ruining my season...

For context I've gone from 156lbs to 150lbs (6'1 tall). I've pretty much maintained 156-158 for the last 10 years I've been cycling.

The balance between power output and body weight does depend on the person because at some stage you have to start losing protein when your body fat is too low. However, at 7%, I don't think you're near there yet. To test whether your weight loss is affecting your power output, you need to do standardized testing (20-60min TT over the same course is ideal) to compare your W/kg when you were at 156lb and now you're at 150lb. You don't have to ruin a season to make these calculations.

Elapid has a good point about standardized testing.

I thought I had answered your question - and I don't agree with elapid that 7% is maintainable over the long term - without chemical intervention.

I also think, from your description of events, that your body is already telling you what it thinks - recall your constant, driving hunger and weight gain. When I was in full training was the only time in my life I could eat all I wanted and not gain weight. I couldn't lose weight either, but I didn't put it on. Therefore, based on MY experience, if you are hungry and you are doing significant endurance workouts, your body is sending a strong message. The fact that you have maintained a constant weight for 10 years also tells us your body had found a comfort level.

Btw, if I am not in full workout mode, when I eat until I am not hungry, my weight goes up until I am clinically obese before my body says "enough".

Spend an hour and listen to this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo. This is a PROFESSIONAL diet researcher talking about REAL research and real results. He covers a lot of ground - and some of it may apply to you. We do NOT all fall in one category when it comes to weight. He covers some very interesting results, and some factors that impact those results - most of which is not "common sense". He is also pretty open about what is not known. But what he does cover may give you clues on how to manage your hunger through diet, if that is indeed what you need. I'll also tell you up front that his findings are at odds with the advice of durianrider, even though the researcher is a vegetarian himself.

 

[hiero2]

Welcome to the world of real people, Hiero. There is a wealth of evidence suggesting that low carb/high protein diets are the most effective for weight loss and maintaining weight loss. . . .
I don't think there is one shoe size that fits everyone and, for people like you and me, it is perhaps worthwhile investigating other options to see if they do work or not. Not saying it is right or wrong, but certainly keeping an open mind.

Thanks! I don't know about a "wealth", but that Stanford researcher I posted the link to gave that talk in 2008, and he said research in the area had been absolutely booming - which would support what you just said.

For sure one size does not fit all. Based on what some of these current researchers are saying, though, I think we can probably be comfortably lumped in 4 or so groups. But that is a lot more definition then what I grew up with, no question!

 

[hiero2]

One other note about weight loss and hunger for you Raul;

IME LSD = more hunger binges for me while HIIT leaves me feeling energized and empowered and I have less desire to eat. YMMV.

LSD = long steady distance
HIIT = hi-intensity interval training

I find exactly the same results for myself. This may have something to do with your hunger. This is like the difference in weight training and endurance work. Lo reps, heavy weight gives more hunger curbing. Endurance work sufficient to empty the liver of glycogen stores (if I'm remembering all the terms correctly) leads to greater hunger.

I'd forgotten about this until I just ran across Coach's post - but it may be pertinent.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

From Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race:"

"Michele [Ferrari] was obsessed about weight—and I mean totally obsessed. He talked about weight more than he talked about wattage, more than he talked about hematocrit, which could be easily boosted with a little Edgar. The reason: losing weight was the hardest but most efficient way to increase the crucial watts per kilogram number, and thus to do well in the Tour."

EDIT:
Rob Kish won the Race Across America (RAAM) fueling only on Häagen-Dazs. He said solid foods were too rough on the digestion, and fats are a more concentrated fuel than carbs.

 

[Raul Ramaya]

One other note about weight loss and hunger for you Raul;



LSD = long steady distance
HIIT = hi-intensity interval training

I find exactly the same results for myself. This may have something to do with your hunger. This is like the difference in weight training and endurance work. Lo reps, heavy weight gives more hunger curbing. Endurance work sufficient to empty the liver of glycogen stores (if I'm remembering all the terms correctly) leads to greater hunger.

I'd forgotten about this until I just ran across Coach's post - but it may be pertinent.

Thanks for your insight. The more I think about it, the more I think I am not at a sustainable weight. I have already started to let it rise and I'll cap it at 155 - same as previous years.

I don't think my diet needs any modification. For a number of years I've been following a routine loosely matching the "Paleo for Athletes" concept: low glycemic diet except immediately following very intense workouts. Lots of dried fruits and nuts to cut down on hunger cravings. This seems to work well for me...

 

[Raul Ramaya]

The balance between power output and body weight does depend on the person because at some stage you have to start losing protein when your body fat is too low. However, at 7%, I don't think you're near there yet. To test whether your weight loss is affecting your power output, you need to do standardized testing (20-60min TT over the same course is ideal) to compare your W/kg when you were at 156lb and now you're at 150lb. You don't have to ruin a season to make these calculations.

Good point with the TT test. Sadly I am still stuck indoors and don't have a baseline established on my trainer (from previous years).

 

[Raul Ramaya]

From Tyler Hamilton's "The Secret Race:"

"Michele [Ferrari] was obsessed about weight—and I mean totally obsessed. He talked about weight more than he talked about wattage, more than he talked about hematocrit, which could be easily boosted with a little Edgar. The reason: losing weight was the hardest but most efficient way to increase the crucial watts per kilogram number, and thus to do well in the Tour."

EDIT:
Rob Kish won the Race Across America (RAAM) fueling only on Häagen-Dazs. He said solid foods were too rough on the digestion, and fats are a more concentrated fuel than carbs.

lol. Yes I am familiar with that quote. I think the context, however, has everything to do with "Edgar". i.e. the only reason he _could_ focus solely on weight is because the "Edgar" allowed him to do so (by lowering the sustainable threshold beyond what was normally achievable). But that's a topic for a different forum

 

[perpetuum mobile]

Btw, if I am not in full workout mode, when I eat until I am not hungry, my weight goes up until I am clinically obese before my body says "enough"

It is interesting why so many people have their internal "satiety/hunger switch" broken. Why it does not work properly? Is it possible to fix it? I think that this is one of the main reasons for obesity in general.

Under normal circumstances no one should control their portion sizes and count calories - the "satiety/hunger switch" should regulate food intake according to the needs of the body.

Athletes preparing for competition is a different story. There is nothing healthy about being 6 or 7% bodyfat so your body will definitely send you signals to get back in the healthy range probably somewhere above 10%.

 

[Master50]

Nutrition for a pro road racer is a lot different than for an XC racer or a Cat 1 National level rider. Nutritional requirements for stage racers is different than for 1 day races.
Fat and protein requirements for stage racers are different than for single day races at the pro level.
A stage race like the tour might require 6000 calories a day. Just do the math. In simple sugars and carbs I think it is impossible to eat enough food to meet these caloric needs Cream cheese and ham sandwiches are common in the mussettes of pro riders. Yes most of the riders racing needs are sugars but recovery needs calories, fat and protein.
As for us individually? I made my greatest fat loss on low carb/ high protein diets. Now that I have reached my target weight my diet is more balanced and total calories is more important. You need all forms of nutrients including fats to be healthy. I also don't think I could ever 6 pack since that is the first place fat is stored on me. A real good genetic indicator I need to always watch my fat levels.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Under normal circumstances no one should control their portion sizes and count calories - the "satiety/hunger switch" should regulate food intake according to the needs of the body.
...

---------------------------------------------
Our metabolism hasn't evolved much since the 'caveman' days when there was no certainty when the next meal would be available.

If food is available we are inclined to eat a lot of it. Of course, if we are confident that there will be more food later, we can choose to eat 'just what we need until then'. If you are afraid that the next food will be 'a long time coming', then you'll probably want to eat a lot, so you can survive.

And when food tastes really good, and gives a lot of pleasure, it can be difficult to have the self-control to stop.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[hiero2]

It is interesting why so many people have their internal "satiety/hunger switch" broken. Why it does not work properly? Is it possible to fix it? I think that this is one of the main reasons for obesity in general.

Under normal circumstances no one should control their portion sizes and count calories - the "satiety/hunger switch" should regulate food intake according to the needs of the body.

Athletes preparing for competition is a different story. There is nothing healthy about being 6 or 7% bodyfat so your body will definitely send you signals to get back in the healthy range probably somewhere above 10%.

You and I agree on your last paragraph. I think there are a few exceptions, but not many.

However, imo, mankind long ago passed the point where his "satiety/hunger" switch worked properly. The problem is that for most of mankind's evolution, food was a scarce resource. When it was not, for an individual or a group, fatness existed.

I absolutely agree that this is associated with the problem of obesity - and I don't think any serious nutritionist would disagree. One has only to contemplate chocolate and sugars. We have turned a simple food substance into a plethora of edibles that so fool our tongue into thinking they are good, that we consume them in great excess. Of course, fats, eg fried foods, are in the same category. "Chocolate as evil" Muahahahahaha!

Is it possible to fix? That's what the diet wars are all about, yes?

A Scots/English farmer's treat of a meal used to be fried fat. Certainly not such a problem when you are physically outside, working hard, probably burning 3K kcal a day or more, just from pure, heavy, physical exertion. Wouldn't be a good diet today, tho.

 

[perpetuum mobile]

---------------------------------------------
Our metabolism hasn't evolved much since the 'caveman' days when there was no certainty when the next meal would be available.

If food is available we are inclined to eat a lot of it. Of course, if we are confident that there will be more food later, we can choose to eat 'just what we need until then'. If you are afraid that the next food will be 'a long time coming', then you'll probably want to eat a lot, so you can survive.

I disagree. Quite large fraction of the overall population are people with skinny or normal complexion who have unlimited amount of food available. Many (probably most) of them do not count calories but simply rely on the feeling of hunger and satiety. Obviously their body/metabolism is not trying to prepare for the famine.

Even starting with 12-16% body-fat a human can survive quite a long time with no or very little food available. Also, I am not so sure that person with 35% body fat would have better chances getting through a famine than someone starting with 20%. I think it depends more on how well your metabolism can slow down to adopt to the limited amount of food.

Regular intake of highly processed foods that are high in simple sugars or even worse - high in simple sugars and fat is the reason why "hunger/satiety switch" gets screwed up. It all has to do with insulin and other hormones that are responsible for metabolism and appetite. In the long term high sugar and high fat diet damages signaling system that regulates appetite and then counting calories is the only way to control food intake.

 

[helas101]

There are really most informative article written by you. I am totally surprised after to read your post. I would like thanks to you that you share this post here with us. I hope you put some more threads here.

 

[MAB]

the book "Sweet poison" by Robert Lustig is worth a read. It's stuff that I learned about a long time ago but had forgotten. He makes the that sucrose (disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose) and fructose are metabolized by the liver to make triglycerides (the glucose part of sucrose is largely used by all the cells in the body and a small percentage goes to make fat). Certainly, the biochemistry is absolutely correct and he also makes the point that fibre slows down the rate of absorption reducing the spikes in insulin driving fat storage.

In short, he comes to the conclusion that hormones are the main drivers behind weight gain and the key steps are to keep the ghrelin levels high (feeling of fullness), and improve insulin and leptin sensitivity by exercise and eating more natural fiberous foods....so what we all know as natural fruits vegetables, legumes and good protein sources; include protein with eat meal and avoid the heavily refined foods.

So to reduce bodyfat, eat more fibre and cut down on the refined carbs until you need them in order to reset some of the hormonal switches that control hunger