I love the acknowledgment that it's hard to know EVERYTHING the members eat, or that it's hard to restrict them or identify which out of study foods were eaten. David Ludwig has spoken about a study where a store is two Mike's away or so, but what about using those who just cannot get their own foods? We have a variety of prisons and medical facilities that keep people under control for years. Even if they need to agree to the study, there are facilities where foods and activity are monitored quite well. I love the dialog! The concepts feed my mind and perhaps help feed others who have the ability to help fund studies. You are on the right track!
@@Alec_Collins78 This is 'Diet Doctor' - I enjoy hearing what the guests' diets are like. Gary Taubes gets asked this a lot. He must feel like a rock star. He eats a lot of sliced tomatoes.
Good question I wish had been asked. There was a dif discussion about pufas and the ones who said they were fine were asked what they ate and of course it was olive and avocado but just because they liked the taste. Yeah, right. If u don't use it yourself but it's fine for the rest of us to eat soybean or safflower oil...they are hedging.
Research Kevin PhD thank you for sharing this knowledge of your experiments and curiosity and consequences and key culprit and understanding . From Johannesburg South Africa 👍
Plus inflammation, lectins, oxalates, phytic acid and other phytotoxins. For my N=1 that has been the great difference between keto and carnivore. The possible confounders from the plant content are limitless. Carnivore has been such a brilliant elimination diet (eliminating all the irritants and their effects) it is super-easy to stay on. For me.
They all get neutralised when the plants get thermally processed or in such small quantities they have no negative effects on humans who are tens of thousands times bigger than insects.
@@82vitt Not for me they don't. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Happy to hear your view, but you'd surely be surprised if I abandoned my own experience and research in favour of your rebuttal. 😉
The problem with ultra processed foods is the P:E ratio. Real, whole foods contain protein and an energy source (carbohydrate or fat). The majority of ultra processed foods contain little to no protein and both energy sources. In order to meet even your minimum protein requirement for the day eating these foods, you have to over-consume energy.
Succinct and spot on.😊 Surprisingly, even fruit has protein. But it takes 1 cup to yield between 1 and 10% of the daily protein requirement, so it would take 10 to 100 cups of fruit per day for a fruitivore to supply daily protein needs. Dunno about you, but you'd have to superglue me to the toilet seat for life if I tried that.
Go read the book, ultra-processed people. It’s far more complicated than that. UPF has so many harmful effects and mechanisms of action. UPF is scary and probably the biggest etiologic factor in the global obesity pandemic.
A really interesting interview ty. Brett, am I "The Black Swan"? I wonder if going down the path of ultra processed foods as being a cause is getting side tracked? Over the years as people have had to become 2 income families, and there is no longer a carer in the house preparing food from scratch, these ultra processed foods have become more popular, and it must be hard to find test subjects who are not raised on this model. I'm 58, I think me and my 4 sisters are anomalies. My mother cooked everything from scratch. We were raised on a farm with nearly all beef in our diets, homemade wholemeal bread, home made yoghurt, home cooked beans, lentils, home made jams, pickles and preserves. Home grown eggs, a lot of milk and cheese (it was a dairy farm), lots of fresh fruit, brown rice, brown pasta, no cakes, no biscuits, no cool drink, very little ice cream. I became overweight in my early 30's, and fatty liver (My specialist didn't know what NAFL was back then). I ate a HUGE amount of fruit as a child, to the point my enamel on my teeth was compromised, my other siblings didn't. I wanted to eat more meat, but mum said "no, we don't need it, have another apple". Our mother read the Pritikin diet in 1979, our food became very low in meat, low fat, sugar and salt, and low flavour. My mother very much believed in the pyramid diet plan. I continued to cook from scratch, and still do. My other siblings not so much. I did drink a Coke in my late teens, and then changed to Diet Coke in my 30's. I ate potato chips as a treat maybe once a week, until my 30's and then only as a binge treat rarely, but I continued to eat high fibre, low fat, and got fatter. I've never done a lot of processed foods. And I have heart disease, and pretty normal cholesterol results. Funny enough two of my sisters have gone on to have weight issues, both of them have gone through a few years where they drank Coke. One of them didn't have any weight issues until her 40's when she started to work for Coca-Cola and brought home Coke. BTW, now I'm low carb, high protein, not scared of saturated fats. I still cook everything, and now to avoid seed oils I make my own mayo, and dressings. I have never eaten very much takeout foods. If I want a VERY RARE binge treat on carbs, I pop my own corn and add butter, to avoid the fake butter in commercial popcorn. My husband diabetes is not an issue any more. My parents however have stayed on their high fibre, high carb, low meat diet, and they are both 88 now. Mum has had a triple bypass, and has kidney issues, but not a diabetic as far as she knows, has had weight issues since the 80's, and now arthritis, on statins, and signs of early dementia. Dad has had prostate cancer, macular degeneration, deaf, non hogkins lymphoma, and now has surviced a 3% rare bowel cancer that caused an obstruction an bowel perforation, and now secondaries in his stomach. I guess they are 88, and avoided getting these complications earlier, but they still have them. My instinct is its not ultra processed foods, but something else (fruit, sugar, Coke and other sweet soda drinks). I see the peoples shopping carts all the time, and how its changed over the years. I'm sure it started before ultra processed foods. It did for me.
Your comment seems to all but say 'fructose', a molecule which tends to remind me of Rick Johnson's work ... and Robert Lustig of course. Here is a trail for you if you have the time and curiosity to look for something to add to the fruit / sugar / coca cola / etc. ... Dig into the interaction with the electromagnetic environment (i. e. light, both visible and beyond) & circadian rhythm ... mitochondrial coupling ... your haplogroup heritage may be of interest. Douglas Wallace on mitochondria is great, with the added realisation that mitochondrial water is subject to the same phenomenon as interfacial water anywhere else (described by Gerald Pollack - light waves will amplify exclusion zone of interfacial water, which is applicable to potentially the vast majority of our body water). Daylight infrared-A is now speculated with converging evidence to generate melatonin on site (distinct from the ipRGC pathway for pineal synthesis in darkness). Indoor living / glass ... Clothes ... sunscreen ... circadian disruption ...
What a great example how f'ed up nutrition science is. 17 years on the job, never got around to looking at proteins. My compliments for your diplomacy, this must have been tough.
I look forward to your videos to see if I can learn something new yet after carnivore for a year, and having amazing great results, it’s frustrating watching certain guests that are trying to catch up. Or still skeptical.
Yeah I know a guy that did that and lost a bunch of weight. Then his gums started bleeding and he was diagnosed with scurvy. In the 21st century scurvy!!! Idiots.
The elephant in the room, seems to be, again,... protein. I find this confusing. Ted Naiman focuses on protein. Andreas Eenfeldt created a small hype about protein when he all the sudden lost a couple of kilos after increasing protein in his diet. But that hype faded away quickly. Ted Naiman's focus on protein also gets largely ignored by the big obesity scientists. I don't get it. You both talk about something having changed in the food environment in the last 100 years that must explain the increase in obesity. You look at carbs, fat, processed food, etc. But not really at protein. The only thing that seems to be considered common knowledge is that the amount of protein that we eat on average per day, hasn't really changed in the last 100 years. And that's true. But what has changed is the amount of protein per meal, per snack, per every individual consumption during the day. If Ted Naiman's assumption, that we eat until we get enough protein, is true, lowering the amount of protein per meal/snack, explains everything. Literally everything! Are there any studies looking at weight loss (and by extention, health), that compares different amounts of protein intake. 50 gr vs 100 gr vs 150 gr vs 200 gram vs 250 gr, for example? Not to mention the fact that plant based protein absorbs on average at about half the rate of animal based protein. Also something to take into acount. If your body really only stops telling you to eat more once enough protein has been absorbed, then this should be at the top of every obesity scientist's research list. But it isn't. The focus is on carbs vs fat, calories, exercise, metabolic rate etc. But looking at all the research, there is no conclusive data. That makes a lot of sense if the real factor is protein. The anecdotes from people who say that "low carb doesn't work for me", when you ask a little further,... you always find that their protein consumption is dramatically low. I know quite a lot of obese people,... not a single one of them eats a lot of protein. We need to give this elephant in the room more attention. Once you see it, you can't ignore it. But right now it's an elephant in a grey room. People can see its contours, but it remains mostly invisible,... ignored. The few very successful nutritionists and dieticians I spoke with talk the same talk as all the others,... balanced diet, bla bla bla. "What about protein?" I ask,.... the answer: "Oh like 30% of calories." Well,... I don't know what more to say, but I'm certain that protein is the elephant in the room and I'm trying to paint it bright yellow here.
I think the other elephant in the room is exercise. If you’re doing muscle building exercise-you’re telling your body to GAIN weight in the form of muscle. So why in the world would you do muscle building exercises when you’re trying to LOSE weight? Exercise for flexibility only would be appropriate during weight loss. Exercise to gain muscle or increase endurance are exactly what “sets” your weight-exactly when you’re trying to lose weight and then we can’t budge from that undesirable set point. The discussion is so political… we are just ignoring what our actions are asking our bodies to do.
You should be looking at fat loss not weight. More muscle means more maintance calories, therefore more fat loss. Weight is not the main goal, fat loss is. Big heavy body builders have very low fat levels but can be 'hefty'.
@@peterfaber7124 let me make sure that I understand your point: a person will continue to eat until their body’s demand for protein is sated. By reducing the amount of protein in a meal, it’s causing people to search for more food and they’ll continue eating until the desired amount of protein has been ingested. Correct? I think that’s true for other nutrients and water as well as for protein. It is also true that processed foods trigger uncontrolled eating regardless of protein content. They’re packed full of things to make them hyper palatable. “Balanced diet” is the recommendation of doctors who went to medical school and believe that a person holding an MD degree is too prestigious to dabble in something as low brow as diet and certainly too educated to support any point of view other than CICO (ergo the patient is both lazy and noncompliant) and so is creating a nation of diabetics, thereby insuring full employment for endocrinologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, orthopedists, ophthalmologists, kidney dialysis centers, podiatrists, prosthetists, etc. funny how they see the “balanced diet” is the only (and incorrect) solution, but can’t see the conflict of interests that supports that answer.
I wish Dr. Scher would explain to the public that the calorie was only ever a rough approximation of the actual available energy in food. I also wish he would avoid using the term "burn" with regard to the metabolic process that creates energy. I understand they're terms that are convenient, but I firmly believe they are profound misnomers that perpetuate the misconceptions that are deliberately used by big food and big pharma to market their products.
Bret, your microphone drops out a few times here. 0:30 is one good example. If you are using a sensitivity setting, you might consider adjusting it. Seems kinda like it's clipping the quietest part?
Would like to have heard more (or something) about the hormone INSULIN! In the effect on foods!???? Kind of empty information to me? Thanks Bob the welder.
I’m a fairly metabolically broken older person who has tried low carb in the past and it worked but life intervened. I’m starting again now and anticipate it will take at least 3 to 6 months before I see any substantial weight loss although other measures may improve. Short term studies can’t possibly give accurate outcome data and allow for individual differences in genes and clinical history etc. I agree with some comments here that these studies are mostly for obtaining grant monies and ensuring jobs cf what’s happening in a clinical setting at the coalface. I really miss Dr Scher at Diet Doctor and continue to follow him at Metabolic Mind but it narrows the field a bit. Good wishes to anyone on this confusing journey and I think Kevin Hall has just made it more confusing.
Are people overthinking this whole effort? Lets take energy balance. This was touched on multiple times over the hour but not really elaborated on beyond carbs, protein, fat. So starting off by stating the obvious, isn't first order energy balance endogenous vs exogenous calorie source? If one has 50lb or 150 lbs to lose the only way that is going to happen is to switch to endogenous source of fuel, right? So the issue is how readily can one switch from exogenous sources to endogenous source? I think one flaw in the discussion was the presumption of calories as being from exogenous sources. If resting metabolic rate is 2,000 cal/day and the seamless switch to a different source is difficult, the goal is to make that fix the switch mechanism such that it becomes seamless, right? This goes to the resolution of insulin resistance. So long as there is insulin resistance the switch between insulin production to glucagon production will be time consuming. Until the effects of insulin resistance are removed the body has no choice but to lower the metabolic rate in order to match calorie intake to calorie burn. Whether one invokes two compartment model or IDM or whatever, the science says until and unless the pancreatic alpha cells get activated, only in the absence of pancreatic beta cell activation, the body will refuse to burn endogenous calories. However, once that transition occurs if the individual has a resting metabolic rate of 2,000 calories a day but only exogenously provides 500 calories that day, they will still satisfy their requirement of 2,000 calories/day by utilizing 1500 calories/day from endogenous sources. Perhaps the LCHF model is a misnomer in that what's really required is just the LC part as it is detection of carbohydrates in the blood that trigger insulin and, in the absence of carbs, particularly highly refined carbs the body will transition. Consequently I think the area to be researched is primarily how to resolve insulin resistance in such a way that the primary casualty isn't a collapsed resting metabolic rate. There are essential fats and essential proteins. There are no essential carbohydrates. Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
Excellent! 👏 i believe this is why i have lost 100 pounds following low carb diet and can still eat 1500 calories a day without gaining any pounds back. My metabolism is definitely better than when i lost weight in the past on a low calorie diet of mixed macros.
I believe it’s more to do with the stimulation of “growth” or mTOR. Protein triggers it, insulin triggers it, but fat doesn’t. So low carb, lowish protein and high fat has the best ability for weight loss. High carb can trigger it if you are constantly eating carbs or are insulin resistant and that insulin is sitting in your blood. I myself lost weight eating carbs and low fat and moderate protein by only eating unprocessed whole foods at meal times and walking (which is great at reducing insulin). 40kg and I’ve kept it off. Now I follow a longevity/youngeryou diet consisting of foods to promote health span, blueberries, broccoli, turmeric, etc while getting in a little physical activity every day.
Just love secondary analysis. Data mine and see what you come up with. Love where he is going back and seeing what the effect of the protein content of each individual meal had. As the saying goes GIGO. Glad to know that there's still a lot of good bad science out there. Keep slicing and dicing data, especially with small numbers of subjects and the world is yours. And present it to the mass media and you're a guru
But that makes sense regarding the metabolic slowdown. These people with most weight loss after 6 years have the most amount of slowdown, because they are still depriving the body the most in terms of calorie deficit with a combination of diet and exercise. In the case of more exercise predicting better long term success, since staying in a huge calorie deficit is almost impossible long term, whereas the more you exercise, the more you adapt and enjoy it.
Kevin Hall supports the energy balance model. And it is still about calories, but that’s not to say that certain foods might cause you to consume more because of things like hormones.
Calories are a measurement of heat. How it relates to food is hardly there. Labels can be up to 20% off in their calorie numbers. It’s because it’s not a very good way to measure how an individual digests and uses fuel.
25min in. Maybe the low carb group calories started to go down, but regardless, you have to be impressed by the high carb group because the dogma in the low carb community is that you can’t lose weight on a high carb diet unless you are starving yourself. This study proves them wrong.
Human nutrition is so incredibly complex. There are so many confounding factors which muddy the waters making it far from black and white. Sadly black and white thinking is common on RUclips. What is important is what works for you and what might be best for our long term health and quality of life. Sadly we do not have an answer to this question at this point in time.
One example could be the cost of what is classed as Pure White and Deadly (John Yudkin). In apx 1850 the average person could earn enough to buy apx 1 lb of sugar vs today equivalent of apx 227 lbs. So the over abundance of sugar, could be a factor?
Thank you for this interesting discussion. Has anyone ever evaluated the effect of the obesogens that are released especially during rapid weight loss like seen in the biggest loser? These obesogens are known to hijack our hormones and slow down our metabolism and it seems reasonable to assume when someone loses weight that quickly that this could have an impact? Thank you!
Excellent discussion. I learned a lot. It's evident that Dr. Hall is a real scientist who designs experiments to falsify a hypothesis and is more intrigued when the result is not what he expects as in the processed food trial.
I wonder just how many taxpayer dollars that are allegedly being spent on "obesity research" are going to guys like this, who aren't really interested in how to help people lose weight? And I wonder how much of his research on what drives people to eat more is actually helping the Big Food industry find new and better ways to tempt our taste buds, thus keeping us ever sicker and fatter. All those years of sucking up taxpayers' dollars! OMG ☹
Dr. Hall said he read *some* physiology. Sounds like he’s still a mathematician designing studies for chaos theory models he developed 20 years ago. Disappointed Dr Scher did not challenge him more. Too polite.
I appreciate him sharing the study results where two nutrient/calorie-matched diets controlled for the effect of convenience-processing food (one diet was whole food, the other was processed), and the processed food group gained weight like crazy. A great question would have been what differences there were in things like inflammation markers. I've heard a theory where chronic inflammation is like static in the body's "airwaves" that muffles leptin signaling, nutrient absorption, and other of nature's processes. When Kevin Hall was defending how "Wonderful" processed food is because it is cheap, delicious, and easy to prepare and how avoiding processed food requires special equipment and the skill to prepare it, I felt like the message was, "Good luck with that". I hope he is sincerely interested in our health, and not a Kaos Agent on the payroll of big food and big pharma.
This is like watching establishment nutrition science (very) slowly pull its head out of its collective behind. Glad he's finally coming to some very basic understanding after 17 years at the NIH? Silver lining is maybe moving forward the NIH will not be such a dinosaur institution - though listening to Nina and the nutrition guideline issue this doesn't appear to be the case.
I can't help thinking that if he had more clinical knowedge that he could have designed better studies that would have more meaningful results. For instance he talks about gycaemi load but not glycaemic index, and he refers to general calories rather than calories from carbohydrates v calories from fats.
@@eclecticcyclist Yeah, but anyone who has watched him over time will realise it's just an observation rooted in fact, zero need for conspiracy theories, he makes it so obvious.
Lose your weight, walk and keep flexible only, hit your target, then start serious weight training. When you do the weight training you’re telling your body to GAIN muscle, why would you do that when you’re trying to LOSE weight? I think heavy exercise sets your weight and heavy exercise during weight lose is telling your body to reduce your basal metabolism.
I'm intrigued by your comment and I'd like to hear more about it. Could you point me to some information on the subject? I like researching these things for personal application.
@@Mommadragon1976 it’s just my personal observation. I was told to remove all dairy and all processed foods (not just junk food, but no bread, tortilla, rice, etc anything milled) no red meat, other meats-including fish no more than three meals per week. That was a huge adjustment (menu planning nightmare-what was left to eat?) so I did not try to add any exercise. Nothing happened for 6 weeks, then I lost 20 lbs in the next 6 weeks. I was worried that it was too much to fast and started weight training again. Weight loss immediately stopped…interestingly the point of this dietary change was to reduce both blood sugar and cholesterol. They barely budged. It could be losing weight gives wacky blood tests. Currently my thinking is that fiber sops up both excess blood sugar and excess cholesterol (so diabetes drugs and statins may be a gimmick to allow continued bad behavior) and that the rda (which is a minimum, not an optimal number) for fiber may be great for some people but maybe I need a lot more. So I started taking a lot more - double the rda. The daily blood sugar has been dropping, I have to wait awhile before testing the cholesterol. There’s an interesting JAMA article comparing statin to lifestyle changes and the statin barely came in ahead “Effects of a Dietary Portfolio of Cholesterol-Lowering Foods vs Lovastatin on Serum Lipids and C-Reactive Protein” which supports the idea that lifestyle changes really help. The article is not exclusively about fiber but it made me aware that I may have more control over my future than Big Medicine would have me believe.
This convo was super disappointing IMO, I really wanted Dr Scher to hold his feet to the fire on some more of the data and overall benefits of ketogenic diet compared to other dietary patterns.
Ah yes, Kevin "always design the study to be too short so you get the result you want" Hall. Gonna skip this one due to the long history of complete dishonesty.
Ugh! I love the useful info provided, but I'm sick of listening to the guy's life history before he gets to the point! WAY too much preamble (9 min!) before they started actually discussing the topic!
I’m sorry no one is considering fast food! Too much energy fat and sugar in most of the fast food! I call I laziness no one wants to spend the time to cook anything!
I don't understand why people complicate simple things. To lose weight you need to eat less and move more. You save money as you are eating less, so no need to pay any experts. I counted calories, ate 1000 calories a day, exercised to burn 500 calories a day. I lost 60 pounds in three months. Kept it off for 8 years, what's the difficulty? It's just will power, if you want to do it you will. Know am mainly carnivore.
@@Lamz.. what makes you hungry is eating addictive snacks, which means your so hungry you eat compulsively. When I skip breakfast and lunch I can still spend two hours in the gym and the hunger disappears. It seems as you get used to eating less your stomach shrinks and you need less.
@@akhusal Your hunger disappears because your body switches over to metabolising body fat, which you had enough of. It's important to stay in that state by consuming fat and protein only. That way you won't get hungry in the first place. It's the carbs in your diet are creating the hunger sensation because of the insulin and glucose spikes.
@@akhusal That's how anorexic people talk too. They also get use to eat less by purposefully reducing their food intake and skipping meals. If you eat real food #wholefood and low sugar you'll eat when you're hungry and you won't need snacks to fill you up during the day. You might even skip breakfast too because you're just not hungry but not because you've trained yourself to purposefully eat less and skip meals. Those conversations are always centered on the current US diet but the entire world has not been filled with the current American diet yet OR not as much, so it's unfortunate to not see what others are doing right or what even American used to do (pre-processed food time) especially as it is not as complicated as IF or keto or carnivore or plantbased or low-carb, low-fat diet..... The type of people who died from COVID depending on the country is unfortunately an example of that. In Italy it was only very old people in the US it was also old people but also younger people with diabetie, pre-diabetie, overweight, obesity that added a lot to the number of deaths. Buy wholefood and cook it yourself. Cooking can be complicated but it can also be super easy. Cooking can take a long time but it can also be super fast. It's not that complicated.
@@Lamz.. I think you're right. I notice carbs make me hungrier which makes weight loss harder, but I don't think it's all carbs. Like broccoli doesn't have the same effect as bread for example. I'm not sure why, but it could be a part of what this speaker is saying is true, that eating less palatable foods is a good idea.
![Chino Pacas - Smith (ft. Junior H & Fuerza Regida) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BVK6k56X30Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr sher you are a master of diplomacy and give all of Us lessons in how to listen and engage
He wasn't silent because of diplomacy, Sher was silent because he knows Kevin knows what he's talking about and Sher has no research at all. None.
I love the acknowledgment that it's hard to know EVERYTHING the members eat, or that it's hard to restrict them or identify which out of study foods were eaten. David Ludwig has spoken about a study where a store is two Mike's away or so, but what about using those who just cannot get their own foods?
We have a variety of prisons and medical facilities that keep people under control for years. Even if they need to agree to the study, there are facilities where foods and activity are monitored quite well.
I love the dialog! The concepts feed my mind and perhaps help feed others who have the ability to help fund studies.
You are on the right track!
Inmates can buy stuff at their commissary. So many of them can I be regulated. They eat a lot of top ramen fixed up in different ways.
Nice to hear his point of view. Next time he's on could you ask him what he himself actually eats?
Why would you like to know?
@@Alec_Collins78 This is 'Diet Doctor' - I enjoy hearing what the guests' diets are like. Gary Taubes gets asked this a lot. He must feel like a rock star. He eats a lot of sliced tomatoes.
Good question I wish had been asked. There was a dif discussion about pufas and the ones who said they were fine were asked what they ate and of course it was olive and avocado but just because they liked the taste. Yeah, right. If u don't use it yourself but it's fine for the rest of us to eat soybean or safflower oil...they are hedging.
Research Kevin PhD thank you for sharing this knowledge of your experiments and curiosity and consequences and key culprit and understanding . From Johannesburg South Africa 👍
Thank you, I thought this was really interesting. I need to watch it a few more times to digest all the info.
Plus inflammation, lectins, oxalates, phytic acid and other phytotoxins. For my N=1 that has been the great difference between keto and carnivore. The possible confounders from the plant content are limitless. Carnivore has been such a brilliant elimination diet (eliminating all the irritants and their effects) it is super-easy to stay on. For me.
They all get neutralised when the plants get thermally processed or in such small quantities they have no negative effects on humans who are tens of thousands times bigger than insects.
@@82vitt Not for me they don't. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Happy to hear your view, but you'd surely be surprised if I abandoned my own experience and research in favour of your rebuttal. 😉
@@T-aka-T Yeah, you must be a different species.
@@82vitt yup. Clearly.
The problem with ultra processed foods is the P:E ratio. Real, whole foods contain protein and an energy source (carbohydrate or fat). The majority of ultra processed foods contain little to no protein and both energy sources. In order to meet even your minimum protein requirement for the day eating these foods, you have to over-consume energy.
Succinct and spot on.😊 Surprisingly, even fruit has protein. But it takes 1 cup to yield between 1 and 10% of the daily protein requirement, so it would take 10 to 100 cups of fruit per day for a fruitivore to supply daily protein needs. Dunno about you, but you'd have to superglue me to the toilet seat for life if I tried that.
Give the body what it needs in the correct ratio and we should thrive.
Go read the book, ultra-processed people.
It’s far more complicated than that. UPF has so many harmful effects and mechanisms of action.
UPF is scary and probably the biggest etiologic factor in the global obesity pandemic.
Kevin is the man! 🙌
Impressive studies he has done by any standard.
A really interesting interview ty. Brett, am I "The Black Swan"?
I wonder if going down the path of ultra processed foods as being a cause is getting side tracked?
Over the years as people have had to become 2 income families, and there is no longer a carer in the house preparing food from scratch, these ultra processed foods have become more popular, and it must be hard to find test subjects who are not raised on this model. I'm 58, I think me and my 4 sisters are anomalies. My mother cooked everything from scratch. We were raised on a farm with nearly all beef in our diets, homemade wholemeal bread, home made yoghurt, home cooked beans, lentils, home made jams, pickles and preserves. Home grown eggs, a lot of milk and cheese (it was a dairy farm), lots of fresh fruit, brown rice, brown pasta, no cakes, no biscuits, no cool drink, very little ice cream.
I became overweight in my early 30's, and fatty liver (My specialist didn't know what NAFL was back then). I ate a HUGE amount of fruit as a child, to the point my enamel on my teeth was compromised, my other siblings didn't. I wanted to eat more meat, but mum said "no, we don't need it, have another apple". Our mother read the Pritikin diet in 1979, our food became very low in meat, low fat, sugar and salt, and low flavour. My mother very much believed in the pyramid diet plan.
I continued to cook from scratch, and still do. My other siblings not so much. I did drink a Coke in my late teens, and then changed to Diet Coke in my 30's. I ate potato chips as a treat maybe once a week, until my 30's and then only as a binge treat rarely, but I continued to eat high fibre, low fat, and got fatter. I've never done a lot of processed foods. And I have heart disease, and pretty normal cholesterol results. Funny enough two of my sisters have gone on to have weight issues, both of them have gone through a few years where they drank Coke. One of them didn't have any weight issues until her 40's when she started to work for Coca-Cola and brought home Coke.
BTW, now I'm low carb, high protein, not scared of saturated fats. I still cook everything, and now to avoid seed oils I make my own mayo, and dressings. I have never eaten very much takeout foods. If I want a VERY RARE binge treat on carbs, I pop my own corn and add butter, to avoid the fake butter in commercial popcorn. My husband diabetes is not an issue any more.
My parents however have stayed on their high fibre, high carb, low meat diet, and they are both 88 now. Mum has had a triple bypass, and has kidney issues, but not a diabetic as far as she knows, has had weight issues since the 80's, and now arthritis, on statins, and signs of early dementia. Dad has had prostate cancer, macular degeneration, deaf, non hogkins lymphoma, and now has surviced a 3% rare bowel cancer that caused an obstruction an bowel perforation, and now secondaries in his stomach. I guess they are 88, and avoided getting these complications earlier, but they still have them.
My instinct is its not ultra processed foods, but something else (fruit, sugar, Coke and other sweet soda drinks). I see the peoples shopping carts all the time, and how its changed over the years. I'm sure it started before ultra processed foods. It did for me.
The sugar is the elephant in the room, next to emotional eating, carb addiction
Your comment seems to all but say 'fructose', a molecule which tends to remind me of Rick Johnson's work ... and Robert Lustig of course.
Here is a trail for you if you have the time and curiosity to look for something to add to the fruit / sugar / coca cola / etc. ...
Dig into the interaction with the electromagnetic environment (i. e. light, both visible and beyond) & circadian rhythm ... mitochondrial coupling ... your haplogroup heritage may be of interest. Douglas Wallace on mitochondria is great, with the added realisation that mitochondrial water is subject to the same phenomenon as interfacial water anywhere else (described by Gerald Pollack - light waves will amplify exclusion zone of interfacial water, which is applicable to potentially the vast majority of our body water).
Daylight infrared-A is now speculated with converging evidence to generate melatonin on site (distinct from the ipRGC pathway for pineal synthesis in darkness). Indoor living / glass ... Clothes ... sunscreen ... circadian disruption ...
What a great example how f'ed up nutrition science is. 17 years on the job, never got around to looking at proteins. My compliments for your diplomacy, this must have been tough.
I look forward to your videos to see if I can learn something new yet after carnivore for a year, and having amazing great results, it’s frustrating watching certain guests that are trying to catch up. Or still skeptical.
Yeah I know a guy that did that and lost a bunch of weight. Then his gums started bleeding and he was diagnosed with scurvy. In the 21st century scurvy!!! Idiots.
The elephant in the room, seems to be, again,... protein. I find this confusing.
Ted Naiman focuses on protein. Andreas Eenfeldt created a small hype about protein when he all the sudden lost a couple of kilos after increasing protein in his diet. But that hype faded away quickly. Ted Naiman's focus on protein also gets largely ignored by the big obesity scientists.
I don't get it.
You both talk about something having changed in the food environment in the last 100 years that must explain the increase in obesity. You look at carbs, fat, processed food, etc. But not really at protein. The only thing that seems to be considered common knowledge is that the amount of protein that we eat on average per day, hasn't really changed in the last 100 years.
And that's true.
But what has changed is the amount of protein per meal, per snack, per every individual consumption during the day.
If Ted Naiman's assumption, that we eat until we get enough protein, is true, lowering the amount of protein per meal/snack, explains everything.
Literally everything!
Are there any studies looking at weight loss (and by extention, health), that compares different amounts of protein intake. 50 gr vs 100 gr vs 150 gr vs 200 gram vs 250 gr, for example?
Not to mention the fact that plant based protein absorbs on average at about half the rate of animal based protein. Also something to take into acount. If your body really only stops telling you to eat more once enough protein has been absorbed, then this should be at the top of every obesity scientist's research list.
But it isn't.
The focus is on carbs vs fat, calories, exercise, metabolic rate etc. But looking at all the research, there is no conclusive data.
That makes a lot of sense if the real factor is protein.
The anecdotes from people who say that "low carb doesn't work for me", when you ask a little further,... you always find that their protein consumption is dramatically low. I know quite a lot of obese people,... not a single one of them eats a lot of protein.
We need to give this elephant in the room more attention. Once you see it, you can't ignore it. But right now it's an elephant in a grey room. People can see its contours, but it remains mostly invisible,... ignored.
The few very successful nutritionists and dieticians I spoke with talk the same talk as all the others,... balanced diet, bla bla bla. "What about protein?" I ask,.... the answer: "Oh like 30% of calories."
Well,... I don't know what more to say, but I'm certain that protein is the elephant in the room and I'm trying to paint it bright yellow here.
I think the other elephant in the room is exercise. If you’re doing muscle building exercise-you’re telling your body to GAIN weight in the form of muscle. So why in the world would you do muscle building exercises when you’re trying to LOSE weight? Exercise for flexibility only would be appropriate during weight loss. Exercise to gain muscle or increase endurance are exactly what “sets” your weight-exactly when you’re trying to lose weight and then we can’t budge from that undesirable set point. The discussion is so political… we are just ignoring what our actions are asking our bodies to do.
You nailed it 👏👏👏
You should be looking at fat loss not weight. More muscle means more maintance calories, therefore more fat loss. Weight is not the main goal, fat loss is.
Big heavy body builders have very low fat levels but can be 'hefty'.
@@peterrainford2578 bodybuilders eat a high protein diet. Kind of proves my point.
@@peterfaber7124 let me make sure that I understand your point: a person will continue to eat until their body’s demand for protein is sated. By reducing the amount of protein in a meal, it’s causing people to search for more food and they’ll continue eating until the desired amount of protein has been ingested. Correct? I think that’s true for other nutrients and water as well as for protein. It is also true that processed foods trigger uncontrolled eating regardless of protein content. They’re packed full of things to make them hyper palatable.
“Balanced diet” is the recommendation of doctors who went to medical school and believe that a person holding an MD degree is too prestigious to dabble in something as low brow as diet and certainly too educated to support any point of view other than CICO (ergo the patient is both lazy and noncompliant) and so is creating a nation of diabetics, thereby insuring full employment for endocrinologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, orthopedists, ophthalmologists, kidney dialysis centers, podiatrists, prosthetists, etc. funny how they see the “balanced diet” is the only (and incorrect) solution, but can’t see the conflict of interests that supports that answer.
I wish Dr. Scher would explain to the public that the calorie was only ever a rough approximation of the actual available energy in food. I also wish he would avoid using the term "burn" with regard to the metabolic process that creates energy. I understand they're terms that are convenient, but I firmly believe they are profound misnomers that perpetuate the misconceptions that are deliberately used by big food and big pharma to market their products.
Bret, your microphone drops out a few times here. 0:30 is one good example. If you are using a sensitivity setting, you might consider adjusting it. Seems kinda like it's clipping the quietest part?
Would like to have heard more (or something) about the hormone INSULIN! In the effect on foods!???? Kind of empty information to me?
Thanks Bob the welder.
You really didn't discuss fasting very much. I'd be interested in hearing about his views on fasting and obesity.
I’m a fairly metabolically broken older person who has tried low carb in the past and it worked but life intervened. I’m starting again now and anticipate it will take at least 3 to 6 months before I see any substantial weight loss although other measures may improve. Short term studies can’t possibly give accurate outcome data and allow for individual differences in genes and clinical history etc. I agree with some comments here that these studies are mostly for obtaining grant monies and ensuring jobs cf what’s happening in a clinical setting at the coalface. I really miss Dr Scher at Diet Doctor and continue to follow him at Metabolic Mind but it narrows the field a bit. Good wishes to anyone on this confusing journey and I think Kevin Hall has just made it more confusing.
Are people overthinking this whole effort? Lets take energy balance. This was touched on multiple times over the hour but not really elaborated on beyond carbs, protein, fat. So starting off by stating the obvious, isn't first order energy balance endogenous vs exogenous calorie source? If one has 50lb or 150 lbs to lose the only way that is going to happen is to switch to endogenous source of fuel, right? So the issue is how readily can one switch from exogenous sources to endogenous source? I think one flaw in the discussion was the presumption of calories as being from exogenous sources. If resting metabolic rate is 2,000 cal/day and the seamless switch to a different source is difficult, the goal is to make that fix the switch mechanism such that it becomes seamless, right? This goes to the resolution of insulin resistance. So long as there is insulin resistance the switch between insulin production to glucagon production will be time consuming. Until the effects of insulin resistance are removed the body has no choice but to lower the metabolic rate in order to match calorie intake to calorie burn. Whether one invokes two compartment model or IDM or whatever, the science says until and unless the pancreatic alpha cells get activated, only in the absence of pancreatic beta cell activation, the body will refuse to burn endogenous calories. However, once that transition occurs if the individual has a resting metabolic rate of 2,000 calories a day but only exogenously provides 500 calories that day, they will still satisfy their requirement of 2,000 calories/day by utilizing 1500 calories/day from endogenous sources. Perhaps the LCHF model is a misnomer in that what's really required is just the LC part as it is detection of carbohydrates in the blood that trigger insulin and, in the absence of carbs, particularly highly refined carbs the body will transition. Consequently I think the area to be researched is primarily how to resolve insulin resistance in such a way that the primary casualty isn't a collapsed resting metabolic rate. There are essential fats and essential proteins. There are no essential carbohydrates.
Where is the flaw in my reasoning?
None .
Excellent! 👏 i believe this is why i have lost 100 pounds following low carb diet and can still eat 1500 calories a day without gaining any pounds back. My metabolism is definitely better than when i lost weight in the past on a low calorie diet of mixed macros.
I believe it’s more to do with the stimulation of “growth” or mTOR. Protein triggers it, insulin triggers it, but fat doesn’t. So low carb, lowish protein and high fat has the best ability for weight loss. High carb can trigger it if you are constantly eating carbs or are insulin resistant and that insulin is sitting in your blood. I myself lost weight eating carbs and low fat and moderate protein by only eating unprocessed whole foods at meal times and walking (which is great at reducing insulin). 40kg and I’ve kept it off. Now I follow a longevity/youngeryou diet consisting of foods to promote health span, blueberries, broccoli, turmeric, etc while getting in a little physical activity every day.
@@danielhoward8229 Do you still eat protein as well? ...and if so how much.
Just love secondary analysis. Data mine and see what you come up with. Love where he is going back and seeing what the effect of the protein content of each individual meal had. As the saying goes GIGO. Glad to know that there's still a lot of good bad science out there. Keep slicing and dicing data, especially with small numbers of subjects and the world is yours. And present it to the mass media and you're a guru
Did I miss it? What is my take away from this? Can't find anything I can use.
If the press release differs from the study, change the press release.
0:39:00 - take note. Doubly labeled water, wth both oxygen and hydrogen isotopes incorporated into water molecules.
But that makes sense regarding the metabolic slowdown.
These people with most weight loss after 6 years have the most amount of slowdown, because they are still depriving the body the most in terms of calorie deficit with a combination of diet and exercise. In the case of more exercise predicting better long term success, since staying in a huge calorie deficit is almost impossible long term, whereas the more you exercise, the more you adapt and enjoy it.
I want to know how I can be on this weight loss study - lol
Another guy with a phd in physics. I know another one who insists its all calories. Where are the phds in biochem? They tell me it's all hormones.
It is mostly hormones 😉
Kevin Hall supports the energy balance model. And it is still about calories, but that’s not to say that certain foods might cause you to consume more because of things like hormones.
@@worldnomad2301 well said!!!
Calories are a measurement of heat. How it relates to food is hardly there. Labels can be up to 20% off in their calorie numbers. It’s because it’s not a very good way to measure how an individual digests and uses fuel.
They don't tell it's about just hormones lol
25min in. Maybe the low carb group calories started to go down, but regardless, you have to be impressed by the high carb group because the dogma in the low carb community is that you can’t lose weight on a high carb diet unless you are starving yourself. This study proves them wrong.
One thing that wasn't mentioned here (I think), not even in relation to ultra processed meals, was salt and how lack of salts affects appetite.
Human nutrition is so incredibly complex. There are so many confounding factors which muddy the waters making it far from black and white. Sadly black and white thinking is common on RUclips.
What is important is what works for you and what might be best for our long term health and quality of life. Sadly we do not have an answer to this question at this point in time.
One example could be the cost of what is classed as Pure White and Deadly (John Yudkin).
In apx 1850 the average person could earn enough to buy apx 1 lb of sugar vs today equivalent of apx 227 lbs. So the over abundance of sugar, could be a factor?
I think Rick Johnson’s fructose uric acid data is more compelling as to why ketogenic diets work rather than CIM.
That discussion was utterly fascinating
Thank you for this interesting discussion. Has anyone ever evaluated the effect of the obesogens that are released especially during rapid weight loss like seen in the biggest loser? These obesogens are known to hijack our hormones and slow down our metabolism and it seems reasonable to assume when someone loses weight that quickly that this could have an impact? Thank you!
Excellent discussion. I learned a lot. It's evident that Dr. Hall is a real scientist who designs experiments to falsify a hypothesis and is more intrigued when the result is not what he expects as in the processed food trial.
I do low carb only thing works
for me. No cravings at all
Has a 2 week RCT ever answered a question? 2 weeks on true low carb your just about fat adapted, then the magic begins.
Of course.
Wasn’t it the two week Strychnine Widow Dietary intervention? Quite conclusive.
I wonder just how many taxpayer dollars that are allegedly being spent on "obesity research" are going to guys like this, who aren't really interested in how to help people lose weight? And I wonder how much of his research on what drives people to eat more is actually helping the Big Food industry find new and better ways to tempt our taste buds, thus keeping us ever sicker and fatter. All those years of sucking up taxpayers' dollars! OMG ☹
Dr. Hall said he read *some* physiology. Sounds like he’s still a mathematician designing studies for chaos theory models he developed 20 years ago. Disappointed Dr Scher did not challenge him more. Too polite.
Basically no one seems to have any answers and everyone has conflicting info🤷♀️I just stay confused on how eat and how lose weight
It’s the seed and vegetable oils in the processed foods. He never mentioned the seed oils.
Both of you look very healthy.
Don Layman as guest?
It is calories and hormones. Both. Why can’t people accept both?
Exercise increase insulin sensitivity which could be why they had the best adaptation
I appreciate him sharing the study results where two nutrient/calorie-matched diets controlled for the effect of convenience-processing food (one diet was whole food, the other was processed), and the processed food group gained weight like crazy. A great question would have been what differences there were in things like inflammation markers. I've heard a theory where chronic inflammation is like static in the body's "airwaves" that muffles leptin signaling, nutrient absorption, and other of nature's processes. When Kevin Hall was defending how "Wonderful" processed food is because it is cheap, delicious, and easy to prepare and how avoiding processed food requires special equipment and the skill to prepare it, I felt like the message was, "Good luck with that". I hope he is sincerely interested in our health, and not a Kaos Agent on the payroll of big food and big pharma.
Final comment. His lips are moving but says very little. 17 years in research and that’s all he has?
Immediate instant distrust !!
I'll watch this because I'm interested in different points of view. But frankly, I think Kevin Hall is dishonest and immoral.
Reasoning?
Who decided you need fiber?
I used fiber via low carb vegetables to bulk up and fill my stomach so I can eat less calories in the end.
Big company-owned stooge leads the charge. get to the bank Kevin!!
This is like watching establishment nutrition science (very) slowly pull its head out of its collective behind. Glad he's finally coming to some very basic understanding after 17 years at the NIH? Silver lining is maybe moving forward the NIH will not be such a dinosaur institution - though listening to Nina and the nutrition guideline issue this doesn't appear to be the case.
Dude looks like he's aged five years in the past one.
I can't help thinking that if he had more clinical knowedge that he could have designed better studies that would have more meaningful results. For instance he talks about gycaemi load but not glycaemic index, and he refers to general calories rather than calories from carbohydrates v calories from fats.
He gets the results he wants (i.e. ones that keep him very well funded).
@@miccullen i had thought of that but didn't want accusations of conspiracy theory to distract from my initial comment
@@eclecticcyclist Yeah, but anyone who has watched him over time will realise it's just an observation rooted in fact, zero need for conspiracy theories, he makes it so obvious.
Lose your weight, walk and keep flexible only, hit your target, then start serious weight training. When you do the weight training you’re telling your body to GAIN muscle, why would you do that when you’re trying to LOSE weight? I think heavy exercise sets your weight and heavy exercise during weight lose is telling your body to reduce your basal metabolism.
I'm intrigued by your comment and I'd like to hear more about it. Could you point me to some information on the subject? I like researching these things for personal application.
@@Mommadragon1976 it’s just my personal observation. I was told to remove all dairy and all processed foods (not just junk food, but no bread, tortilla, rice, etc anything milled) no red meat, other meats-including fish no more than three meals per week. That was a huge adjustment (menu planning nightmare-what was left to eat?) so I did not try to add any exercise. Nothing happened for 6 weeks, then I lost 20 lbs in the next 6 weeks. I was worried that it was too much to fast and started weight training again. Weight loss immediately stopped…interestingly the point of this dietary change was to reduce both blood sugar and cholesterol. They barely budged. It could be losing weight gives wacky blood tests. Currently my thinking is that fiber sops up both excess blood sugar and excess cholesterol (so diabetes drugs and statins may be a gimmick to allow continued bad behavior) and that the rda (which is a minimum, not an optimal number) for fiber may be great for some people but maybe I need a lot more. So I started taking a lot more - double the rda. The daily blood sugar has been dropping, I have to wait awhile before testing the cholesterol. There’s an interesting JAMA article comparing statin to lifestyle changes and the statin barely came in ahead “Effects of a Dietary Portfolio of Cholesterol-Lowering Foods vs Lovastatin on Serum Lipids and C-Reactive Protein” which supports the idea that lifestyle changes really help. The article is not exclusively about fiber but it made me aware that I may have more control over my future than Big Medicine would have me believe.
10:45
He won’t say it but hr thinks saturated fat is bad and bet he is a plant guy. After all he is a public employee.
This convo was super disappointing IMO, I really wanted Dr Scher to hold his feet to the fire on some more of the data and overall benefits of ketogenic diet compared to other dietary patterns.
Ah yes, Kevin "always design the study to be too short so you get the result you want" Hall. Gonna skip this one due to the long history of complete dishonesty.
Do you hold the position that we need 10 years of controlled studies to conclude that smoking and junk food are bad for you? If no, why not?
@@Blurred1-h9f Well, botname, perhaps you need to clue yourself up about the discussion point before you look even more stupid.
Ugh! I love the useful info provided, but I'm sick of listening to the guy's life history before he gets to the point! WAY too much preamble (9 min!) before they started actually discussing the topic!
I’m sorry no one is considering fast food! Too much energy fat and sugar in most of the fast food! I call I laziness no one wants to spend the time to cook anything!
Host get to punch lines and let guest do same. Too much context.
Why do I get the sense that Kevin Hall is somewhat disingenuous about his motivations.
Maybe I have to listen again but I don't think I learned much from this interview
I don't understand why people complicate simple things. To lose weight you need to eat less and move more. You save money as you are eating less, so no need to pay any experts. I counted calories, ate 1000 calories a day, exercised to burn 500 calories a day. I lost 60 pounds in three months. Kept it off for 8 years, what's the difficulty? It's just will power, if you want to do it you will. Know am mainly carnivore.
Well you don't have to under-eat and be hungry in order to lose weight. That increases the chance of success, and requires less will power.
@@Lamz.. what makes you hungry is eating addictive snacks, which means your so hungry you eat compulsively. When I skip breakfast and lunch I can still spend two hours in the gym and the hunger disappears. It seems as you get used to eating less your stomach shrinks and you need less.
@@akhusal Your hunger disappears because your body switches over to metabolising body fat, which you had enough of. It's important to stay in that state by consuming fat and protein only. That way you won't get hungry in the first place. It's the carbs in your diet are creating the hunger sensation because of the insulin and glucose spikes.
@@akhusal That's how anorexic people talk too. They also get use to eat less by purposefully reducing their food intake and skipping meals. If you eat real food #wholefood and low sugar you'll eat when you're hungry and you won't need snacks to fill you up during the day. You might even skip breakfast too because you're just not hungry but not because you've trained yourself to purposefully eat less and skip meals. Those conversations are always centered on the current US diet but the entire world has not been filled with the current American diet yet OR not as much, so it's unfortunate to not see what others are doing right or what even American used to do (pre-processed food time) especially as it is not as complicated as IF or keto or carnivore or plantbased or low-carb, low-fat diet..... The type of people who died from COVID depending on the country is unfortunately an example of that. In Italy it was only very old people in the US it was also old people but also younger people with diabetie, pre-diabetie, overweight, obesity that added a lot to the number of deaths.
Buy wholefood and cook it yourself. Cooking can be complicated but it can also be super easy. Cooking can take a long time but it can also be super fast. It's not that complicated.
@@Lamz.. I think you're right. I notice carbs make me hungrier which makes weight loss harder, but I don't think it's all carbs. Like broccoli doesn't have the same effect as bread for example. I'm not sure why, but it could be a part of what this speaker is saying is true, that eating less palatable foods is a good idea.
This guy's busy saying nothing yawn