I just started semester with Anatomy & Physiology class (Kiniesiology concentrated) and my professor is contradicting everything I have learned both from here and other sources as well.
He has a PhD in Exercise Physiology and continues to do research, etc, but seems to have a textbook or generalized opinion on nutrition, macro percentages and caloric demands.
For one, he says 2000 calories: ~60% carbs, ~30% fat and 10% protein. That was on the second day of class, after I heard that I was a little skeptical. He does cover his ass and says that may change due to athletic activity (i.e. if you are an athlete you will need more calories and more carbs, both in quantity and percentage). If you eat a ton of protein it will turn into fat is another one. Anything more than x is completely pointless I think is what he said.
The other thing so far that does bother me is his view on fat burning. He does go to multiple lengths to mock those that go on low carb diets. That if they take carbs out of the equation they think that they will burn fat? He has stated that you cannot burn fat without burning carbohydrates first.
I understand that you may need some, especially when lifting and then cardio afterwards in a glycogen depleted state, but he doesnt think anyone should be below 50% carbohydrates and you are spinning your tires and maybe even going in reverse. In class today actually, he discussed how when carbs are depleted and glycogen is depleted the body skips fats and uses protein for energy. I always thought it was carbs, fats then protein that undergo the Krebs cycle and having free fatty acids helps that.
If I am wrong in any of this do correct me, but doesn't this just lend to naivity and just caving to what certain studies may say or what the government (who has certain groups with their best interests in mind) may say?
BTW, I still planning on doing whatever to get an A, but I just would like some clarity.