Just discovered this and have added it to my resources for a quality and healthy life. I’m 75 am have an average glucose daily of 98, and my average daily BP is 114/72. Divorced myself of the standard American Diet 4 years ago without regret. I have zero arthritis in any form, no brain fog, and my creativity never ends. Gave up preaching about this to my friends as they are well influenced and brainwashed by the food cartels. Found that the best form of education for others is leading by example.
Onya Baz! I think it does come down to every individual to decide if they want to make the changes necessary - we're not particularly special, we've just made different choices to others. Live your best life x
Their book, Protein Power Life Plan was the first book I read on nutrition and helped me lose over 100lbs in 2007. I've managed to reverse type 2 Diabetes snd maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle due to their teachings.
Lower your carbs, you lower your insulin, fat can then come out of your fat cells. You'll eat less because your body is using some of it's own fat so you aren't as hungry, and you may even exercise a bit because you have more available energy. You are not losing weight because you are eating less and exercising more, you are losing weight and exercising more because you are releasing/losing fat.
Yeah, and the body is happier burning lots of fat when it knows there is a constant resupply. That's why some lose more fat when eating more fat. A bit counter intuitive.
Ive been on carnivore diet for 4 months, best thing i have ever done. I feel like I am 18 again, i am 44. Along with exercise and walking for the last 3 months I have lost 18kg's, down from 94kg's to 76kg's. Putting on muscle at the same time. Once i get to around 12% body fat ( pretty close now ) I will lower my cardio and concentrate on more bulk, aiming to go back up to 80kg's with muscle.
7 weeks carnivore, 10kgs down. Feel great, no gut issues, great sleep, lots of energy. But the biggest thing for me is the lack of desire to snack. Three solid meat meals a day, lots of water, no cravings for anything, no strength loss in any of my lifts in the gym either. Best thing I ever did
As someone who went on the first of many, many diets at age 9 (in 1966), I can say that becoming a carnivore almost 5 years ago is the best thing I´ve ever done for myself, physically and mentally. #MeatHeals #PlantToxins #CarnivoreDietForever
Funny I was telling my friends the exact same thing that I felt like I’m 17 after starting the carnivore diet 2 months ago;I’m 40. They looked at me like I’m a snake oil salesman. Glad to see I’m not going crazy healthy alone 😂
You are awesome. That picture of the Minnesota study before and after is spot on. When you are in shape/not obese, then you get thinner. That is all the obese need to know. Follow that plan. I was obese and it worked for me. Less carbs, high saturated fat.
He’s amazing and the topic he just covered is so simple and yet no studies on it? The scientific community has had tunnel vision focused on calories for all this time. Crazy!
Just as the citation was used in the presentation - the whole world was so obsessed with calories that nobody even noticed how useless is thinking about them! Fat and proteins makes us feel satiated quicker so we don't overeat . Brilliant! And I'm loving my keto/carnivore journey in order to save myself from a faith of my slim dad (Alzheimer's disease is in fact a result of starved cells disaster, caused by not noticeable insulin resistance) and over 30 years of eating almost only plant based food.
@@chkpik That doesn't negate the fact that calories alone are the determining factor in weight loss/gain Show me a single person who lost weight eating MORE calories, eg in a surplus, or gained weight in a deficit, eg eating MORE TLDR: there isn't one beause they don't exist You can throw around BS terms and laud the low-carb crowd forever - but the real truth is that calorie balance is king for body weight regulation. period. I'm happy for you to prove me wrong. Please post your evidence below
@@backfru - check out Kelly Hogan or Emily Harveaux. Also, check out Bart Kay. Kelly Hogan, for example, was eating 1200 calories and not losing any weight. In fact, she started gaining weight back. When she started a carnivore diet, she was eating about 2400 calories and the fat just fell off. I’m not saying calories don’t matter completely. What I am saying is that there are other things at work, such as hormones, that matter more, especially if they’re out of whack. Dr. Ben Bikman has studied fat cells, and if there is too much insulin, the fat cell is unable to let go of fat. It also goes the other way. Rebekah Farmer is one such example. She was eating 1000s of calories a day and people thought she was anorexic, because she could not put on weight. She started low carb > keto > carnivore, and her body was finally able to put on weight, eating far fewer calories than she was when she was stick thin. There are other things that play a part, and, in fact, are more important, in fat loss/gain than calories.
@@LauraB.335 So, people who eat in a deficit, on a high carb diet, are NOT going to "let go of fat"? If that's the case, how do millions of athletes get to low body fat levels while eating carbohydrates? Hormones or whatever, are NOT more important than calorie balance. This has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by metabolic chamber studies, and others. Did Kelly Hogan write up a peer-reviewed case-report about her experiment? Or is this just what she said on some youtube video? See, all these examples are just anecdotes from a select few individuals, shared on social media. I'm not saying they're lying - but what else were they doing? Did you follow them around during that time to see exactly what they were doing? Because subjects in a metabolic chamber, controlling every single calorie they consume - will show you beyond doubt, that calories alone are the determinant of body weight. regardless of macro breakdown. You can easily find these studies by Kevin Hall and others. Frankly, I'm inclined to believe the data, rather than what Rebekah shared in her RUclips video. But by all means, if you have some good quality evidence to refute this, please share it!
I found a copy of Dr Eades book "Protein Power" on the bookshelf of a vacation rental. I read it in 2 days, and googled his name. That white rabbit took my down such a deep hole I never imagined, saved me from obesity and processed food addiction.
A great talk. Perhaps I can further clarify. As Mike said my colleague Gene Fine have considered this question for a while. One important paraphrase of what Mike said: we don’t eat calories. We eat grams (food). Calories are units of energy. (You can’t eat energy - maybe plants eat energy, poetically speaking). The energy is in the process. Cutting to the chase, the assumption that all food is processed in the same way is very unlikely). Talking about calories is colloquial and is okay until you reach a problem. You lose more weight on low-carb. Not always but generally. That’s observed. So the “calorie” idea is no longer useful. You have to go back to basics and ask what’s going on. We take in mass. Energy goes with the process of conversion of mass to different forms. The processes of metabolizing carbohydrate are different than metabolizing fat. The real question, then, is not why we have different outcomes for the same “calories” but, rather, why it turns out to be the same. Recognizing that “calories” may be loose talk, why does “calories in-calories out” hold at all, never mind how often. The answer is that it is in the biology - that’s where hormones and enzyme regulation kicks in. It is not an alternative to a thermodynamic analysis - it is the mechanism that controls the thermodynamics. And, janekay2002 asked what to read. If you’ve finished Protein Power, you should try Nutrition in Crisis. Now, only $11.01 on Amazon. “The calories are in the chemical reaction, not the food.” As Mike said, it is not about E=mc^2. The 4 kcal/g for carbs is for the process of complete oxidation. It’s not in the carbs (so 4 is an average. Oxidation of different carbs has slightly different calories).
What about eating cold or hot food or beverages? Cold food or drink is way below the 98.6 degree body temp or a hot beverage is over 98.6 so in a way you are consuming a positive or negative energy potential right?
On reflection, I am not sure you can find what you want to know about mass out, that is, the tissue distribution. The calculations you do show that, in fact, low carb diets in practice, provide lower food which is what “they” have been saying all along and it may be true. The real problem with CICO (I go with people who pronounce it “psycho”) is that “energy is neither created or destroyed” is a sound bite and depends precisely on the conditions. You can’t do thermodynamics and shoot from the hip. You have to define systems and environments. In the calorimeter, the system is the food and energy Is “created.” Otherwise the Atwater value for carbohydrates would be 0 instead of 4 kcal/g (In the whole system, the “created energy” is lost to the environment). Also, you have to be careful about definitions of calories. In nutrition, the definition of the calorie is not the physical entity. A nutritional calorie is the free energy (heat under high pressure) for the complete oxidation of the indicated food. Do anything else, make protein, make DNA, maintain membrane potentials, all bets are off. Bottom line: energy is in the reaction, not the substance. As you point out it is not Uncle Albert’s equation. I always say, it is not like particle physics where the mass of the particle is given in electron-Volts (energy) because of mc^2.
Another great talk by Dr Eades; the first person that connected prominent grain eaters to heart disease in the early Egyptians. Perhaps some of the early processed food eaters?
Yes Egypt was considered the breadbasket. And when they dig up the digs on these people they see signs of arthritis that were not present before they were such heavy grain eaters.
Excellent. So it's not a question of energy, but mass. It's not calories in, calories out, it's atoms in, atoms out, depending on which combination of atoms you eat.
A corollary to the breathing out of mass in the form of CO2, (25-27 min), are plants that gain mass via photosynthesis, taking the C atoms from atmospheric CO2. It's easy to see how much carbon is important in the mass of trees when you burn a log in a good stove: you put in some fairly heavy logs. After they have been efficiently burned, all that's left are feather-light cinders. So, plants put on weight when CO2 goes to C and O2, while animal lose weight when O2 and C go to CO2 - the carbon cycle. Now why didn't I think of that before!?
Exactly; plants use co2 to synthesise hydrocarbons, but they are also using water. Hydrocarbons are made up of hydrogen and carbon. The oxygen from the water gets released to the atmosphere
One important point here is that even though someone would consume 1kg of mass, the type of macronutrient ratio determines your hormonal response and dictates what will happen with the mass you have eaten. Eating 1kg of carbs would be different than 1kg of fat because the hormonal response is different, meaning, you would accumulate more mass in the form of bodyfat if you eat lots of carbs because of the hormonal response. In the immediate time after consuming the foodstuffs both the carb-person and fat-person would weigh 1kg more, but after a period of time the carb-person would store more of the consumed foodstuffs as bodyfat and probably have a lower output of work and thus breathing out less CO2 and H2O. This is because the CO2 and H2O is stored in the body in various forms. We also know that insulin competes with glucagon which is an energy-spending hormone. Eat carbs -> higher insulin -> lower glucagon -> lower output = more storage. And of course, the different nutrients found in foodstuffs determine other hormonal responses like satiety/hunger etc. I liked the thought experiments which make it obvious why the calorie paradigm is wrong for determining weight changes.
Funnily enough I was one of the personal trainers surveyed for that question of "where does fat go"? I answered that I had no idea what happened but I ended up asking the same question as Dr Eades, why don't we consider the weight of food in managing body weight? I even wrote a blog about it as something of a hypothesis. So cool to see others, especially the calibre of Dr Eades, come to the same idea!
I can already see the CICO ppl attach the Ribeye steak vs wheat flour by wt slide, but I believe this is the exact slide explaining why LC does better. With the Ribeye steak eaters, there is little time spent turning food into fat+ketones for energy use. For the HC wheat eaters, there is the intermediate step of turning all those carbs into fats. Add to that the effect of satiety hormones' effect (low satiety equals more eating equals higher mass intake) and you quickly understand why it takes longer for HC bodies to excrete the mass they took into their body - no matter how high the useless fiber amount.
As a chemical engineer the mass in equals mass out plus accumulation makes perfect sense to me. If my body is satisfied with a lower mass of food and it doesn’t have to excrete as much to stay at equilibrium or loss weight. I think the hormonal effects and the stress on the body from the added weight and metabolic effects play a role as well, particularly in how the body is satiated and cycles through hunger again. A high fat/low carb diet is what makes intermittent fasting possible because I don’t feel like I am starving myself most of the day.
As a chemical engineer, you should recognize that he’s not counting carbon atoms correctly and that once you do so you’ll find the kcals per gram scales with carbon per gram. There’s no mass magic here. Fat is more dense with carbon.
The mass in, mass out explanation for weight loss falls flat on its face since it doesn't account for energy value of food, which is what determines how much of it your body can even metabolize from it, and it fails to account for energy expenditure. Try comparing a 5 kilograms of lemon water to 5 kilograms of sour cream and then explain how they will have the same effect on weight gain/loss. The body doesn't store mass of food unless it has energy value and it can't burn or oxidize it unless it has energy value. If you eat the same mass of food but it contains less energy, you will have less energy to store. And if you eat the same mass of food but you burn more of it, you will reduce the amount of energy available to store in the first place and probably also the amount of existing energy already on your body if you burn more than you consume. Weight loss or weight gain is an energy balance equation, not a mass balance equation, since energy is the catalyst for all metabolic processes; not mass.
I'm glad I watch all the way to the Q&A. I've been watching Dr. Westman's videos on here and then here he pops up in the Q&A! I was like, wait a minute that guy is familiar, oh! That's the keto doc I've been watching and listening to lol
Westman is good on keto, but he adds nothing here. "Calories don't weigh anything" - So what? 😄 The human body 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 expend mass to maintain body temperature, for example. And it's not like 'calories with weight' would be required for the energy balance. It also does not matter that water can cool down without losing mass. Again, so what? The same thing often happens to a dead human body - it's giving up heat to the environment. But living humans give up mass to maintain energy state (among other things).
The questioner who said it's not useful as a pound of cake is the same as a pound of ribeye was missing the composition. As said in the presentation the ribeyes weight is over 50% water which is easily expelled as if you're into calories, has no calories.
Water doesn't matter. There are plenty of high-carb foods that have lots of water, many fruits as an example. I didn't see any real point being made by the meat/cake thing. "So what? is what I'd say. The point the video tries to make is that it's meaningful that fats are more energy dense than carbs. Well of course. But like "weight (mass) change equals mass 'in' minus mass 'out'" - there's nothing new there, nor does it matter. They all seem to be forgetting that the same thing applies on the 'out' side. Granted that fats are more energy dense than carbohydrates, but when it comes to metabolizing for energy, a much greater mass of carbs will be burned for a given amount of energy, versus fats, on the 'out' side.
I've watched this several times, and each time I'm reminded of the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Sallah tells Indy, "they're digging in the wrong place!!!"
I am a Structural Engineer myself. What you state is purely "matter of fact". I cannot imagine any engineer would see it any other way. I have recently (3 months ago) started a Keto (more carnivore) diet and this is how I came across this video now. I feel that I Innately already knew what you were saying but never expressed it or had it verbalised thus. I feel most engineers would feel the exact same way because it is the only way it could be. It felt like a Nutrition 101 class. In other words, I find it quite astounding that it has never been expressed previously. Brilliant work! Further, your point to Dr Westman that people need to use this in their future analyses is spot on. I really like Dr Westman, and I am very happy he approached your work with positivity. I think his slight hesitation is quite normal for a person who is not an Engineer no matter how intelligent they are. They often don't have the confidence to accept models as we do, in that they didn't study that way in their various fields. Ultimately my take away is that after your excretions from chemical reactions alone (from exercise, and normal body functions like your heart beating etc) , it's all about what your body decides to excrete through poop and pee, and what it decides to hold on to. The whole "calories in vs calories out" is nonsense. Some people can consume huge amounts of calories and not put on weight and others the exact opposite.
20:19 Finally someone is paying attention to units and performing science rather than the hocuc pocus pseudo science of the calories in calories out crowd.
His units are ignoring the different carbon content of fat vs. carbs per gram. Fat is more dense than carbs in carbon content by something close to the ratio of their caloric content.
Holy crap!! This presentation is amazing. I went to sleep in Kansas and woke up inside the glass pyramid at the Louvre. (That’s how amazing I think it is.) If Dr. Eades is correct, about 150 years of nutrition research and billions of dollars worth of research have face planted in the mud.
Wow...this was truly fascinating and clearly promising, for the dialog going forward.👍🏆 ...made sense to me including question at end regarding the food intake cake carbs verses meat low carb fat....I see it. That was very thought provoking. 👍Great talk!🏆on what could be very foundational solid.
Fats were originally eschewed because they contained more calories per gram and thus the thought was that because more mass would be more satiating carbohydrates would allow dieters to eat more mass at lower caloric content. Ketogenic diets seem to show that fat is actually more satiating per gram and thus the volume of food is decreased. Note that doesnt necessarily invoke a weight loss as we all know that it would be possible to eat more mass but still lose weight (the cellulose diet is a good example). We still come back to causation. I believe it also happens to be the case that the lowest mass diet happens to also produce appropriate weight regulation in humans. It makes sense that our diet would be incredibly efficient because our species had the option to choose fat as our main fuel..
And maybe as a follow up it would be great to see someone doing a research to give millions of people hope, since (as per other studies) carbs are more rewarding than drugs and not only "we" want them, but also overgrowth of candida dictates the food choices.
The fixation on energy and mass is ignoring the role of hormones. Body fat is not just food mass, it is stored fatty acids produced from carbohydrates (triglycerides) that would not be produced and stored on a low insulin diet. Body weight concerns are about obesity and not some random mass. Obesity results from high carb diets and the insulin resistance they induce. Body weight is governed by the metabolic regime regulated by insulin and other hormones (e.g. cortisol). It is not the simplistic thermodynamics of gases in closed adiabatic compartments. Energy and mass are conserved but that is not the issue.
I never could figure out the argument about the laws of thermodynamics being applied to humans... Most often when the assertion is made- they conveniently leave out the part about a 'closed system'... This video touches on the concept I am referring to when it hints that all inputs and all outputs must be accounted for and the simple fact is we poo... The CICO crowd seemingly ignores the need to balance both sides (the ins and outs as they suggest). To me this is a fatal flaw in the CICO perspective because it places emphasis not on 'what' to eat but 'how much' to eat when, in my n=1 experience, is exactly backwards.
Increase in mass comes from an increase in mass. The answer is right there. So obvious that it's been hiding in plain sight! Eat less, move more didn't quite get us there, but it seemed to make so much sense. Dump the Carbs and increase Saturated Natural Fat. Lose weight, even with minimal exercise and breathe. Exercise to build new muscle. Great talk! Thank you Dr. Eades!!!
Take it a step further. It’s not mass equilibrium, it’s carbon equilibrium. The number of carbon atoms is the real measure. Carbon in, carbon out = the new CICO 😊
yes, because once the gasses and water are removed, what's left is the solid mass like ash in a fire calories measure the energy it takes to burn but what we need on nutrition labels is the Carbon Content of each macro
So, carbohydrates give twice more mass per calorie, that is, through 800 calories of carbohydrates in the body entered 200 grams of mass, and through 800 calories of fat entered 100 grams of mass. So when you eat carbohydrates you get more mass into the body. That was dr Eades’ idea? But on the other hand, if I ate 800 calories of carbohydrates (200 grams of mass), they are also converted into 800 calories of fat (100 grams of mass). Does this mean that the mass deposited from carbohydrates in the body will eventually become half as much? So, at the ends it’s the same after all. Or I’m missing something..
Doctors amuse me. I always thought you lose weight through your breathe. I mean, think about it. When you burn gas in a combustion engine, it comes out the exhaust, right? Docs overthink sometimes.
Well yes we lose fat through breath hence breath ketone monitors but we also lose fat in urine hence urine ketone strips and we also lose fat in energy through blood hence blood ketone Glucomoter
I've worked in the meat and poultry industry. Makes me think about feed conversion in animals. Beef is 7 to 1, pork 4 to 1, chickens 2 to 1 in pounds. Humans have a feed conversion as well.
Dr Eric Westman summed it all up very well, you don't look at the calorie content, you look at the carb content. So basically, since insulin is a fat storing hormone, and carbs raise insulin levels the most, excessive consumption of carbs will cause you to gain more fat than the consumption of protein or fat.
75% of what most people eat on a daily basis is carbs..sugar…rice, potatos, pasta, bread..all convert to sugar very quickly. Throw in sodas, junk food, etc. And we wonder why diabetes is increasing dramatically now. Keto has worked for me..was never a heavy eater, but what I did learn was that wheat (grains) were slowly killing me…having negative effects on my hormones for many years. It was a ten year battle until I changed my diet. Keto. It works, and what I have learned is the food industry has changed over the years..hidden ingredients, fructose corn syrup and other ingredients that rewire our brains, (and hormones) What could possibly go wrong? Big Pharma though would digress.
Lisa, wouldn't just omitting grains work alone to balance hormones? Why not do a Wheat Free and HFCS Free Diet instead of diet where you are in continual Ketosis?
@@KJB0001 - our bodies are designed to burn fat and sugar efficiently. With all the sugary foods and vegetable/seed oils we eat and how often we eat, we are default sugar burners most, if not all, of the time. The point of being in ketosis for a long time (and, for some, indefinitely), is for healing (the brain, the heart, the body overall, if you have epilepsy - all benefit from ketones), to lose fat (when ketosis is going on, you’re in fat burning mode, and will burn body fat when not eating), and to build the mechanisms in the body to be able to have metabolic flexibility, which means it’s easy for the body to switch between sugar and fat burning effectively and efficiently without staying in sugar burner mode. There are, however, some people, who believe that being in ketosis all the time is beneficial. There are also people who have a hard time eating any carbs and stopping or who have got a lot of healing to do and going into sugar burner mode isn’t helpful to their body right now. Not to mention, if you think about what our ancestors ate, they mostly ate protein and fat. Then, they may have had carbs (far less sweet carbs) at certain points in the year, then they fasted in between kills, so they were likely in ketosis most of the time.
Maybe it is in the essence quite simple. What we are craving for, when we are hungry is basically mostly energy. We need energy to function (to move, work, digest ...). For the same amount of energy we need we have to eat more than double mass of carbs than fat. And a part of that mass difference stays with us and even accumulates. We are getting fat.
Thank you for this extremely interesting and important presentation Dr Eades. Your new proposed paradigm based on the conservation of mass in managing weight should profoundly and positively influence the future of nutrition science. Understanding the conservation of mass together with the metabolic impact of hormones, hopefully will give us the complete answer to achieving weight control and optimal health. Your new paradigm does raise some questions and hopefully researchers will take up the torch to move the science forward. Here is one question I have. If I eat 100 grams of carbs having about 400 kcals of energy in excess of my requirements and this is converted by my liver into 44.4 grams of fat having the same 400 kcals of energy, then what has happened to the difference of 55.6 grams? Did this get converted into and expelled as CO2 and water? It doesn't make sense that the 100 grams of carbs with 400 kcals of energy would convert into 100 grams of fat with 900 kcals of energy. Because where would the extra 500 kcals of energy come from?
And here’s a better thought experiment (because it has been done more or less). You only need one person. And the second law. Imagine an experimental diet and exercise such that the net effect is that one kg of fat is lost and one kg of protein (muscle) is gained. Now protein is a low energy compound (highly structured), while fat is a high entropy compound (you can put fat into the adipocyte with a spoon). The second law of thermodynamics says that to convert a high entropy compound to a low entropy compound will cost you energy. So, no weight is lost or gained but energy must have been utilized. Jeff Volek actually did such an experiment with low-carb diet and resistance training in undergraduates. There are some details but net effect is that most subjects lost fat mass and gained muscle. The combination was better than diet or exercise alone, of course, but he also compared results to that with a low-fat diet. The outcome was what you would think.
The idea that calories have no mass or weight is really fascinating to me. What I need to know is how did the researchers come up with the calories in a tsp of sugar to begin with???
Calorie is a concept is a construct for heat energy. You take food or sugar for example and combust it rapidly with high electric current in device called bomb caloriemeter. Bomb caloriemeter is surrounded with water and you measure how much temperature raised when you combust matter of food or anything else. One calorie is raising one ml of water by one degree. Problem with calories is human bodies don't burn food like in bomb caloriemeter so whole cico concept in diet is garbage.
When you combust/oxidize organic matter -- in this case glucose and/or fructose -- in the presence of oxygen you create C02 and H20. In the process, energy from the chemical bonds in the sugars is released. It's essentially the same as burning firewood, only your cells & mitochondria have a way to capture the released energy and use it power other cellular processes. Once again, it's akin to the way we capture heat from burning coal to boil water and drive a steam engine. Calories are essentially the quantification of energy contained/released by these chemical bonds. When we say 1 gram of carbs has 4 kcal what we mean is that if we burn 1 gram of carbs the energy released from the chemical bonds is enough to raise the temperature of 4 kg of water by 1 degree C. That's all. The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms don't go away, they just get arranged into a new configuration, i.e. C02 and H20. Pretty amazing, really. There is a small change in mass, but it's infinitesimal. If you converted ALL the atoms into energy (as per the Einstein E=M*C*C equation) you've have an energy release on par with multiple nuclear bombs, as described in the video.
I haven't been able to establish a signal for undermining the "calories in calories out" hypothesis. I simply don't have to struggle with relentless hunger since going keto. On top of that the cascade of health improvements I've experienced makes the whole argument moot. I still have a tendency to over eat from time to time but I'm still losing weight in spite of everything. This journey was revolutionary for me.
" breath more weight less" what an interesting title, which explains to me something i've wondered a lot about: in my family there are slim people and asthmatics, who became overweight after their diagnoses... I guess asthma makes people gain weight by restricting their breathing ability.
There was a diet guru in the 90s who suggested you could lose weight with breathing alone. I would like someone to look into that because IMHO it could be an explanation as to why some people are naturally thin. I suspect that exercise makes you lose weight because of the breathing it forces you to do.... and that is why mild exercise, like walking under 3.0 mph doesn't do much.
Asthma people usually use steroid based medications that will lead to weight gain. I used steroids for a short time and they made me eat 2x my normal diet. They also gave me carb cravings. I also Never felt full...
I heard the voice of the first comment at the end and my brain went “what I know that voice!” Funny to see Ben standing in the audience when I’m used to seeing him speaking.
The question on @48:00 that fat needs more Oxygen. I have a question on that: I don't know the exact numbers but if that's correct, why is it that when I'm training in ketosis (cycling) I can put out a higher wattage while breathing far less compared to when I train after eating carbs? Is it that carbs need less Oxygen per gram to burn or is it per Kcal? Because to me it seems like fat is the far superior fuel for sports (and I don't even mention the speed of recovery in that comparison).
Carbs have some built-in oxygen, thus the metabolic advantage for them in the human body, as far as oxidation, i.e. we don't have to supply as much oxygen. What has been documented is that with a long enough term of eating ketogenically, getting almost all energy from fats, the body gets better at it, even to the point of increasing the number of mitochondria in cells. With enough additional 'processing capacity,' somebody burning fat can make up for the all-other-things-being-equal advantage of carbs. Your experience is interesting. Others who eat ketogenically still find - the most frequent thing I see mentioned is that weight lifters can't do as heavy weights or as many repetitions - that eating some carbs improves their performance.
Mass= Energy - energy works in a nuclear reactor, but our metabolism is a little more subtle than that. A true equation in physics is easily validated by dimensional analysis- Kg= Joule - Joule is plainly ridiculous. We are not "Designed" to eat CHO- in nature we would eat Fat/Protein mainly . If we used glycogen to store energy instead of Fat we would be the size of a baby elephant. It is clear from the proportion of energy stores that we should fuel with Fat, have protein for structure and carbohydrate is a highly optional extra.
If you eat carbs and it raises your insulin, then you hold the water involved in the burning of the carbs (that weren’t necessarily part of the carb ingested, just picked up as an intermediary step, to convert them to fat and the low satiety of the carbs perpetuates eating more carbs which feeds weight gain of water) With the ribeye you lose the water as it’s converted to fat/ketones because it’s not needed to burn fat and providing the protein is not too high keeps insulin low, the fat drives satiation so you’re not wanting to eat all the time. The dry weight of the protein in the ribeye vs the dry weight of the flour is the same maybe hence the .25g/kcal?
What about the differing amounts of calories required to metabolize fats, vs proteins vs carbs? My understanding is that it takes more calories to metabolize proteins.
First person I've seen get into and make the comparison with E equals MC squared even though I say it all the time it's just as relevant as thermal dynamics and you would literally have to be converting math to energy more efficient than a nuclear bomb for thermodynamics to be relevant
we can literally breathe out and pee out excess ketones on ketosis so at least on KD we can not even begin to talk about the first rule of thermal dynamics
Of course stored fat has mass. But the body doesn't access fat stores because it's thinking, "Hey, let's cut off a few grams here..." It's doing it to get more energy. Fat deposits are definitely stores of energy - this goes to our evolutionarily-coded survival mechanism, i.e. for almost all of human history, starving to death was the problem, not being too fat.
Excellent description of mass in Mass out of the human body. With all these references of Physicians researchers who figured parts of this out many decades ago. It's the level of insulin that controls whether we burn carbohydrates or fat or muscle protein preferentially. Carbohydrates have an Alpha linkage between the glucose molecules. Cellulose has a beta chemical linkage between the glucose molecule. Animals and many bacteria cannot break beta link bonds and thus cannot catabolize cellulose. So calories contained in cellulose can not be used by either our microbiome or our mitochondria in our body.
Tl;DR: you lose mass when you lose mass, not when you convert potential energy. Just as a furnace doesn't lose fuel mass entirely until the ash is scooped out.
The thing is that the human body 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒖𝒑 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚. We gain energy, and we lose mass - the carbon dioxide and water leaving the body. Likewise, the furnace does lose fuel mass. Your example is correct that some mass remains in the ash, but usually the overwheming mass loss is during the burning. The video is really pointless. Of course weight (mass) change is 'mass in minus mass out." That's a given and always has been. And it's true that fats are more energy dense than carbohydrates - for the same amount of energy, we eat less fats than carbs. But everybody seems to be forgetting that the same deal applies on the 'out' side. There, for the same amount of energy, we will burn a lot more mass if we're burning carbs, versus burning fats.
@@rufusjohnson3800 its stupid to think that the energy we can extract from food is the same amount of thermal energy food burnt in a furnace generates. Thas why nutritional calories doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Very interesting indeed. Regarding weight loss and breathing there is a weight loss exercise named Oxycise where people lose inches just by a certain deep breathing. I've done it on and off, so I found this quite interesting.
Here is another question. In your example consuming 2500 kcal/day, the LCHF diet uses 363 grams of food versus 520 grams by the LFHC diet. What happens to the difference of 157 grams? If the person uses all 2,500 kcal, then wouldn't the extra 157 grams in the LFHC diet simply be expelled as additional CO2 and water? If the 2,500 kcals are used, it doesn't make sense that the extra 157 grams contributes to the person's mass. Therefore whether one eats either the LCHF or LFHC, if 2,500 kcals are consumed and used, then the person's weight will be unchanged.
a pound of skittles (mostly sugar @ 4cals per gram) has a different calories count than a pound of steak, which has water and fat and protein, water is zero calories and protein has a thermic effect- hence the pie graphs with green and blue sections and the point of the video
Very interesting but of course the caveat is energetic density differs between materials and the carbohydrates we eat are not necessarily preserved as carbohydrates in our body. So while I think there is something to this to build off of where one could work out some worst possible conversion in terms of energetic density, it would be impossible to truly prove as you would need to track where every single atom in a piece food goes. Although that would involve not being in a rest state anymore and therefore the equation wouldn't apply...
I have lost 75 pounds on a keto diet. I also lost muscle and felt weaker. I started to eat more carbs on days I lift weights. I have gained muscle and strength. I was worried that eating more carbs would cause me to gain weight. So far it has not. Perhaps once you reach your normal weight you can reintroduce a small amount of carbs, say around 100 grams a day and not worry about weight gain.
The wonderful thing about this way of eating/living is that there’s a basic standard that everyone can adjust to their own results after trying. If I ate that many carbs I’d still be diabetic and not for you! It’s not cultish like eating healthy in other ways.
Sounds like you were calorie or perhaps protein deficient and working out caused the body to pull protein from itself. The carbs just offset the deficiency and it is easy to eat carbs. Just a comment from studying this for 3 years. You may pay later in life for the carb intake some say.
It's not the calories it's the insulin resistance, Tim Nokes It's very simple to explain with his words. If you are storing calories i mean mass. Then you will not burn it.
Well i have a problem. I love alkohol to much, i an addicted to alkohol and that is not fun at all. When I ate only meat, eggs and some butter I felt grate When i started cheating with dairy and sugar, i felt bad and anxi. What to do? I almost stopped drinking, i was not even interested in alkohol. As soon as started eating sugar I was lost again.
Every time you have a craving for sugar or alcohol you need to eat some pure fat to send a signal to your brain and body the only fuel of choice is fat and eventually (hopefully within days) it will get the signal and start building the metabolic machinery to burn fat instead of carbs as fuel.
Good presentation for thinking about some things from a new perspective. Not sure how the Einstein mass/energy equation fits in, since there is no atomic reaction in burning food fuel. so that is just distracting and a bit flaky.
There is one huge problem with this theory. We only have roughly 2500 calories of glycogen stores in our muscles and liver because glucose is primary used for fight or flight type activities. Basically anerobic activity. Most of our day to day activity is fueled by fat at around 75%. So we have a limited amount of glycogen stores in our body because glycogen is mostly water. Water is heavy hence why most of our fuel is derived from fat. So his whole diagram about the weight of flour being lighter than meat makes no sense in terms of how the body sees and stores glucose.
I'm trying to understand your point. You've made a good case for why we predominantly store energy as fat. I understand that. What I don't understand is your comment about the weight of flour vs meat. I didn't hear him say that flour was lighter than meat (I'm not even sure what that means, unless by "lighter" you mean less dense.) All I heard was that given equivalent masses of meat and flour the meat will contain more water. I'm not saying his thesis is rock solid, I just don't think you've refuted it here. What am I missing?
Exactly. This is the "you are not what you eat" principle. 1g of carbs is not stored as 1g of carbs. It's either stored in very limited quantity as glycogen which means extra weight/atoms are added or stored as triglycerides which also adds extra weight/atoms and is actually fat. Also: Stored fat might be converted to glucose and then glucagon. So if carbs are stored as fat and ingested fat may end up as glucose, it doesn't matter how much carbs "weigh". And what do we want to lose? Stored fat and maybe water weight. I really don't know where he is going with this. maybe I'm missing something.
This ties in with what Bart Kay has been saying for a long time. The calorie is a worthless unit of measurement. The energy generated by burning food bares very little resemblance to the way the effective energy the body actually gets from the food. Weight is a mass balance issue.
A calorie is a calorie. It's like saying an elephant is an elephant. Better terminology is calorie counting is meaningless. Hormones and nutritive value outside of pure calories are the right focus.
What is happening on an atom by atom level when excess carbs are turned into stored fat? Sugar is C12-H22-O11 and a general triglyceride is C51-H98-O6. Where are the oxygens used?
If you eat carbs and it raises your insulin, then you hold the water involved in the burning of the carbs (that weren’t necessarily part of the carb ingested, just picked up as an intermediary step, to convert them to fat and the low satiety of the carbs perpetuates eating more carbs which feeds weight gain of water) With the ribeye you lose the water as it’s converted to fat/ketones because it’s not needed to burn fat and providing the protein is not too high keeps insulin low, the fat drives satiation so you’re not wanting to eat all the time. The dry weight of the protein in the ribeye vs the dry weight of the flour is the same maybe hence the .25g/kcal?
Oxygen is diatomic, so an oxygen molecule will have two oxygen atoms. The "11" oxygens on your sugar molecule, being an odd number, means we have to have more than one sugar molecule to make the equation balance. You don't end up with a lone oxygen. So, two of the sugar molecules plus 24 oxygen molecules (two oxygen atoms each) gives us 24 carbon dioxides and 22 water molecules. 2C12H22O11 + 24O2 --> 24CO2 + 22H2O If you look at both sides, you see 24 carbons, 44 hydrogens, and 70 oxygens. The body is just adding oxygen to the sugar and ending up with carbon dioxide and sugar. Similarly, you can balance the triglyceride + oxygen deal.
I suspect this third alternative is a dead end. First, we need to unravel our hunger and satiety mechanism and see whether volume and weight matters. I don't think it necessarily does, as anyone who's tried eating 400 calories of peanuts vs 400 calories of soup can attest. Second, a lot of people will think themselves into a knot trying to deal with water weight, when what we really should be considering are nutrients that are metabolism-related, i.e. protein carbs and fats. Finally, I hate to see where this will end up, with the next guru writing best selling books about how we should all weigh our food before we eat them. Haven't we heard this story before?
What should be explained in the mass in mass out is that us, like many animals have a great system to store carbs and crave for more. And there is not a storage and craving system for protein and fat, or at least not the dominant driver for mass/ energie intake.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Just discovered this and have added it to my resources for a quality and healthy life. I’m 75 am have an average glucose daily of 98, and my average daily BP is 114/72. Divorced myself of the standard American Diet 4 years ago without regret. I have zero arthritis in any form, no brain fog, and my creativity never ends. Gave up preaching about this to my friends as they are well influenced and brainwashed by the food cartels. Found that the best form of education for others is leading by example.
Onya Baz! I think it does come down to every individual to decide if they want to make the changes necessary - we're not particularly special, we've just made different choices to others. Live your best life x
✌
They're influenced, brainwashed and - unfortunately - addicted.
Good for you Barry, keep leading.
Their book, Protein Power Life Plan was the first book I read on nutrition and helped me lose over 100lbs in 2007. I've managed to reverse type 2 Diabetes snd maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle due to their teachings.
Congrats!
Good for you!
But, but...: Type 2 Diabetes is a chronic, progressive, irreversible disease, don't you know!
Me too ❤ and I’m now 81 years old and still maintaining a healthy lifestyle with ketovore for close to five years now.
I’m so happy 😃 happy 😊 thank
Lower your carbs, you lower your insulin, fat can then come out of your fat cells. You'll eat less because your body is using some of it's own fat so you aren't as hungry, and you may even exercise a bit because you have more available energy. You are not losing weight because you are eating less and exercising more, you are losing weight and exercising more because you are releasing/losing fat.
Brilliant explanation!
Yeah, and the body is happier burning lots of fat when it knows there is a constant resupply. That's why some lose more fat when eating more fat. A bit counter intuitive.
Beautifully expressed. Thank you
You are also more sensitive to leptin, so your body is better aware of your fat stores.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Ive been on carnivore diet for 4 months, best thing i have ever done. I feel like I am 18 again, i am 44. Along with exercise and walking for the last 3 months I have lost 18kg's, down from 94kg's to 76kg's. Putting on muscle at the same time. Once i get to around 12% body fat ( pretty close now ) I will lower my cardio and concentrate on more bulk, aiming to go back up to 80kg's with muscle.
Congratulations and Good luck, I hope you continue to do well 👍.
7 weeks carnivore, 10kgs down. Feel great, no gut issues, great sleep, lots of energy.
But the biggest thing for me is the lack of desire to snack. Three solid meat meals a day, lots of water, no cravings for anything, no strength loss in any of my lifts in the gym either.
Best thing I ever did
As someone who went on the first of many, many diets at age 9 (in 1966), I can say that becoming a carnivore almost 5 years ago is the best thing I´ve ever done for myself, physically and mentally. #MeatHeals #PlantToxins #CarnivoreDietForever
Wishing you luck
Funny I was telling my friends the exact same thing that I felt like I’m 17 after starting the carnivore diet 2 months ago;I’m 40. They looked at me like I’m a snake oil salesman. Glad to see I’m not going crazy healthy alone 😂
You are awesome. That picture of the Minnesota study before and after is spot on. When you are in shape/not obese, then you get thinner. That is all the obese need to know. Follow that plan. I was obese and it worked for me. Less carbs, high saturated fat.
Michael Eades is brilliant. Another superb presentation.
He’s amazing and the topic he just covered is so simple and yet no studies on it? The scientific community has had tunnel vision focused on calories for all this time. Crazy!
Just as the citation was used in the presentation - the whole world was so obsessed with calories that nobody even noticed how useless is thinking about them! Fat and proteins makes us feel satiated quicker so we don't overeat . Brilliant! And I'm loving my keto/carnivore journey in order to save myself from a faith of my slim dad (Alzheimer's disease is in fact a result of starved cells disaster, caused by not noticeable insulin resistance) and over 30 years of eating almost only plant based food.
Calorie is a calorie..
One of the greatest BS of the 20th century.
The Calories hypothesis is based on a flawed assumption.
That the human body works like a combustion chamber.
@@chkpik That doesn't negate the fact that calories alone are the determining factor in weight loss/gain
Show me a single person who lost weight eating MORE calories, eg in a surplus, or gained weight in a deficit, eg eating MORE
TLDR: there isn't one beause they don't exist
You can throw around BS terms and laud the low-carb crowd forever - but the real truth is that calorie balance is king for body weight regulation. period.
I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.
Please post your evidence below
@@backfru - check out Kelly Hogan or Emily Harveaux. Also, check out Bart Kay. Kelly Hogan, for example, was eating 1200 calories and not losing any weight. In fact, she started gaining weight back. When she started a carnivore diet, she was eating about 2400 calories and the fat just fell off. I’m not saying calories don’t matter completely. What I am saying is that there are other things at work, such as hormones, that matter more, especially if they’re out of whack. Dr. Ben Bikman has studied fat cells, and if there is too much insulin, the fat cell is unable to let go of fat.
It also goes the other way. Rebekah Farmer is one such example. She was eating 1000s of calories a day and people thought she was anorexic, because she could not put on weight. She started low carb > keto > carnivore, and her body was finally able to put on weight, eating far fewer calories than she was when she was stick thin.
There are other things that play a part, and, in fact, are more important, in fat loss/gain than calories.
@@LauraB.335 So, people who eat in a deficit, on a high carb diet, are NOT going to "let go of fat"?
If that's the case, how do millions of athletes get to low body fat levels while eating carbohydrates?
Hormones or whatever, are NOT more important than calorie balance.
This has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by metabolic chamber studies, and others.
Did Kelly Hogan write up a peer-reviewed case-report about her experiment?
Or is this just what she said on some youtube video?
See, all these examples are just anecdotes from a select few individuals, shared on social media. I'm not saying they're lying - but what else were they doing?
Did you follow them around during that time to see exactly what they were doing?
Because subjects in a metabolic chamber, controlling every single calorie they consume - will show you beyond doubt, that calories alone are the determinant of body weight. regardless of macro breakdown.
You can easily find these studies by Kevin Hall and others.
Frankly, I'm inclined to believe the data, rather than what Rebekah shared in her RUclips video.
But by all means, if you have some good quality evidence to refute this, please share it!
The Eades book informed me about the amino acid L-Leucine for maintaining muscle mass as you get older. 100% helpful.
I found a copy of Dr Eades book "Protein Power" on the bookshelf of a vacation rental. I read it in 2 days, and googled his name. That white rabbit took my down such a deep hole I never imagined, saved me from obesity and processed food addiction.
A great talk. Perhaps I can further clarify. As Mike said my colleague Gene Fine have considered this question for a while. One important paraphrase of what Mike said: we don’t eat calories. We eat grams (food). Calories are units of energy. (You can’t eat energy - maybe plants eat energy, poetically speaking). The energy is in the process. Cutting to the chase, the assumption that all food is processed in the same way is very unlikely). Talking about calories is colloquial and is okay until you reach a problem. You lose more weight on low-carb. Not always but generally. That’s observed. So the “calorie” idea is no longer useful. You have to go back to basics and ask what’s going on. We take in mass. Energy goes with the process of conversion of mass to different forms. The processes of metabolizing carbohydrate are different than metabolizing fat. The real question, then, is not why we have different outcomes for the same “calories” but, rather, why it turns out to be the same. Recognizing that “calories” may be loose talk, why does “calories in-calories out” hold at all, never mind how often. The answer is that it is in the biology - that’s where hormones and enzyme regulation kicks in. It is not an alternative to a thermodynamic analysis - it is the mechanism that controls the thermodynamics. And, janekay2002 asked what to read. If you’ve finished Protein Power, you should try Nutrition in Crisis. Now, only $11.01 on Amazon. “The calories are in the chemical reaction, not the food.” As Mike said, it is not about E=mc^2. The 4 kcal/g for carbs is for the process of complete oxidation. It’s not in the carbs (so 4 is an average. Oxidation of different carbs has slightly different calories).
Professor, can you think of a link between the chemical reaction (yielding calories) and satiety? Or are there many contributors to satiety?
What about eating cold or hot food or beverages? Cold food or drink is way below the 98.6 degree body temp or a hot beverage is over 98.6 so in a way you are consuming a positive or negative energy potential right?
On reflection, I am not sure you can find what you want to know about mass out, that is, the tissue distribution. The calculations you do show that, in fact, low carb diets in practice, provide lower food which is what “they” have been saying all along and it may be true. The real problem with CICO (I go with people who pronounce it “psycho”) is that “energy is neither created or destroyed” is a sound bite and depends precisely on the conditions. You can’t do thermodynamics and shoot from the hip. You have to define systems and environments. In the calorimeter, the system is the food and energy Is “created.” Otherwise the Atwater value for carbohydrates would be 0 instead of 4 kcal/g (In the whole system, the “created energy” is lost to the environment). Also, you have to be careful about definitions of calories. In nutrition, the definition of the calorie is not the physical entity. A nutritional calorie is the free energy (heat under high pressure) for the complete oxidation of the indicated food. Do anything else, make protein, make DNA, maintain membrane potentials, all bets are off. Bottom line: energy is in the reaction, not the substance. As you point out it is not Uncle Albert’s equation. I always say, it is not like particle physics where the mass of the particle is given in electron-Volts (energy) because of mc^2.
@@jamiehayes6714 Satiety is neuronal and behavioral. Of course, neuronal stimulation depends on the substance.
@@ProfFeinmanso by that what is bodyfat
Finally a new talk from Dr. Eades!
Simple yet profound spin on understanding energy and mass better. The balloon example is perfect
Another great talk by Dr Eades; the first person that connected prominent grain eaters to heart disease in the early Egyptians. Perhaps some of the early processed food eaters?
also, the Egyptians were known to consume seed oils as well i.e. sesame oil etc.
@@KyBrancaccio Umm, no. The 'seed oils' in question are ultra processed by modern industrial processes. Think 1900's and later.
Yes, seed oils were processed by hand as many do even today.
Yes Egypt was considered the breadbasket. And when they dig up the digs on these people they see signs of arthritis that were not present before they were such heavy grain eaters.
@@KyBrancaccio cold pressed
Excellent. So it's not a question of energy, but mass. It's not calories in, calories out, it's atoms in, atoms out, depending on which combination of atoms you eat.
What a gem of a video! Super informative and eye opening!
Thank you so much. This is a one of a kind video. And an extremely important point you've made.
Best talk and explanation for a long time, looking forward to reasearch on this❤
Thank you so much, Dr. Eades!
A corollary to the breathing out of mass in the form of CO2, (25-27 min), are plants that gain mass via photosynthesis, taking the C atoms from atmospheric CO2. It's easy to see how much carbon is important in the mass of trees when you burn a log in a good stove: you put in some fairly heavy logs. After they have been efficiently burned, all that's left are feather-light cinders.
So, plants put on weight when CO2 goes to C and O2, while animal lose weight when O2 and C go to CO2 - the carbon cycle. Now why didn't I think of that before!?
Exactly; plants use co2 to synthesise hydrocarbons, but they are also using water. Hydrocarbons are made up of hydrogen and carbon. The oxygen from the water gets released to the atmosphere
One important point here is that even though someone would consume 1kg of mass, the type of macronutrient ratio determines your hormonal response and dictates what will happen with the mass you have eaten. Eating 1kg of carbs would be different than 1kg of fat because the hormonal response is different, meaning, you would accumulate more mass in the form of bodyfat if you eat lots of carbs because of the hormonal response. In the immediate time after consuming the foodstuffs both the carb-person and fat-person would weigh 1kg more, but after a period of time the carb-person would store more of the consumed foodstuffs as bodyfat and probably have a lower output of work and thus breathing out less CO2 and H2O. This is because the CO2 and H2O is stored in the body in various forms. We also know that insulin competes with glucagon which is an energy-spending hormone. Eat carbs -> higher insulin -> lower glucagon -> lower output = more storage.
And of course, the different nutrients found in foodstuffs determine other hormonal responses like satiety/hunger etc.
I liked the thought experiments which make it obvious why the calorie paradigm is wrong for determining weight changes.
🤯🤯🤯 WoW!. Great perspective and message. Looking forward to how this will impact future thought and teachings in this space.
My late mum’s birthday. I so wanted to be there, but this is a sign
29:46 Yes! A correct diagram that makes perfect sense and has no mumbo jumbo nonsense added in to look "educated".
Funnily enough I was one of the personal trainers surveyed for that question of "where does fat go"? I answered that I had no idea what happened but I ended up asking the same question as Dr Eades, why don't we consider the weight of food in managing body weight? I even wrote a blog about it as something of a hypothesis. So cool to see others, especially the calibre of Dr Eades, come to the same idea!
Excellent! I enjoyed that, thanks.
Great lecture. Appreciated.
I can already see the CICO ppl attach the Ribeye steak vs wheat flour by wt slide, but I believe this is the exact slide explaining why LC does better. With the Ribeye steak eaters, there is little time spent turning food into fat+ketones for energy use. For the HC wheat eaters, there is the intermediate step of turning all those carbs into fats. Add to that the effect of satiety hormones' effect (low satiety equals more eating equals higher mass intake) and you quickly understand why it takes longer for HC bodies to excrete the mass they took into their body - no matter how high the useless fiber amount.
Excellent point!
Waow, your comment...opened my eyes even more to really comprehend the video,
Thanks.
I love this guy 🙂
As a chemical engineer the mass in equals mass out plus accumulation makes perfect sense to me. If my body is satisfied with a lower mass of food and it doesn’t have to excrete as much to stay at equilibrium or loss weight.
I think the hormonal effects and the stress on the body from the added weight and metabolic effects play a role as well, particularly in how the body is satiated and cycles through hunger again. A high fat/low carb diet is what makes intermittent fasting possible because I don’t feel like I am starving myself most of the day.
As a chemical engineer, you should recognize that he’s not counting carbon atoms correctly and that once you do so you’ll find the kcals per gram scales with carbon per gram. There’s no mass magic here. Fat is more dense with carbon.
@@scotbradesteems there doesn't need to be mass magic, because more energy is released when breaking the chemical bonds in fat than in carbohydrates.
The mass in, mass out explanation for weight loss falls flat on its face since it doesn't account for energy value of food, which is what determines how much of it your body can even metabolize from it, and it fails to account for energy expenditure. Try comparing a 5 kilograms of lemon water to 5 kilograms of sour cream and then explain how they will have the same effect on weight gain/loss.
The body doesn't store mass of food unless it has energy value and it can't burn or oxidize it unless it has energy value. If you eat the same mass of food but it contains less energy, you will have less energy to store. And if you eat the same mass of food but you burn more of it, you will reduce the amount of energy available to store in the first place and probably also the amount of existing energy already on your body if you burn more than you consume. Weight loss or weight gain is an energy balance equation, not a mass balance equation, since energy is the catalyst for all metabolic processes; not mass.
It's totally wrong. I was eating roughly 3500 calories a day and still losing weight. Explain this please.
@@Astronurd The body's metabolism isn't a static closed system. It is flexible and dynamic. Look up "reverse dieting" to learn more!
I'm glad I watch all the way to the Q&A. I've been watching Dr. Westman's videos on here and then here he pops up in the Q&A! I was like, wait a minute that guy is familiar, oh! That's the keto doc I've been watching and listening to lol
exactly.
Westman is good on keto, but he adds nothing here. "Calories don't weigh anything" - So what? 😄 The human body 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 expend mass to maintain body temperature, for example. And it's not like 'calories with weight' would be required for the energy balance.
It also does not matter that water can cool down without losing mass. Again, so what? The same thing often happens to a dead human body - it's giving up heat to the environment. But living humans give up mass to maintain energy state (among other things).
The questioner who said it's not useful as a pound of cake is the same as a pound of ribeye was missing the composition. As said in the presentation the ribeyes weight is over 50% water which is easily expelled as if you're into calories, has no calories.
Water doesn't matter. There are plenty of high-carb foods that have lots of water, many fruits as an example. I didn't see any real point being made by the meat/cake thing. "So what? is what I'd say. The point the video tries to make is that it's meaningful that fats are more energy dense than carbs. Well of course. But like "weight (mass) change equals mass 'in' minus mass 'out'" - there's nothing new there, nor does it matter.
They all seem to be forgetting that the same thing applies on the 'out' side. Granted that fats are more energy dense than carbohydrates, but when it comes to metabolizing for energy, a much greater mass of carbs will be burned for a given amount of energy, versus fats, on the 'out' side.
I've watched this several times, and each time I'm reminded of the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Sallah tells Indy, "they're digging in the wrong place!!!"
Wonderful intellectual discussion and presentation 👏
Wow, that was awesome. Revolutionary by the simplicity of the perspective. Love it!
I am a Structural Engineer myself. What you state is purely "matter of fact". I cannot imagine any engineer would see it any other way. I have recently (3 months ago) started a Keto (more carnivore) diet and this is how I came across this video now. I feel that I Innately already knew what you were saying but never expressed it or had it verbalised thus. I feel most engineers would feel the exact same way because it is the only way it could be. It felt like a Nutrition 101 class. In other words, I find it quite astounding that it has never been expressed previously. Brilliant work!
Further, your point to Dr Westman that people need to use this in their future analyses is spot on. I really like Dr Westman, and I am very happy he approached your work with positivity. I think his slight hesitation is quite normal for a person who is not an Engineer no matter how intelligent they are. They often don't have the confidence to accept models as we do, in that they didn't study that way in their various fields.
Ultimately my take away is that after your excretions from chemical reactions alone (from exercise, and normal body functions like your heart beating etc) , it's all about what your body decides to excrete through poop and pee, and what it decides to hold on to. The whole "calories in vs calories out" is nonsense. Some people can consume huge amounts of calories and not put on weight and others the exact opposite.
20:19 Finally someone is paying attention to units and performing science rather than the hocuc pocus pseudo science of the calories in calories out crowd.
Units count. Much mumbo-jumbo can be inserted once units are omitted.
His units are ignoring the different carbon content of fat vs. carbs per gram. Fat is more dense than carbs in carbon content by something close to the ratio of their caloric content.
Thanks for sharing this - fantastic!
Great new food for thought! Thank you!
Holy crap!!
This presentation is amazing. I went to sleep in Kansas and woke up inside the glass pyramid at the Louvre. (That’s how amazing I think it is.)
If Dr. Eades is correct, about 150 years of nutrition research and billions of dollars worth of research have face planted in the mud.
Wow...this was truly fascinating and clearly promising, for the dialog going forward.👍🏆 ...made sense to me including question at end regarding the food intake cake carbs verses meat low carb fat....I see it. That was very thought provoking. 👍Great talk!🏆on what could be very foundational solid.
Fats were originally eschewed because they contained more calories per gram and thus the thought was that because more mass would be more satiating carbohydrates would allow dieters to eat more mass at lower caloric content.
Ketogenic diets seem to show that fat is actually more satiating per gram and thus the volume of food is decreased.
Note that doesnt necessarily invoke a weight loss as we all know that it would be possible to eat more mass but still lose weight (the cellulose diet is a good example).
We still come back to causation. I believe it also happens to be the case that the lowest mass diet happens to also produce appropriate weight regulation in humans. It makes sense that our diet would be incredibly efficient because our species had the option to choose fat as our main fuel..
And maybe as a follow up it would be great to see someone doing a research to give millions of people hope, since (as per other studies) carbs are more rewarding than drugs and not only "we" want them, but also overgrowth of candida dictates the food choices.
Brilliant!!! 👍
Read Good Calories about 14 years ago. Life saver.
Brilliant!!!!!
The fixation on energy and mass is ignoring the role of hormones. Body fat is not just food mass, it is stored fatty acids produced from carbohydrates (triglycerides) that would not be produced and stored on a low insulin diet. Body weight concerns are about obesity and not some random mass. Obesity results from high carb diets and the insulin resistance they induce. Body weight is governed by the metabolic regime regulated by insulin and other hormones (e.g. cortisol). It is not the simplistic thermodynamics of gases in closed adiabatic compartments. Energy and mass are conserved but that is not the issue.
Brilliant and enjoyable talk, thank you!
Very insightful!
Wowza! Finally an explanation why high fat works on Keto. Before this talk I thought high fat was all about squelching hunger. Well done.
Danke
I never could figure out the argument about the laws of thermodynamics being applied to humans...
Most often when the assertion is made- they conveniently leave out the part about a 'closed system'...
This video touches on the concept I am referring to when it hints that all inputs and all outputs must be accounted for and the simple fact is we poo...
The CICO crowd seemingly ignores the need to balance both sides (the ins and outs as they suggest).
To me this is a fatal flaw in the CICO perspective because it places emphasis not on 'what' to eat but 'how much' to eat when, in my n=1 experience, is exactly backwards.
Increase in mass comes from an increase in mass. The answer is right there. So obvious that it's been hiding in plain sight! Eat less, move more didn't quite get us there, but it seemed to make so much sense. Dump the Carbs and increase Saturated Natural Fat. Lose weight, even with minimal exercise and breathe. Exercise to build new muscle. Great talk! Thank you Dr. Eades!!!
I really enjoyed this, well explained and thought-out. Thank you for this upload!
Take it a step further. It’s not mass equilibrium, it’s carbon equilibrium. The number of carbon atoms is the real measure. Carbon in, carbon out = the new CICO 😊
yes, because once the gasses and water are removed, what's left is the solid mass like ash in a fire calories measure the energy it takes to burn but what we need on nutrition labels is the Carbon Content of each macro
So, carbohydrates give twice more mass per calorie, that is, through 800 calories of carbohydrates in the body entered 200 grams of mass, and through 800 calories of fat entered 100 grams of mass. So when you eat carbohydrates you get more mass into the body.
That was dr Eades’ idea?
But on the other hand, if I ate 800 calories of carbohydrates (200 grams of mass), they are also converted into 800 calories of fat (100 grams of mass). Does this mean that the mass deposited from carbohydrates in the body will eventually become half as much?
So, at the ends it’s the same after all. Or I’m missing something..
Doctors amuse me. I always thought you lose weight through your breathe. I mean, think about it. When you burn gas in a combustion engine, it comes out the exhaust, right? Docs overthink sometimes.
Well yes we lose fat through breath hence breath ketone monitors but we also lose fat in urine hence urine ketone strips and we also lose fat in energy through blood hence blood ketone Glucomoter
You DO lose weight by exhaling carbon. Doctors who don't know this off the top of their heads probably need to brush up on basic physiology.
I've worked in the meat and poultry industry. Makes me think about feed conversion in animals. Beef is 7 to 1, pork 4 to 1, chickens 2 to 1 in pounds. Humans have a feed conversion as well.
Dr Eric Westman summed it all up very well, you don't look at the calorie content, you look at the carb content.
So basically, since insulin is a fat storing hormone, and carbs raise insulin levels the most, excessive consumption of carbs will cause you to gain more fat than the consumption of protein or fat.
I don’t believe insulin, to any degree, is necessary to take up fat. Plenty for the job associated with even minor protein intake.
@@yoso585 Regardless of what you believe, insulin is a fat storing hormone, per Prof. Ben Bikman.
75% of what most people eat on a daily basis is carbs..sugar…rice, potatos, pasta, bread..all convert to sugar very quickly. Throw in sodas, junk food, etc. And we wonder why diabetes is increasing dramatically now. Keto has worked for me..was never a heavy eater, but what I did learn was that wheat (grains) were slowly killing me…having negative effects on my hormones for many years. It was a ten year battle until I changed my diet. Keto. It works, and what I have learned is the food industry has changed over the years..hidden ingredients, fructose corn syrup and other ingredients that rewire our brains, (and hormones) What could possibly go wrong? Big Pharma though would digress.
Lisa, wouldn't just omitting grains work alone to balance hormones? Why not do a Wheat Free and HFCS Free Diet instead of diet where you are in continual Ketosis?
@@KJB0001 - our bodies are designed to burn fat and sugar efficiently. With all the sugary foods and vegetable/seed oils we eat and how often we eat, we are default sugar burners most, if not all, of the time. The point of being in ketosis for a long time (and, for some, indefinitely), is for healing (the brain, the heart, the body overall, if you have epilepsy - all benefit from ketones), to lose fat (when ketosis is going on, you’re in fat burning mode, and will burn body fat when not eating), and to build the mechanisms in the body to be able to have metabolic flexibility, which means it’s easy for the body to switch between sugar and fat burning effectively and efficiently without staying in sugar burner mode.
There are, however, some people, who believe that being in ketosis all the time is beneficial. There are also people who have a hard time eating any carbs and stopping or who have got a lot of healing to do and going into sugar burner mode isn’t helpful to their body right now. Not to mention, if you think about what our ancestors ate, they mostly ate protein and fat. Then, they may have had carbs (far less sweet carbs) at certain points in the year, then they fasted in between kills, so they were likely in ketosis most of the time.
Brilliant! ❤️
Maybe it is in the essence quite simple. What we are craving for, when we are hungry is basically mostly energy. We need energy to function (to move, work, digest ...). For the same amount of energy we need we have to eat more than double mass of carbs than fat. And a part of that mass difference stays with us and even accumulates. We are getting fat.
Thank you for this extremely interesting and important presentation Dr Eades. Your new proposed paradigm based on the conservation of mass in managing weight should profoundly and positively influence the future of nutrition science.
Understanding the conservation of mass together with the metabolic impact of hormones, hopefully will give us the complete answer to achieving weight control and optimal health.
Your new paradigm does raise some questions and hopefully researchers will take up the torch to move the science forward.
Here is one question I have. If I eat 100 grams of carbs having about 400 kcals of energy in excess of my requirements and this is converted by my liver into 44.4 grams of fat having the same 400 kcals of energy, then what has happened to the difference of 55.6 grams? Did this get converted into and expelled as CO2 and water?
It doesn't make sense that the 100 grams of carbs with 400 kcals of energy would convert into 100 grams of fat with 900 kcals of energy. Because where would the extra 500 kcals of energy come from?
BRB🎤
This blew me away with a total paradigm shift from calories to grams.
And here’s a better thought experiment (because it has been done more or less). You only need one person. And the second law. Imagine an experimental diet and exercise such that the net effect is that one kg of fat is lost and one kg of protein (muscle) is gained. Now protein is a low energy compound (highly structured), while fat is a high entropy compound (you can put fat into the adipocyte with a spoon). The second law of thermodynamics says that to convert a high entropy compound to a low entropy compound will cost you energy. So, no weight is lost or gained but energy must have been utilized. Jeff Volek actually did such an experiment with low-carb diet and resistance training in undergraduates. There are some details but net effect is that most subjects lost fat mass and gained muscle. The combination was better than diet or exercise alone, of course, but he also compared results to that with a low-fat diet. The outcome was what you would think.
The idea that calories have no mass or weight is really fascinating to me. What I need to know is how did the researchers come up with the calories in a tsp of sugar to begin with???
Look up a man named Wilbur Olin Atwater.
they get the calories of macros by burning them
Calorie is a concept is a construct for heat energy. You take food or sugar for example and combust it rapidly with high electric current in device called bomb caloriemeter. Bomb caloriemeter is surrounded with water and you measure how much temperature raised when you combust matter of food or anything else. One calorie is raising one ml of water by one degree. Problem with calories is human bodies don't burn food like in bomb caloriemeter so whole cico concept in diet is garbage.
they burn it
When you combust/oxidize organic matter -- in this case glucose and/or fructose -- in the presence of oxygen you create C02 and H20.
In the process, energy from the chemical bonds in the sugars is released. It's essentially the same as burning firewood, only your cells & mitochondria have a way to capture the released energy and use it power other cellular processes. Once again, it's akin to the way we capture heat from burning coal to boil water and drive a steam engine.
Calories are essentially the quantification of energy contained/released by these chemical bonds.
When we say 1 gram of carbs has 4 kcal what we mean is that if we burn 1 gram of carbs the energy released from the chemical bonds is enough to raise the temperature of 4 kg of water by 1 degree C. That's all. The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms don't go away, they just get arranged into a new configuration, i.e. C02 and H20. Pretty amazing, really.
There is a small change in mass, but it's infinitesimal. If you converted ALL the atoms into energy (as per the Einstein E=M*C*C equation) you've have an energy release on par with multiple nuclear bombs, as described in the video.
Just brilliant.
Thank you! I am going to have to think about this for awhile!
I haven't been able to establish a signal for undermining the "calories in calories out" hypothesis. I simply don't have to struggle with relentless hunger since going keto.
On top of that the cascade of health improvements I've experienced makes the whole argument moot.
I still have a tendency to over eat from time to time but I'm still losing weight in spite of everything.
This journey was revolutionary for me.
" breath more weight less" what an interesting title, which explains to me something i've wondered a lot about: in my family there are slim people and asthmatics, who became overweight after their diagnoses... I guess asthma makes people gain weight by restricting their breathing ability.
There was a diet guru in the 90s who suggested you could lose weight with breathing alone. I would like someone to look into that because IMHO it could be an explanation as to why some people are naturally thin. I suspect that exercise makes you lose weight because of the breathing it forces you to do.... and that is why mild exercise, like walking under 3.0 mph doesn't do much.
Asthma people usually use steroid based medications that will lead to weight gain. I used steroids for a short time and they made me eat 2x my normal diet. They also gave me carb cravings. I also Never felt full...
You might find it interesting to look up Oxycise. It's a certain type of deep breathing for weight loss.
@@CelineNoyce incline walking does a lot at 3 +
@@CelineNoyce susan powter
I heard the voice of the first comment at the end and my brain went “what I know that voice!” Funny to see Ben standing in the audience when I’m used to seeing him speaking.
The question on @48:00 that fat needs more Oxygen. I have a question on that: I don't know the exact numbers but if that's correct, why is it that when I'm training in ketosis (cycling) I can put out a higher wattage while breathing far less compared to when I train after eating carbs?
Is it that carbs need less Oxygen per gram to burn or is it per Kcal?
Because to me it seems like fat is the far superior fuel for sports (and I don't even mention the speed of recovery in that comparison).
Carbs have some built-in oxygen, thus the metabolic advantage for them in the human body, as far as oxidation, i.e. we don't have to supply as much oxygen. What has been documented is that with a long enough term of eating ketogenically, getting almost all energy from fats, the body gets better at it, even to the point of increasing the number of mitochondria in cells. With enough additional 'processing capacity,' somebody burning fat can make up for the all-other-things-being-equal advantage of carbs.
Your experience is interesting. Others who eat ketogenically still find - the most frequent thing I see mentioned is that weight lifters can't do as heavy weights or as many repetitions - that eating some carbs improves their performance.
The only point here is that our bodies don’t destroy the mass (atoms) of food, we harvest the energy of the bonds between atoms.
Mass= Energy - energy works in a nuclear reactor, but our metabolism is a little more subtle than that. A true equation in physics is easily validated by dimensional analysis- Kg= Joule - Joule is plainly ridiculous. We are not "Designed" to eat CHO- in nature we would eat Fat/Protein mainly . If we used glycogen to store energy instead of Fat we would be the size of a baby elephant. It is clear from the proportion of energy stores that we should fuel with Fat, have protein for structure and carbohydrate is a highly optional extra.
If you eat carbs and it raises your insulin, then you hold the water involved in the burning of the carbs (that weren’t necessarily part of the carb ingested, just picked up as an intermediary step, to convert them to fat and the low satiety of the carbs perpetuates eating more carbs which feeds weight gain of water) With the ribeye you lose the water as it’s converted to fat/ketones because it’s not needed to burn fat and providing the protein is not too high keeps insulin low, the fat drives satiation so you’re not wanting to eat all the time. The dry weight of the protein in the ribeye vs the dry weight of the flour is the same maybe hence the .25g/kcal?
What about the differing amounts of calories required to metabolize fats, vs proteins vs carbs? My understanding is that it takes more calories to metabolize proteins.
i didn't get it; what should i read?
Good calories, bad calories. Fantastic book
I humbly suggest you watch Dr Jason Fung if you haven't already done so .
Me neither 😢
Dietary calories makes no sense whatsoever
First person I've seen get into and make the comparison with E equals MC squared even though I say it all the time it's just as relevant as thermal dynamics and you would literally have to be converting math to energy more efficient than a nuclear bomb for thermodynamics to be relevant
we can literally breathe out and pee out excess ketones on ketosis
so at least on KD we can not even begin to talk about the first rule of thermal dynamics
Interesting theory. Then fat deposits are not stores for energy but stores for mass? ;)
But what is that 'mass'
Of course stored fat has mass. But the body doesn't access fat stores because it's thinking, "Hey, let's cut off a few grams here..." It's doing it to get more energy. Fat deposits are definitely stores of energy - this goes to our evolutionarily-coded survival mechanism, i.e. for almost all of human history, starving to death was the problem, not being too fat.
Excellent description of mass in Mass out of the human body. With all these references of Physicians researchers who figured parts of this out many decades ago.
It's the level of insulin that controls whether we burn carbohydrates or fat or muscle protein preferentially.
Carbohydrates have an Alpha linkage between the glucose molecules. Cellulose has a beta chemical linkage between the glucose molecule. Animals and many bacteria cannot break beta link bonds and thus cannot catabolize cellulose. So calories contained in cellulose can not be used by either our microbiome or our mitochondria in our body.
These meetings are unsurpassed. These docs are saving us. 🙏
Terbaik. From Malaysia.
I have no idea what he said.
Tl;DR: you lose mass when you lose mass, not when you convert potential energy. Just as a furnace doesn't lose fuel mass entirely until the ash is scooped out.
The thing is that the human body 𝒅𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒖𝒑 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒚. We gain energy, and we lose mass - the carbon dioxide and water leaving the body. Likewise, the furnace does lose fuel mass. Your example is correct that some mass remains in the ash, but usually the overwheming mass loss is during the burning.
The video is really pointless. Of course weight (mass) change is 'mass in minus mass out." That's a given and always has been. And it's true that fats are more energy dense than carbohydrates - for the same amount of energy, we eat less fats than carbs. But everybody seems to be forgetting that the same deal applies on the 'out' side. There, for the same amount of energy, we will burn a lot more mass if we're burning carbs, versus burning fats.
@@rufusjohnson3800 its stupid to think that the energy we can extract from food is the same amount of thermal energy food burnt in a furnace generates. Thas why nutritional calories doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Very interesting indeed. Regarding weight loss and breathing there is a weight loss exercise named Oxycise where people lose inches just by a certain deep breathing. I've done it on and off, so I found this quite interesting.
If a pound of adipose tissue corresponds to a certain number of calories, then that determines the weight of a calorie in terms of adipose tissue.
Here is another question. In your example consuming 2500 kcal/day, the LCHF diet uses 363 grams of food versus 520 grams by the LFHC diet. What happens to the difference of 157 grams? If the person uses all 2,500 kcal, then wouldn't the extra 157 grams in the LFHC diet simply be expelled as additional CO2 and water? If the 2,500 kcals are used, it doesn't make sense that the extra 157 grams contributes to the person's mass. Therefore whether one eats either the LCHF or LFHC, if 2,500 kcals are consumed and used, then the person's weight will be unchanged.
a pound of skittles (mostly sugar @ 4cals per gram) has a different calories count than a pound of steak, which has water and fat and protein, water is zero calories and protein has a thermic effect- hence the pie graphs with green and blue sections and the point of the video
Very interesting but of course the caveat is energetic density differs between materials and the carbohydrates we eat are not necessarily preserved as carbohydrates in our body. So while I think there is something to this to build off of where one could work out some worst possible conversion in terms of energetic density, it would be impossible to truly prove as you would need to track where every single atom in a piece food goes. Although that would involve not being in a rest state anymore and therefore the equation wouldn't apply...
I have lost 75 pounds on a keto diet. I also lost muscle and felt weaker. I started to eat more carbs on days I lift weights. I have gained muscle and strength. I was worried that eating more carbs would cause me to gain weight. So far it has not. Perhaps once you reach your normal weight you can reintroduce a small amount of carbs, say around 100 grams a day and not worry about weight gain.
The wonderful thing about this way of eating/living is that there’s a basic standard that everyone can adjust to their own results after trying. If I ate that many carbs I’d still be diabetic and not for you! It’s not cultish like eating healthy in other ways.
Sounds like you were calorie or perhaps protein deficient and working out caused the body to pull protein from itself. The carbs just offset the deficiency and it is easy to eat carbs. Just a comment from studying this for 3 years. You may pay later in life for the carb intake some say.
Do what works for you bro. We're all different. I've not dropped any if my lifts but it's only been 7 weeks on carnivore for me. So time will tell
It's not the calories it's the insulin resistance, Tim Nokes
It's very simple to explain with his words. If you are storing calories i mean mass. Then you will not burn it.
Well i have a problem. I love alkohol to much, i an addicted to alkohol and that is not fun at all. When I ate only meat, eggs and some butter I felt grate When i started cheating with dairy and sugar, i felt bad and anxi. What to do? I almost stopped drinking, i was not even interested in alkohol. As soon as started eating sugar I was lost again.
Every time you have a craving for sugar or alcohol you need to eat some pure fat to send a signal to your brain and body the only fuel of choice is fat and eventually (hopefully within days) it will get the signal and start building the metabolic machinery to burn fat instead of carbs as fuel.
zuz, research chromium, glutamine, gymnemma sylvestre and berberine for sugar and alcohol addiction
Good presentation for thinking about some things from a new perspective. Not sure how the Einstein mass/energy equation fits in, since there is no atomic reaction in burning food fuel. so that is just distracting and a bit flaky.
There is one huge problem with this theory. We only have roughly 2500 calories of glycogen stores in our muscles and liver because glucose is primary used for fight or flight type activities. Basically anerobic activity. Most of our day to day activity is fueled by fat at around 75%. So we have a limited amount of glycogen stores in our body because glycogen is mostly water. Water is heavy hence why most of our fuel is derived from fat. So his whole diagram about the weight of flour being lighter than meat makes no sense in terms of how the body sees and stores glucose.
How does gluconeogenesis factor into your thoughts.
But folks that are already metabolically deranged may not store, or use fats and glucose as nature intended.
I'm trying to understand your point. You've made a good case for why we predominantly store energy as fat. I understand that.
What I don't understand is your comment about the weight of flour vs meat. I didn't hear him say that flour was lighter than meat (I'm not even sure what that means, unless by "lighter" you mean less dense.) All I heard was that given equivalent masses of meat and flour the meat will contain more water.
I'm not saying his thesis is rock solid, I just don't think you've refuted it here. What am I missing?
What is your personal experience.
Exactly. This is the "you are not what you eat" principle. 1g of carbs is not stored as 1g of carbs. It's either stored in very limited quantity as glycogen which means extra weight/atoms are added or stored as triglycerides which also adds extra weight/atoms and is actually fat. Also: Stored fat might be converted to glucose and then glucagon. So if carbs are stored as fat and ingested fat may end up as glucose, it doesn't matter how much carbs "weigh". And what do we want to lose? Stored fat and maybe water weight. I really don't know where he is going with this. maybe I'm missing something.
This ties in with what Bart Kay has been saying for a long time. The calorie is a worthless unit of measurement. The energy generated by burning food bares very little resemblance to the way the effective energy the body actually gets from the food. Weight is a mass balance issue.
I have been Carnivore for 3 years. I'm 74 and feel 20.
One of my Heroes 💪
A calorie is a calorie. It's like saying an elephant is an elephant. Better terminology is calorie counting is meaningless. Hormones and nutritive value outside of pure calories are the right focus.
What is happening on an atom by atom level when excess carbs are turned into stored fat?
Sugar is C12-H22-O11 and a general triglyceride is C51-H98-O6.
Where are the oxygens used?
If you eat carbs and it raises your insulin, then you hold the water involved in the burning of the carbs (that weren’t necessarily part of the carb ingested, just picked up as an intermediary step, to convert them to fat and the low satiety of the carbs perpetuates eating more carbs which feeds weight gain of water) With the ribeye you lose the water as it’s converted to fat/ketones because it’s not needed to burn fat and providing the protein is not too high keeps insulin low, the fat drives satiation so you’re not wanting to eat all the time. The dry weight of the protein in the ribeye vs the dry weight of the flour is the same maybe hence the .25g/kcal?
Oxygen is diatomic, so an oxygen molecule will have two oxygen atoms. The "11" oxygens on your sugar molecule, being an odd number, means we have to have more than one sugar molecule to make the equation balance. You don't end up with a lone oxygen.
So, two of the sugar molecules plus 24 oxygen molecules (two oxygen atoms each) gives us 24 carbon dioxides and 22 water molecules. 2C12H22O11 + 24O2 --> 24CO2 + 22H2O
If you look at both sides, you see 24 carbons, 44 hydrogens, and 70 oxygens. The body is just adding oxygen to the sugar and ending up with carbon dioxide and sugar.
Similarly, you can balance the triglyceride + oxygen deal.
I suspect this third alternative is a dead end. First, we need to unravel our hunger and satiety mechanism and see whether volume and weight matters. I don't think it necessarily does, as anyone who's tried eating 400 calories of peanuts vs 400 calories of soup can attest. Second, a lot of people will think themselves into a knot trying to deal with water weight, when what we really should be considering are nutrients that are metabolism-related, i.e. protein carbs and fats. Finally, I hate to see where this will end up, with the next guru writing best selling books about how we should all weigh our food before we eat them. Haven't we heard this story before?
What should be explained in the mass in mass out is that us, like many animals have a great system to store carbs and crave for more. And there is not a storage and craving system for protein and fat, or at least not the dominant driver for mass/ energie intake.