I also turned off mid-video ads so you can get through it uninterrupted; hopefully RUclips doesn't add them back in. Let me know your thoughts. 0:00 - Introduction 0:57 - DO NOT SKIP TO THE CONCLUSIONS [I WILL SEE IT IN MY ANALYTICS AND HAUNT YOU] 2:26 - Your Body "In Flux" 8:18 - Simple Understanding of Fat Gain and Loss 10:35 - What controls Hormones? 13:18 - What is Metabolism? 18:35 - Calories In vs Out 19:21 - Calories vs Hormones 26:25 - Keto vs Carb Diet 33:45 - Understanding Keto and High Carb with Metabolism 36:20 - Certain Nutrition still have OTHER Advantages 37:44 - Shifts in Metabolism 39:35 - Conclusions/Take Aways 40:32 - THANK YOU Some More Evidence Hormones are Regulated by Metabolism: Glucagon Release by Blood Sugar Levels affecting ATP: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279127/ Peptide YY by Fat Content: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17726080/ Glucagon-Like Peptide triggered Release by Amino Acids and Glucose increasing ATP: diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/55/Supplement_2/S78 The examples continue, but you get the idea.
Thx a bunch for your videos! What i would really like to know in this low carb vs high carb discussion is (1): Is there an advantage in the form of faster health gains or regains regarding getting fasting insulin down to a normal level from a ketogenic diet over a high carbohydrate diet when calories are the same in both groups and what about in the longer perspective? (2): It is known that exercise decreases insulin resistance. Does this only affect the tissue involved in exercise or also the brain cells? If it also affects the brain cells then how much compared to the muscle cells if there is a difference and why? :)
@physionic soooo - what I got out of the last 42 min of my life was "there is no hope for you, your body will force you to stay fat, Fatty." did not hear any solution, just that everyone is wrong that claims that there might BE a solution, and that there IS no solution , your body will just keep you fat, it might allow you to get FATTER, but if you ever try to LOSE fat it will find ways to defeat you, you are screwed. Awesome. This is depressing AF.
You lost me on the metabolism and hunger. It is common knowledge, and you don't need a degree to know it, that obese people are hungry all the time despite not being in a caloric deficit, and people who go into low-carb diets experience a reduction in hunger despite being in a caloric deficit. And these people are arguably in a caloric deficit given that the only 2 molecules that partake in this very specific metabolic process of oxidation into ATP are glucose, or rather glycogen, and triglycerides, not even fat in general. If you reduce the amount of glucose your body absorbs to nothing or almost nothing while eating until satiation, the rest has to come from the very limited amount that your liver can make, which means that your body will experience the "caloric deficit" you mention without feeling hungry, which directly contradicts your proposed model as people experience hunger on caloric restrictions specifically because they do high carb low fat diets. This also ignores another key component of metabolism which is the absorption of nutrients itself, which you never even mentioned in the video for reasons I don't understand since that would in part explain why a lot of people still lose a lot of body fat by eating a low carb, High Fat diet consistently. Also since insulin is the hormone that signals the inclusion of fat into adipose tissue, a reduction in insulin means a reduction of fat that goes into the adipose tissue regardless of a higher fat intake even when taking ASP into account as, despite your spectacularly deceitful imagery, your insulin will decrease much more than you ASP will increase. Moreover, as you said, the whole "energy expenditure" model you advocate for can only work on very short time frames, and if there's one thing to know about fat loss is that what matters is what you do long term. And since your "energy expenditure" (which is an inaccurate term for simple reasons I'll mention a bit later) varies with your sex, activity level, height, weight, age, and plenty of other factors that may vary through time, then it would be a very foolish idea to provide long term recommendations, like lifestyle changes, base on metrics that are not gonna be accurate after a couple of weeks especially if those changes imply becoming a slave to food, having to constantly monitor and calculate exactly how much you eat contrary to what 99.99999% of living creatures on the planet do. As for why "energy expenditure" is an inaccurate framework, is due to the law of conservation of mass you mentioned at the beginning: matter cannot be transformed into energy and vice versa. Given that your body works on chemical reactions, energy is not the main component but a by-product, and since this metric is based on a very specific process that most of the nutrients that your cells need do not partake in, then this is a marker that ignores 99% of the actual metabolism, is missing the forest for the tree in front. A more accurate depiction, and one that can be easily explained without lying to everyone, would be that your metabolism is the collection of chemical reactions that facilitate the distribution of nutrients, such as amino acids, cholesterol, triglycerides, vitamins, glucose and minerals from the bloodstream to the cell walls and then into the cells themselves. Some of those reactions produce heat and is this incidental conversion from chemical energy to radiant heat that allows your body to stay at a somewhat constant temperature. This does not break, or argue against, the laws of physics, it doesn't ignore hormonal activity and it doesn't disregard other critical metabolic processes just to latch on to 1 simple number to let us pretend that the universe is based on math and not the other way around. Not only that, despite your criticisms against the hormone base model, your whole concept of metabolism is still reduced on just one very specific process and it's not even accurate about it when the people who promote the hormonal model take into account, not only this oxidative process in much more accurate terms than you, but also the impact that other nutrients or stresses have not only on fat loss but your overall metabolic health. Sure if you semi-starve yourself you might lose fat, but you're still starving yourself. In conclusion, there's no reconciliation to be had for a model that does not take into account how things affect your body outside of mere fat gain or fat loss, especially if the model is inaccurate and its measurements do not hold true for more than a couple weeks.
Wow, I almost didn't notice you conflating overall energy expenditure with the basal metabolic rate at the end. If you have two people with different heights and weights they would still have different overall "energy expenditure" despite having the same rate of non-exercise activity thermogenesis due to the difference in the number of cells, sure, but if your metabolism is actually slowing down that's a bad sign and you can know for sure that that person will, not only stop losing fat at some point, but experience a lot of other symptoms like being really cold and suffering aches and pains and a reduction in the autoimmune function. So I don't think a would trade feeling sick and cold all the time just so that I can eat a small plate of pasta that will make me feel hungry and miserable after 30 minutes, thank you.
You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining basic metabolism that the average person who is not a medical student should be able to comprehend. Well done sir! I am a 66 year old male who used to be morbidly obese according to the opinions of two medical doctors. I was also plagued with several chronic health conditions for decades. I had great success with a regiment of aggressive intermittent fasting by eating just one meal per day in a two hour window. I stopped eating all sugars, and drastically reduced my carb intake. I stopped eating all highly processed foods, and prepared every meal myself from mostly locally produced, organic, non GMO whole foods. I have been doing this for just over two years now. In the first 2 to 3 months i lost about 60 pounds of excess fluids and body fat without any increase to physical activity at the time. Even though i do eat one very big meal every day, it is very possible that my caloric intake is also reduced from my prior eating habits that involved consuming more frequent, smaller meals throughout the day with higher amounts of sugars and carbs. Over time, i was also able to reverse all of those chronic health conditions as well. The fatty liver condition was gone. The edema in the feet and lower legs was gone. And because of that edema i was prone to easy bruising and wounding of the lower extremities, healing would take forever, and cellulitis infections requiring hospitalization occurred a couple of times. But with the edema gone, so was the constant threat of cellulitis. I also suffered with peripheral neuropathy in the feet. That was the most stubborn of my conditions that also subsided. The nerve damage was eventually and apparently repaired. I also had COPD symptoms from decades of smoking. Even those symptoms subsided. No more chronic cough. No more wheezing. And no more shortness of breath, or at least not as it used to be. And i am still a modest smoker. Imagine that. I feel as though i am in full control over my weight. I do see modest weight gain when i 'cheat' and enjoy a cookie or two, croissant or some ice cream on a hot day, lol. But when i go without those items, and cut back a little on the portions of what i consume, my weight goes right back down. You might think that the aggressive change of the OMAD regiment would be a difficult transition, especially for someone of my age with decades of poor eating habits. But for some reason i was able to adapt immediately with relative ease. Thanks again for taking the time to make your highly valuable RUclips content! You are a valuable and precious resource to humanity! My very best wishes for your future success with every venture you pursue!
It's great to have an objective view such as yours to the entire concept. The number of views may be less, but please keep making such videos, you won't believe how much effect it has had on my understanding and outlook.
@@Physionic Thanks for explaining why my 175 pound weight loss is just my imagination ! Factors you failed to consider, is how high carbs diets increase your set point and hunger !
I am 79. I have been experimenting with my diet since about 1972, starting with Adele Davis. I've done zero fat vegan all the way to high fat carnivore and everything in between. I have tried all of these for extended periods of time, meaning years at a time. The only way I have ever felt normal is when I eat zero carb/carnivore. So I will eat that way until I die, as long as meat is still available.
Im glad for your success, but you do know true carnivores eat the stomach contents of their prey first, right? These are plants, since they don't routinely eat other predators. So one big salad before eating raw organs, blood, and last is muscle meat. Do you eat your carne raw? Starting with organs and blood?
@mowthpeece1 I've been thinking about consuming blood for my iron deficiency... hmmm... maybe the lack of organs and blood is why 1/3 of the world have iron deficiency?
The issue with calories is that the chemical process measured in the bomb calorimeter to give off heat (oxidation reaction) and give you a calorie estimate is not the same chemical reaction process for producing ATP in your body. They are different amounts of energy in different chemical reactions with completely different reagents. Whether you have an abundance of ketones or an abundance of carbohydrates impacts how ATP is generationed. I'm sorry .. A calorie is not a calorie. Not every item you eat produces the same items or amino acids when desolved in you digestive system. You don't want to discuss the details.. But the details are exactly what the big food companies want to obviscate. 300 calories of a highly processed item like a twinkle and 300 calories from a steak do not produce the same chemical reactants in your digestive system. They do not produce the same amount of atp for your cells. They do not produce the same amount of waste. The do not contain the same amount of protein. The do not have the same impact on blood sugar. They do not have the same impact on fatty liver or A1C. In fact, everything is different. The details are what is ACTUALLY happening. The type of fat (saturated vs not) and the length of the fatty acid chains determine if the item is taken directly to liver via the portal system or fully processed by the digestive system. Same with the type of carbohydrates. Fructose and glucose are procesed completely differently. Fructose goes directly to liver for processing. Ketones being produced or not completely alters the atp producing mechanisms and chemical equations utilized to produce atp. Are you generating your own glucose from fatty acids and protein or are you eating super high carbohydrate foods? Have you consumed something that blocked absorption or that increased absorption (hard to absorb certain vitamins without fat is one example, certain plants block absorption of other vitamins, etc.) The exact chemical reactions that take place are completely controlled by the output of the chemicals as they enter the digestive system. The exact thing you ate is directly responsible for those chemical reagents. 500 calories of highly refined carbohydrates does not have the same impact on fat stored in your body as 500 calories of meat. All of this means that a calorie is not a calorie to your body. A calorie is the amonnt of energy an item gave off in a bomb calorimeter. Sawdust will produce 'calories' in that device. You will get no energy from eating sawdust. So a calorie is not a calorie. Sorry Doc.
The idea behind KETO is not that it changes the caloric balance, but that it affects hormones differently and it affect the efficiency of mitochondria to utilize fat energy versus glucose pathway. So, KETO affects the DESIRE for eating. The reduction of craving makes it not only easier to cut calories but somewhat more effortlessly. This can lead to the ability (and even natural desire) to do intermittent fasting (proven to cut total calories consumed) and dropping to two meals a day or even one meal a day. Longer fasting is also made easier. Anecdotally, people feel more energy even while in a caloric deficit. Going back to the mitochondria, if the mitochondria is better set up to utilize fat molecules, then when in a caloric deficit, the efficiency of uptake from the emitted fat molecules from fat cells will be more effective and feeling of energy will be better sustained. You can probably answer whether these last 2 statements make sense, but I would stand by the basic themes.
Yep. I feel bad for anyone who watched this video and took away that they should go on eating tons of carbs and sugar because "calories are the primary metabolic driver". Yes, that statement is true, but calories are not the primary HUMAN BEHAVIORAL driver. We don't buy calories at the store, we buy products, many of which have been engineered to be as "craveable" as possible. This craveability just so happens to rely on sugar.
Agree with you, today I do IF and do Jiu Jitsu on the last hour of fasting, and do my best train on years, I don't do KETO, but my main sources of carbs are fruits, eat a lot of meat and fruits, but when I decide eat sugar in cookies or icecream or a pizza, my cravings just go up, but honestly with fruits I have no issues.
The issue with keto is that it doesn’t make you lose fat any faster or better than calorie restriction. Cause on one side of the coin it does turn up fat burning, but people forget about the other side of the coin, which is that it also turns up fat storage . Which is why research where kcals and protein are equated show no difference in fat loss
I agree with you. My own experience with Keto is that it strongest effect is the reduction of craving for food. Therefore it is effortless to reduce calories. Today I am good with two meals a day.
I have just discovered your channel and have since been binge-watching your content. Just excellent! As a former high-performance coach and lecturer in sport and exercise science, I am stunned by how many 'experts' fail to teach, and seemingly to grasp, the fundamentals. As it seems to be with so many fields, it is though even they are driven by passion and ideology rather than science. It is so refreshing to see someone else so passionate *about* the science.
Low carb diets make people less hungry. It is much, much easier to eat less when you're less hungry. Also, hyperinsulenemia has a lot of downstream effects (insulin degrading hormone preferentially targeting insulin over amyloid plaque, anyone?)
Great stuff! I remember a little bit about this from my Cell Biology class last year. This all starts to be really important once you start looking at individuals with different diseases and conditions, as the diets/lifestyles needed can change. Lots going on!
Please conduct a comparative analysis of the low-carbohydrate and low-fat approaches, not only focusing on weight loss but also considering overall well-being, cognitive performance, sleep quality, body composition, and so on. Thank you!
My brother and I have had such a comparison. My diet of choice is LCHF (so-called, Low-Carb/High-Fat, or Keto). His was a 'vegan' diet, which I assume was low fat. By low fat, I mean fewer than 10% of calories from fat and oils. I easily lost weight with no hunger - NO HUNGER! He lost weight also, except that his hunger was never satiated. He said he would eat until his stomach could hold no more food, and he was still hungry. About the only thing he could eat in a restaurant was a dry salad, and maybe boiled potatoes.What a grim life! And it didn't keep him from developing prostate cancer.
Hey Nick, you taught my freshman year Health 1000 class. Just wanted to say you really motivated me to learn more about health and fitness and helped to guide my decisions in college. I'm in the process of watching this all the way through but let me just say how relevant this is. So much misunderstanding of how metabolism works on the internet right now from people who read Fangs book and think they've found the answers. I am also a huge proponent of fasting but I think that the insulin point is way too harped on and I look forward to watching you bring some real facts to the discussion Keep up the good work and providing good content.
Hi, one of my favorite times of my life thus far was teaching your class, and this may be one of my all time favorite comments. This is incredible - I hope things are going well with your decision; what major did you end up pursuing? And yes, fasting is wonderful, no doubt. I use it, myself - simply the understanding behind fasting is less than ideal when we're discussing certain individuals.
@@Physionic I'm a Health and Fitness Specialist with a minor in nutrition. I remember thinking "this dude has got it going on he's like a swole nerd that learned all this stuff and now is jacked and really smart. I hope you don't take that the wrong way because that's the path I'm trying to take myself now haha. Yeah that's kind of been a guiding frame work for me in college the last few years. Work out hard and use that focus and motivation to channel it into my schoolwork. But thats kind of how I saw you and it helped motivate me haha. I'm in a biochemistry and metabolism class right now which has helped me actually be able to comprehend some of the more higher level concepts you discuss on here. I graduate this year and I want to try and watch you and other people on youtube to help me continue to learn after graduation when I'm in the workforce.
That's really amazing. I'm so glad I could help in my small way. Put a huge smile on my face. I wish you all the best with your studies (are you taking Dr. Cortright's class in metabolism?), and I hope you continue to learn and stay motivated as you progress in your career as a HFS. You rock - keep it up.
Take a look at the Vermont Prison Study. They wanted to measure metabolic outcomes with a 10% increase in body mass. The more they fed the subjects, the faster their metabolic rate. Eventually they were feeding them 10 000!!!! calories per day to increase body weight. As soon as the study ended, ALL subjects returned to their normal weight. That is what a healthy metabolism does. Upregulates accordingly to attain homeostasis. However, obesity is NOT normal situation. Lipodema for example: a metabolic auto immune disease that will fat gain with 5% carbohydrates intake. A healthy metabolic subject is COMPLETELY different to a diseased metabolic subject.
Apparently it is YOU who should take a look at the study because you very clearly have not read it. The study says diddly squat about metabolic rate, because measuring "metabolic outcomes" wasn't their goal at all, rather, it was to investigate adipose tissue cellularity. As for body weight and composition changes, what happened was exactly what you would expect from following the CICO model: The participants gained weight and body fat with reduced physical activity and increased caloric intake, maintained their increased weight while being fed maintenance calories, and then *lost that weight and fat again with reduced caloric intake and increased physcial activity* , which, as you so happened to omit, was part of the study as well.
Sorry but I disagree with the statement that your metabolism doesn’t turn off. I think you train your body to substantially reduce its metabolism when you sit in front of your computer for 8+ hours per day.. you have a normal BMR for living a normal life-one with more movement than a bathroom break every 3 hours and a substantially reduced to as close to zero BMR for when you’re barely living, because when you sit like that you’re barely living. Sure you can try to game it by exercising before or after but you can’t overcome the lower respiration, lower heart rate, lower body temperature that happens when you’re an obedient office worker…
According to Google, 1.5 lbs of beef contains approx 2,259 calories. I eat this amount of beef daily, sometimes more, and I lose weight daily. When I was calorie counting to lose weight at 1,300 daily calories, I was gaining weight and depressingly hungry all the time. CICO isn't real. Not according to my bathroom scale anyway. 185 lbs to 146 in the past 5 months doing this. A calorie is not simply a calorie. It gets broken down into various materials - not just "burned". A calorie unit of Snickers bar is not the same as a calorie unit of healthy meat. This is why CICO is extremely misleading ideology.
@marcusdiaz81 I dont know your height, weight or activity level, but as a normal male, working out, you cannot gain fat on 1300. It could be water due to heavy salt intake over a short period. Or maybe you had cheat days? If people gained weight long term on starvation, then starvation wouldn't be a problem in poor countries.
THANK YOU...Getting older (70) and having had issues with triglycerides forever, and now weight gain ASP finally becomes known. Teh body seems to have so many back up systems for getting a job done. THANK YOU, not only did I not skip, but I'll also be sure to watch this several times...
Pardon me if you have dealt with this in the video, but I didn't fully understand what was said because English is my second language and I get easily distracted.(I did not skip tho😂) But I got some problems with calories in and out theory, and I am hoping if somebody could enlighten me with these issues I have. The main issue I got here is that everything is calculated based on approximation. Sure there will be actual number of calories you either consumed or burned, but in reality you can never know exactly how much your body need to maintain the same shape and size, not to mention the caloric value of (for instance)a mango I had this morning will not be the same with what they tested on the lab to be listed in fatsecret. I do think calorie deficit or calorie counting diet definately works. But because of the flaw that everything's counted approximately, I think it's no better than saying "you will lose weight if you eat less than you need and move more than you ate." Although this is true, you don't have to have master's degree to know that. (Not to offense anyone) The second problem or a mystery I have is that calories in and out does not explain why you have stagnant phase while losing weight. I am not talking about ppl who lose will power and sneak in some junk food into diet. But there will be millions of ppl including myself who religiously stick to a diet, counting and weighing food intake, but hit a wall for a while(this takes up to weeks to even almost a month) and then the weight starts to drop again. I don't think it can be explained by naturally decreased metablism because as you mentioned, metabolism can't just drop few hundred cals one day and then decide to get higher few weeks later. I even experienced (quite often actually) you get pass this stagnation of weight loss by having a massive cheat meal. You work out as usual, you eat freaking healthy diet food as usual, but one day the scale decides to stick to a number for a while. You keep going as usual but no weight loss for days. You try to incorporate a bit more exercise but NOPE! Your scale just loves the number and won't let go for even up to a month. Then one day you get so sick of diet and the number you see everyday, you feel like WTF and go on a colosal binge. You wake up the next day morning feel like shit to step on a scale but somehow not only you didn't gain weight but the number finally went down. How is that possible in calorie in and out theory? That episode is not my wishful thinking but what I have experienced so many times in my life as a yoyo dieter. And I am 100% sure that I am not the medical anomaly who experienced the miracle. When I am on a diet, I usually eat around my 'approximate' basal metabolism inbody machine tells me, accompanied by around 300~500 calories worth workout daily(again approximately calculated by motion detective devices). I try to measure my weight in a controlled condition(in the morning, after a cup of black coffee and pooping😂) I mean if calrories in and out theory works, shouldn't I be losing weight almost non-stop? But in reality weight loss always comes in really uneven, bumpy downward curve instead of beautiful smooth downward line every dieter would dream. I know this is rather old video you uploaded, but I hope I could hear some insight from you about this mystery I have so that I may go through this phase easier, or at least with an answer😂
Over time your body not only adapts to lower energy source intake (caloric restriction) but also to increased energy usage. So if you eat much less and exercise more your body tries to compensate in this scenario by slowing down metabolism. It's complex process so it's hard to explain in a few simple mechanisms but there is such adaptation. Another interesting thing is that processing food you eat also requires energy. For example it takes 1-2 calories to digest one gram of protein (which contains 4 calories so after digestion you get only 2 calories). Processing carbs and fats is not so taxing metabolically. There are a lot of other processes going on but in general processing of food and energy in your body modifies how much energy is used so using just "static" calories in/calories out is oversimplification. Hormones play a role, as mentioned in this video. Thyroid function can make you gain or loose weight more or less depending on how it function. Fastest fluctuations in body weight is related to changes in water retention. It's important to stay hydrated but there are some factors related to died. Eating a lot of sugar and salt will make your body retain more water so first big drop after starting diet will be from less water retained, not fat loss. Also if you are in calorie deficit and you don't have enough protein intake and resistance training you will start to loose not only fat but also muscle. This will lower your energy expenditure over time so you can no longer be in a calorie deficite. For long term fat loss it's good to build some extra muscle or at least do your best to maintain muscle mass. Muscles are build in much slower rate than fat is lost and are much more dense so to a degree you will look slimmer while reducing body fat. You can also utilize much more energy during exercise with more muscle mass so it also will support fat loss. There are probably more factors in play but I hope that this give you some idea why weight is often lost to a certain point and then remains constant regardless of sticking to a calorie deficite died
The way I usually frame the calories in-calories out problem, or the suggestion to "eat less move more" is not that it's false (it's not), but that it's not particularly helpful. In practice, what, when and how much we eat affects us in different ways. It also seems highly likely that different people respond differently to various eating patterns. And one thing we've lost over the last few decades, in the modern food environment, is the ability (for many people, at least) to regulate our weight, and sort of course-correct. Because while people may have faced periods of starvation or food insecurity well into the 20th century (and still do in many parts of the world), it's not as if people in Western countries in the 1950s or 60s experienced a lack of food (in most cases), but they still remained thin. Even looking at different countries today, my native Sweden is definitely getting fatter, but it still has an obesity level that's about half of Colorado (the thinnest state in the U.S.). I can assure you, people are not going hungry. And this is where I think food quality comes into the picture, and specifically the presence of highly palatable foods that appear to drive people to eat past their natural satiety signals. So in that sense, I think hormones affect eating behaviors a great deal, it's just not really at the level of basic metabolism.
At 33:05 you are explaining a high carb / low fat intake scenario, showing the uptake and release of fats. I wonder: all of a sudden, a fat release from the fat cells into the blood stream is possible although insulin (high carb) is present? Why are your insulin levels low in this example? At the same time you are speaking of a HIGH Carb intake. In my opinion fat release is blocked for hours as long as insulin is present….Why are you missing the point to tell in this example, that fat release is blocked by insulin? Thank you for clarification.
But if ketosis suppresses ghrelin, most who became obese in a carb based metabolic state don't face the ravenous hunger in a fat fueled state and would tend to be hypocaloric. I used to eat a bunch of candy at work cuz it was there and I was so hungry and I don't even really like candy. Now I can completely control when and what I eat. It's really the other benefits of keto that I find superior to when I was a mostly whole food lacto-ovo vegetarian. There's so much more to ketosis too like the capacity for ketones to fuel the brain when glucose uptake is compromised, the supression of some inflammation, being able to wake up and not feel "groggy", etc. For those of us with metabolic dysfunction from the standard diet, keto can work wonders
"All of the molecules are in perfect flux, converted to CO2 and energy..." How does this elucidate anything? This is "simplified" beyond reason. You can't have a mass balance with energy as a product. You can perhaps use calories as a proxy for nutrition mass (it would be incorrect without a lot of adjustment), but you can't call ATP usage thermal energy and you can't have an oxidation product along with an energy in a mass balance. What about inefficiencies, losses, use of food for growth. It's NOT a first law situation: our body tries to be a steady state system with lots of controls that we are trying to overcome in order to lose fat stores and return to proper operation. "Running at a caloric deficit" has not worked for many people.
Let me explain it for those who don't understand why keto is the only diet that can work, for many people. Many of us suffer from raging hunger pretty much the whole day if our carb intake is high, were high carb intake is defined as more than 20 g total per day. Then if we stay low carb our appetite is under control and eating let's say 1800 calories per day becomes possible. Let me also once and for all debunk this channel and others that talk about reviewing various studies that show that low carb does not result in weight loss and is not healthier. These people are defining low carb with as high as 50 g of net carbs per day - this is not even remotely low carb for the kind of person for whom keto is the necessary diet. Of course if you're eating high fat with more than 50 g of net carbs you will get fat, and if you're the kind of person who should be on keto, you will get morbidly obese in months. This is why you must listen to doctors like Dr bikman and Dr Fung who understand the different metabolic situation of those people who must be on keto.
I literally never said any of that, so thank you for the straw man. Additionally, I have content on how keto can be a great method for weight loss. So…
@@Physionic thank you for the reply! My comment about the studies was not based on this video but another one where you reviewed a set of studies. I have seen this not just on this channel but all over the place where studies that do not know what real keto is are cited as representing that, and it is hugely misleading. In your video you mentioned that there was an odd discrepancy between the North American and European and Asian results. This would be because the exact details of what each diet comprised beyond simply having been labelled low-carb are critical. I know you're not anti-keto however given your own metabolic health, you are likely not seeing/experiencing the significance of the hormonal situation, and that therefore for some people it is not a choice between high-carb low-fat and low-carb high fat, because only one of those two options has a remote chance of working for them. Other than that your explanations of cellular level mechanisms are fantastic which I really appreciate, and please do check out dr. Bikman if you haven't already, as his work is likely right up your alley. Thank you for the work you are doing!
"…that means you're eating no protein, and you're gonna die." The record for fasting is over a year, and he didn't die. Fasting means (among other things) not eating protein. Yes, if you stop eating protein you are going to eventually have issues, but there's a lot of nuance here.
My understanding of what Drs. Fung, Lustig, Jamnadas, etc., are saying is that BOTH calories and hormones are determinative of weight loss/gain/maintenance. Contrary to the standard calories-in-calories-out model, a dieter also has to consider insulin levels. If he's eating, say, 1500 calories/day, but taking those calories in via multiple small meals spread throughout the day, then his insulin level will remain high throughout the day and his fat will remain in his fat cells. So what matters is calories + insulin + timing. Plus, of course, the quality of the calories matters.
A person burns more than 1500 calories a day just laying down doing nothing. There is zero chance of not pulling from stored fat on a diet like that. The timing is only a factor for controlling hunger signals. When calories are equated, you will get the same result regardless of meal timing.
another factor to give more weight to is the effect of the hormones produced on the end result of calories taken in . IE: if the hormones make hunger... more calories are likely to be taken in and vice versa. Sure, if you take in fewer calories you'll lose weight. But the craving to eat is not a small matter in the outcome of level of calories. .If you only pay attention to the calories, you put yourself at a real disadvantage for dealing with the cravings and lack of satiety.
It’s just calories, because they are the “driver” to those hormones. I cannot directly manipulate my hormones in an effort to gain or lose weight, but I can manipulate my calories…which then manipulates my hormones… The modifiable habit for weight loss/gain is at the simplest level, calories. We are not an exception to a good old balanced chemical equation:)
From the most recent studies, food timing does not matter when calories are equated when it comes to fat loss... But from my own personal experience it does.. and this will not be liked by many of the so called experts and gurus.. but at least for me.. and it really makes sense.. one meal per day (calories equated) is WORSE for fat loss than spreading the meals out over the day. My theory is that when you dont eat, you dont have the energy incoming and your body stops figiting, your mitochondria stops decoupling (wasting energy via heat production) and overall you are using less energy via neat than you would if you eat spread out during the day. The whole time restricted fasting craze is all about reduction of caloric intake due to not being able to eat the same about in one meal that you would if you ate during the day. Longer fasts like 24 to 48 or even 72 hours in my opinion are more useful but done sparingly like once a month or so. Again... Just my own opinion
This is my first video of yours that I am watching and I am so happy that you are not only a passionate educator but an articulate one. Thank you for this public service, so many of us really appreciate this kind of breakdown!
Excellent Video especially on ASP (I think you meant acylation stimulation protein rather than acetylation SP). Calories definitely count - as do the hormonal factors especially in obese folks because they have far greater amounts of ASP, NPY, leptin levels (oft leading to leptin resistance and constant desire to eat which is why keto works for them due to the satiety) than regular folks who are not overweight. I think the other thing to mention is Resting Metabolic Rate which will decrease with continuous caloric restriction (and thus also stimulate hunger hormones) which is why you need to vary your fasting and non-fasting schedules (calorie up and down, smaller and larger windows of fasting) + exercise to stimulate your metabolism to get out of a plateau which both people on keto and non-keto diets get. Anyway so glad you did this video because strict metabolomic studies have shown that both high carb, low fat vs high fat vs low carb have the same amt of fat loss over several weeks (actually the higher carb one lost a tiny bit more weight) though this was done in folks who were not too metabolically deranged.
I'm 27 minutes into the video, and I haven't heard you mention that the fat we consume doesn't get pushed into fat cells. The fat in fat cells is created from excess glucose that the body needs to find storage for. If you eat too much fat, it's excreted, not stored. If you eat too much sugar, it's turned into fat and stuffed into fat cells (and other places). Additionally, so long as you continue to eat sugar, the fat is created and stored but not allowed to be accessed and used for energy. So, if you eat carbs all day long, your body will use carbs for energy, but won't ever go for the fat that you stocked away previously. This is why so many humans resemble tanker trucks full of fat that they can't burn off; they eat sugar all day long in the form of carbs. PS there is no way that counting carbs and counting calories are equally sustainable ways to lose weight over the long haul, and keep it off. There are too many people documenting success on low carb than has ever been documented by counting calories. See Weight Watchers for proof. I heard WW just purchased the rights to some new weight loss drug, btw. Hmmm.
@Physionic 99% of sugar people consume is NOT converted to fat? How is that possible? The evidence is walking (or riding scooters) all around us. Are you going to argue that all those overweight people are fat because they consume too much fat? No, it's because they consume too much sugar (in all forms). Everything I said in my comment is true, notwithstanding whether or not actual fat is absorbed by fat cells directly to any extent. Put that part aside, then. The rest is true.
That's literally not true. If you ate 800 calories a day of pure sugar, you're definitely going to lose a ton of bodyfat. The only reason people on keto lose so much weight is because it's extremely difficult to eat an excess of calories. Even if you ate 6 eggs a day and 30 ounces of ribeye, that's only 1800 calories. The majority of people are going to lose weight. Also, you CAN gain fat on carnivore if you eat too much
@@conca324 If you tried to lose weight by eating 800 a day of pure sugar a day you would make yourself sick. It's not even a diet that's possible to do. Secondly, when you learn to burn fat instead of sugar, sugar cravings subside, and even if you're hungry, you're not "starving", as it feels like when you are a sugar-burner. So even stipulating that a low-carb diet reduces calories, it's much easier to go about your day without dying of hunger, obsessing over food, bringing to bear extreme willpower, and then finally giving in to the ice cream. Low-calorie low-carb diets of fat and protein are easy to sustain because your body resorts to burning the fat you're carrying around when it needs energy, rather than screaming for more sugar and threatening to completely shut down if not fed said sugar.
@@lvrichardson7966 obviously I'm not recommending someone try to lose weight by eating 800 grams of sugar haha. Although, I will say the RUclips channel Abs and Ice Cream went 100 days consuming 2000 calories worth or ice cream and 500 calories worth of protein powder per day. Not only did he end up losing 30 pounds (most of it bodyfat), but according to his bloodwork, he actually got healthier
If staying low calorie over time works for you, great. For me, I've lost and kpt weight off with a combo of watching calories, low carb to keep my blood sugar stable, and intermittent fasting/time restricted eating. IF means early dinner and brunch, not breakfast AND lunch. I find, for me, eating too many carbs just triggers me to eat more, then eat again in an hour or so. I'd rather be burning fat than burning off carbs all the time.
You were in a caloric deficit when you lost weight regardless of how you created that caloric deficit. IF can be one pathway to a caloric deficit. So can a vegan or a carnivore diet.
@@veniqerveganism cult is so bad that people hate them. Do carnivore only when you need to reverse some kind of disease or autoimmunity. Else, do omnivore diet heavily more on meat and eggs with decent amount of fat and decent or low amount of carb
@@veniqer If he was in a caloric deficit he'd be having hypothermia. But on a serious note, "calories" are not an accurate way to measure energy intake, causing people to necessarily undereat, creating issues in itself. Labels can be off on calories by 20%, so already you're working with bad information. Then you have to factor in the thermic effect of food, how much energy you are using to break down food in the first place. Then how much is going to waste via excretion. It's simply impossible to accurately measure in calories, a cool new phone app is not going to help you. Humans do not eat "calories" they eat mass.
Another important hormone is thyroid, in that when it's low you have no energy to do physical activity and yet your hunger doesn't decrease. Getting on the right side of thyroxin allowed me to lose 28 lbs in 3 months.
Yes? Is it all so simple? What if you are insulin resistant? What if you have stored glucagon thru entire body? Are you loosing fat also at the beginning? How long do you need to start loosing fat? I think that body first using stored glucagon, or not? What about protein(muscle)? How much are you loosing muscle mass at which diet?
Nic, thank you so much for making this video. You have a real gift for explaining complex things in ways that are easy to understand. Keep up the good work! Like many Americans, I gained about a pound a year after age 30. Since my mid-40's, I have tried all kinds of popular diets, including low fat, vegetarian, Zone, Weight Watchers, Paleo, Keto, and Fasting. I lost some weight, but always gained it back. I finally learned about the importance of insulin from Dr. Fung, Dr. Sten Ekberg, and Professor Ben Bikman, and that understanding has been so helpful. Our body seeks homeostasis. When our blood sugar gets too high, we release insulin, which stores that excess energy for future use. I think that you and I can both agree that as long as insulin is high, we cannot access our stored fat. People on low fat diets know how cold and almost frantically hungry they get when their blood sugar plummets. Over time, their metabolism slows down. Low fat diets are miserable and unsustainable. Just ask The Biggest Losers. When it comes to keto, eating fat does not result in weight loss. In fact, instead of burning your stored fat, you are burning the calories you are eating. But keto taught me something that is very important and practical. Before cutting calories, it is CRITICAL to: 1) be fat adapted; 2) keep carbs and insulin low. When you eat a high carb, low fat diet, you are constantly cutting off access to the very energy sources you are trying to use. When you are fat adapted, it is easy to cut calories because you are getting your calories from your stored fat. You may be bored, but you are not really hungry. Dr. Ted Naiman finally taught me what should have been self-evident from the very beginning. His book, the PE Diet, gives a very clear explanation of why we have an obesity epidemic, and what every overweight person needs to do to burn off their stored fat and regain their health. Cut carbs. Cut fats. Eat adequate amounts of protein. Exercise. Sleep. Stay hydrated. Cutting carbs solves the insulin problem. Cutting fats solves the calorie problem. Eating protein solves the muscle loss problem. Exercise and sleep are the two most important things you can do for your health and longevity. After an obese person becomes lean, they can get their energy from fats AND/OR carbs. As long as they eat adequate protein and a balanced number of calories, they will stay lean. As long as they do strength training and aerobic exercise, they will optimize their strength, their lean muscle mass, and their health span. Voila!
Thank you! The importance of keto and/or fasting for enabling fat loss when previously unable to lose and keep it off seems to be beyond his recognition. There can be a time at which you have to shut off the insulin.
@BigPictureYT, your comment is so wise. Thanks a lot for your time, to explain with such ease. Appreciate also the last french word: voilà ! Hello from France, Danielle
somehow it seems like you omitted to say that carbohydrates get converted to glycogen and then to fat... So consuming carbs = consuming fat.. its even worse... Carbs have many problems.. first of all you eat more of then before you feel sated.. Fat gives you feeling of fullness within seconds of consuming them..
Excellent video! I agree that metabolism drives hormonal activity. But this begs the question: what drives metabolism? The answer is the level of activity and stress in our lives. And this doesn't factor in the quality of our food supply. In our world where a good portion of people are sedentary and experience constant and considerable stress, and are fed by a collection of engineered food (engineered to be addictive...), the result is poor metabolic health - type II diabetes, obesity, etc. How do we fix this? Eat good food, be active and manage stress. This is simple to state, but difficult to achieve... Much more could be said about the negative impact of our synthetics (plastics, VOC, etc), our food supply and the plethora of medications and supplements that surround us. It's hard to be a healthy person in this world.
Food is not just its chemical composition. Food is its chemical composition _and_ its mechanical structure. You'll digest, absorb, and respond to an intact piece of plant or animal differently than you would to the same item, exactly the same molecules, if it's ground to a paste before you eat it. -- It's not heat and CO2 that our food turns into. It's heat, CO2, and water. -- The energy your cells _need_ is a tiny fraction of the energy your cells typically use. When people are starving, they may only burn something like 1200 kcal per day, and they survive, even though their weight would be stable at 2000 kcal/day under normal conditions. -- You said "acetylation" stimulating protein. Did you mean acylation stimulating protein? -- Fat loss is not caused by tautologies. Fat loss is caused, somehow, by having just started a new regimen, whether it's diet, exercise, or some of each. Every fat person in the world, by the time we're actually fat rather than just kind of overweight, has lost hundreds of pounds on multiple different diets. Every diet works wonderfully, for most people, for a little while. Every diet (or at least every diet that bothers with it) has reams of short-term studies showing that it works wonderfully. It's not about being at a particular weight, as it would be if what mattered were the physics of moving a 200-lb body versus a 250-lb body. You can do exactly the same thing at exactly the same weight, but if you're two cycles later, when you weigh 20lb more at the start and have lost 20lb, the results will perfectly track where in the cycle you are, and not track at all with your actual weight. Almost every fat person has, in at least one of those cycles, kept a food diary, faithfully recording every bite of food, until weight loss stops even though food intake stays down and exercise stays up. So if you tell us we're all lying, we know better. None of it makes a difference. Every diet leads to substantial weight loss at first, well beyond what can be explained by loss of glycogen and water. Every diet leads to net weight gain usually within a year, two years max. I've even had cycles where I start by getting in shape and building muscle while eating as much as humanly possible -- high-water-content, high-fiber, low-saturated-fat food of whichever macronutrient ratio the medical authorities were recommending at the time, but lots and lots of it -- and it didn't matter. I still lost weight at first. Yes, it's a tautology that calories in minus calories out equals net change in calories in the body. But it tells us nothing, because that's what tautologies do.
If the dieter has insulin resistance, they will have abnormally high insulin levels both after eating and after not eating for 12 hours. High insulin revels inhibit fat metabolism forcing the liver to turn protein onto glucose to feed the cells. A calorie deficit during high insulin levels results in loss of bodily protein and very little fat. Get insulin resistance resolved then a calorie deficit will result in primarily fat loss. Or, a prolonged major calorie reduction, over time, can also result in fat loss due to lower total calories results in lower carb consumption. IR just happens slower. Also, fatty liver has been shown to slow the metabolic processes of the liver, hence lowering the metabolic rate. But yes, agreed that calorie in/out is a necessary component of weight change.
Thanks so much for your videos! I’m a family med doctor practicing in Georgia and I see a lot of patients who struggle with obesity who are trying to lose weight. I’ve recently watched a few of your videos, and they have been really helpful in learning about what the research says in regards to weight loss, hyperlipidemia, diabetes management, ect. I always try to practice medicine with an evidence based approach, and I will say that your videos have helped me with that. I do have a question about this video. You talk about metabolism as being the primary driving factor for fat loss, which I understand. However, what is the primary driving factor for metabolism and how can we ultimately control it? Is it fasting, increasing physical activity? Since this seems to be an important part of fat loss, does anything seem to have a substantial effect on metabolism? Thanks!
There is a very big difference between a normal metabolic profile and a sick metabolic candidate. When in a healthy state, it is EFFORTLESS losing or maintaining weight. Eat when hungry, move a bit and glow with health. HOWEVER, endocrine dysbiosis can make fat loss impossible without fixing root cause: eat less: gain weight. Exercise profusely: gain weight. Thyroid health, cortisol levels, liver function, estrogen and testosterone levels, leptin resistance, microbiome, pathogens such as Candida and numerous other factors impact metabolism. Never trust a skinny chef, never believe an always been slim nutritionist or dietician!
I don't have the qualifications of the guy who made this video. I can appreciate how much he knows about how mitochondria work and I do have a theory I'm exploring which involves mitochondrial health in relation to multiple diseases. My grandmother has Alzheimers. MY father has type-2 Diabetes. I have personally struggled with weight gain my entire life staring from when I was old enough to be aware of my condition. I've listened to a man named Dr. Robert Lustig speak about his experience with children in Memphis, TN as a pediatrician as well as many other trained physicians, scientists and doctors. I've listened to his theories of metabolic health. I may one day read his book 'Metabolical.' Of all the content I've read or listened to it seems to me that there are two common denominators when it comes to disfunctional mitochondria by my estimation. Those would be excessive fructose consumption in the absence of fiber, and excessive consumption of hyper-palatable processed foods which often have added sugars as well. My theory at this point in my journey and research is: Cell metabolism is destroyed by the over consumption of fructose or the production of fructose due to the over consumption of high glycemic foods or processed foods. Once the cells become inefficient, the basal metabolic rate drops, you get more hungry and expend less energy on a cellular level, then eventually develop the disease profiles which follow genetic predispositions, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Alzheimers, etc. I never obtained a degree in any of these things. However, science is my all time favorite subject and I'm trying to use it to help my loved ones and friends and hopefully many more people along the way. I hope, even if I'm not entirely correct, my thoughts here can help you since you are helping others.
There is some interesting information being presented by Dr Robert Lustig and Dr Richard Johnson on the effect of fructose on metabolism. You may find it enlightening (there are RUclipss).
I do have one question. Does Insulin Resistance affect the equation at all? If you have high levels of insulin long after eating carbohydrates (because of IR), and with a lower glucose level (since those are being moved into fat cells), isn't the body going to have to "compensate" with lethargy and higher levels of hunger? Is there a mechanism which "drains" the excess insulin to allow fat mobilization? Said in another way, why do I have the impression that for someone with IR, at least one of low carb, time restricted feeding or fasting seem pretty much necessary for "practical" weight loss?
Well said. This video is a long winded explanation of the most basic concept, energy in energy out. Unfortunately it isn’t that simple for many people…there are plenty of exceptions to this general rule and concept.
I feel like I ended up finding the answer later... If blood glucose gets too low, the body can create some using a process called neoglucogenesis. I still believe that for someone with Insulin Resistance, the path is controlling insulin (low carb and various forms of fasting), and that will lead to a "practical" calorie deficit, and not the other way around.
I don't think that makes sense. IR means that the cells in the body are resistant to insulin, meaning it takes more insulin in the blood to get the same effect. But the pancreas is still able to release enough insulin to get the job done, or else the person would have Diabetes. The pancreas releases more insulin because the beta cells still detect higher blood glucose, if the blood glucose is under control then the insulin would not be released as much. In fact, one way to test for IR is by giving a glucose solution to a fasted patient and seeing what their blood glucose does after 3 hours. As long as the person is not diabetic, then their hormones will work well enough to allow for weight loss without worrying about intermittent fasting or fats or carbs.
Insulin releases Adipose triglyceride lipase and CPT-1 which inhibit fat burning. More insulin means it's harder to burn fat and more fat is stored. If your body's ability to release insulin effectively is impaired, calories in, calories out isn't going to work the way it would in a healthy individual. Glucose is present in all carbs. It is stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles. If that store isn't used up (because we can only store a certain amount) by taking a break from carbs or by using up the stored glycogen via exercise it gets stored as fat. Insulin is what is required to maintain the fat stores, so the more fat you store from excess glucose, the more insulin your body must produce. Take away the carbs you'll reset that hormonal response.
I watched many of your videos and you have never been so excited You are simply living the world of research with inspiring passion What makes your explanations so understandable and compelling respect Man.yaron From Israel
Ha, it's one I've thought about a significant amount and I'm feeling a little more energetic of late, so it translated I suppose. I'm really glad it did, though - thank you!
It's evident that weight loss is primarily caused by a calorie deficit. When individuals like Dr. Fong claim that calories don't matter, they are referring to the fact that meticulous calorie counting may not be necessary. This is because a low-insulin environment, reduced glucose fluctuations, and the appetite-suppressing effects of being in ketosis can naturally regulate food intake. Some studies that attempt to discredit the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet often fall short by improperly controlling calorie intake, forcing the keto group to consume more than desired to maintain calorie balance. It begs the question: Why is the significant impact of ketosis on appetite, which plays a vital role in weight loss, often overlooked or not emphasized?
I agree with the overall explanation in its entirety, although i would have liked to see more effects on satiety hormone when you where explaining the two types of diets for fat loss, this is because i find ot more sustainable long term when i am satiated with my diet than if i dont. Which is why i mostly maintain a ratio of 45% protein/fats and 10% carbs, sometimes 40/40/20 is what works best for me.
I've tried a variety of different calories overtime and actually had the exact same results no matter if I eat 500 calories over maintenance, or 500 below. The only difference is my hunger level. I have a friend that can literally eat 3 cheese steaks a day and still have the physique of an Olympic sprinter.
Well, that's like 2400 calories if we figure each one to be about 800 calories. And it's pretty high in protein with cheese and meat. So yea, that adds up about your buddy
My body weight is baffling. There have been years in which I lived on free junk food as part of my job and sat down the whole time. I put on maybe 10lbs. Then there are years like this and last year in which I have restricted myself to 2000Kcal on almost all days, hiked roughly 2 hours a day on average and lifted weights... but seen NO CHANGE after the initial water loss. I seem to be the same weight regardless of low carb, high protein diet or the current one which is based on the Zoe program which is all whole foods with mostly vegetables. Nothing seems to change anything!
Dude I've seen anti keto videos enough but no one ever mentions why exactly that diet works for so many people. Main reason we are getting fat is because we are often hungry, keto removes that hunger and keeps your blood sugar levels stable. You are acting like someone claims that you can eat unlimitted amounts of calories on that diet which is far from truth.
Great video. How is it that semaglutide prescribed as an obesity/fat loss drug significantly elevates insulin levels in users but still causes a massive loss in fat? Shouldn’t the opposite happen as per the carb-insulin model of fat loss? And how is it that overconsuming low insulin spiking foods whether it be cheese, eggs, nuts can still lead to serious fat gain if they barely move the needle in spiking insulin levels? Just saying bro
Interesting question. There's a key piece of information missing here. Semaglutide only increases insulin in the presence of glucose. As for your second point, I'm confused by the question considering its addressed in the video... I'm saying insulin is not necessary for fat gain.
I understand, and if I understand you correctly, overconsumption of calories above and beyond maintenance, will cause fat gain and increase your risk of T2D whether you are keto or not, given obesity is an independent risk factor for many serious cardometabolic health issues for the majority of the population. What I hear a lot on social media from some is the venement assertion that calories don’t matter and as long as you consume foods that minimally if at all spike insulin, nuts, cheese, eggs, EVO, etc., to your heart’s delight, you need not worry, even if you sit on your a*s all day. Thanks for clarifying
It's not that simple. And this is something that people who recommend high protein/low carb diets understand. These people are not stupid. Sure you need a deficit in calories to lose weight.. No one says otherwise. But why do you intake more calories then you need in the first place? The simple analogy here is that telling someone that the need to make more money then they spend to get rich isn't really insightul or useful to them. The question is how do you either make more money or spend less... It's the same with diet. How do you convince the body that it needs less calories. Well the answer is that you need to load up on the nutrients that the body cares about - and thus you will feel full and eat less - and create the deficit. Food is not just a caloric store. Fats and proteins are essential for life and are used by the body. Proteins are the machinery for entire body and fats are often converted into essential chemical compounds like hormones. So a diet high in protein with sufficient fats and low in carbohydrates will satisfy the body and make it easier to create that deficit. So sure something like carnivore is not the only way to get jacked like Shawn Baker.. But its easy and sustainable. The body is quite thrilled to get all the protein and fats it needs and he doesn't feel that hungry.
Been doing keto for a while. First time I’ve heard of ASP. thanks for putting this context out. I know have a more complete understanding of what’s going on with my diet.
Wow! Thank you for putting your heart in explaining things. Thank you for making knowledge available for common people like me. This means a lot in the age of mis information.
Have just started watching your channel - I’ve been trying to understand a bit more about nutrition and the impact of food types on the body’s biological processes and this one is really helpful. I think I will have to watch it through a few times though as I can be a bit of a slow learner at times. Thanks again.
So (to a lay person like myself), this begs the question… Is there a diet in which you can lower both insulin AND ASP for the promotion of weight loss? And are there reasons why it would be a bad thing?
Nicholas' bar diagram is the top level message The blue bar is what your body requires in energy to maintain life. Underfeed, and you lose weight, the red segment Overfeed, and you gain weight the green segment Aka, the title of the video😊 Nicholas and Dr. Carvalho Make it very clear but it doesn't matter what you eat Underfeed with high carb low fat diet, you lose weight Underfeed with low carb high fat diet, you lose weight In other words Fewer calories in then calories required, you lose weight By the way, Undo feeding is much more efficient than exercise There are many sites on internet which show how many calories you burn. Doing a specific exercise for let's say an hour confirms the fact that exercising for an hour to burn 500 calories is excellent for your overall health, but not eating 500 calories is equally effective Several studies have shown that exercise that most people can have manage and maintain is a poor way of losing weight
So happy to discover your channel out, excellent content, new era where the scientist leaves the cave and comes out to talk to someone who is interested in learning more about it. Keto worked pretty well for me for awhile and did not then. I still like the Keto lifestyle, but floating between other styles I also feel good. I learned somethings: calorie matters, and real food is always the way to go even if low carb ou high carbs. Thank you sir.
Great video, thanks for providing an independent voice on these complex diet, weight, and health matters. I've been a big follower of the keto squad but never felt like anyone said that keto alone would lead to weight loss. Keto makes it easier to lose weight through calorie deficit for reasons you stated or hinted at, especially when coupled with intermittent fasting. I lost 30lbs this way and have kept it off for 3 years by sticking to a keto and low carb/high fat diet. I was intrigued by your comments about ASP which appear to be the complement of insulin but your views on ASP aren't supported by the few technical papers I was able to find. ASP is described as stimulating "triglyceride synthesis and storage in fat cells by enhancing glucose and fatty acid uptake" which gives it a more nuanced role in fat storage from fat because it appears to also increase the uptake of glucose to fat as well. Some of the articles cited 3 or 4 more hormones that have similar secondary or tertiary roles in how our bodies respond to food. I do agree that many of the keto proponents do not discuss what happens to excess fat on a keto diet. I did find one recent proponent who suggested that excess fat on keto is simply passed out of the body which would be great if that's what actually happens. Your description of ASP's effects suggest otherwise. I'd be interested in sources of information about what the body does with excess fat on a keto diet. In my case, it's not turning to fat. I don't seem to gain weight no matter how much fat I eat. It's only when I start tapping into carbs that the weight seems to go up. Any suggestions on clearing up this aspect of dieting and weight loss would be appreciated.
I don't disagree from a scholarly standpoint, but from the standpoint of reaching a highly diverse audience, I find that the insulin-centric presentation approach has merits. At the point where a person understands (1) the dietary approach required to lower the insulin level to a healthy level in conjunction with (2) the integration of a sufficient degree of fasting (caloric reduction) to achieve the goals of reducing insulin resistance and fatty liver, all of the biological details you're talking about come into play without needing to necessarily be understood. Similarly, the vast majority of drivers don't understand the details of how cars work, but they reach their destinations routinely with high-level, minimal instructions about cars. We'd have far fewer drivers if getting a driver's license required automotive technical competency.
I'm not hungry when I'm in ketosis, including, never having cravings, which makes it way more easy to limit caloric intake. Also I'm less tired and drowsy when on keto, which makes it way more easy to have a higher activity level, ie. have a higher caloric output. This combination made losing 80 pounds seem kind of effortless to me, meaning it demanded little willpower. Also I got rid of many other ailments I struggled with over my lifetime. I simply feel much better in ketosis, which makes it much easier to have a healthier lifestyle. I have no issues with this video and the fact that caloric deficit on a metabolic level is necessary to lose body fat. It's just that keto makes it much easier to control the calorie balance, at least to me. But I can confirm that it absolutely possible to gain weight on keto. I've done that several times, although the gains haven't been massive or quick, and I feel they're easy to adjust. Also I don't understand why people get hung up on the hormone mechanisms when the main issue should be to find a diet that makes you feel good and doesn't demand a ton of willpower to be in a caloric deficit over a period of time if you're aiming for getting rid of body fat.
and 2: i also think because the video is partial, we need to remember that when energy needs to be compensated for insufficient calories, it can be gathered from muscles, from moving less etc.. it doesn't matter that cells need the same energy, some functions will slow down so overall less energy will be spent to balance the lack of calories
At 9:54 you said that insulin blocks the release of fat molecules from fat cells, but it also promotes storing fat molecules into fat cells. Now, I don't understand how is it possible for fat loss to occur when you consume less calories than you need, but you eat high carbohydrate diet so your insulin is high most of the time because of high blood glucose. Wouldn't insulin stop fat cells from releasing fat molecules, even though other cells ("other" such as muscle cells, bone cells...) need an additional energy from fat cells that they haven't got from food in order for body to work?
I like the way you think, Rejhan. Yes, you’re exactly right that a higher carbohydrate diet would increase insulin, and yes insulin would lead to fat molecules being taken up. However, even with a high carbohydrate diet, if you are in a calorie deficit, insulin drops. You can see proof of that across multiple studies in my video called “High Insulin Diet”.
@@Physionic Hi Nick! I've watched that video, I see what's your point, but even though that weight loss by itself lowers insulin, isn't insulin still higher due to high carbohydrate diet then if we would to consume a lower carbohydrate diet? What I understand is that insulin is more dependent on weight loss than other way around. To me, it doesn't look like insulin causes weight gain by itself (what you also said), but that weight gain causes higher insulin. If we say that insulin prevents weight loss, then high carbohydrate diet would still prevent you from losing weight because that energy deficit wouldn't be enough to lower insulin to the point where it allows your body to remover fat. It is kinda illogical that insulin has any impact on weight loss when we know for sure that even extremely high carbohydrate diet will cause fat loss due to energy deficit, body needs to get energy somehow, but if we say that insulin prevents fat molecules from leaving from fat cells, then that would basically mean that you die because your body can't get any energy. Correct me please if I am wrong.
I have had insulin resistance since I had my period…tried low fat and low calorie diet, FAILED MISERABLY…20 years of trial and error, the high fat diet helping the satiety is really the key to control the calorie intake. It’s the only way I don’t think about food ALL THE TIME.
i’m fitness/diet/weelness enthusiast so i follow a lot all this topic and all this channel on youtube, internet and wherever i can find informations.. i have to congrats with you cause i think this is the best video i’ve ever seen on the matter: clear, precise, explains complicated dynamics in a very very simple way, gives a pretty complete pictures of things… really Man… awesome video! congratulation again. I’ll definitively check more of your videos!😜😜
I appreciate the passion for nerding out on the nitty gritty. Helps us go deeper into these concepts. After listening all the way through, the only question I have is in the ASP fat storing, versus the insulin fat storing “systems” like when dropping into keto, does ASP step in immediately to store fat? Or is there some lag time that the body has to adapt to? Just curious about those in between times and how the body responds/what happens to fat burning in the meantime, if there is a “meantime.” Thanks
So, Everything you have presented makes perfect sense. Complex but not too challenging to understand. The bigger question remains, how do you manipulate your metabolic set point? That deserves another well-thought-out presentation like this one. Thank you for this well-thought-out presentation.
Thank you. I actually have a video coming out on metabolic set points, but it doesn't go into as much depth as this video, so it's something I certainly expect to create in the future (with greater depth).
Your passion is not only wonderful it is greatly appreciated. Such fascinating topics you delve into, and due to your teaching I’ve come to have an understanding of what makes us tick. As someone who loves training and learning about the body I thank you !
The way I've always read it: Muscle mass burns at rest. Hormonal balance affects perceived energy and base metabolic rate. Ambient temperature has a small impact too. So, basically, I've always looked at it as getting your resting metabolism as high as your body chemistry will allow, or dialing down intake. Either way, it's still calories in / calories out. The question is whether or not your lifestyle and metabolism are helping your cause or not. I kinda feel like your points here are a more detailed, accurate, and specific version of this, and I really appreciate the details
Great video. I have one question. Do fat molecules need to enter the fat cells first in order to be distributed throughout the body or can they bypass that step?
I know that nearly everyone agrees on CICO, but all of my experience has shown it not to be true. I have been into bodybuilding for three years carefully tracking macros and caloric intake. When I bulk I can go to over 5000 calories a day with minimal slow weight gain getting stuck around 185 pounds. When I cut I can drop to 2200 a day and still slowly lose weight down to 175 before getting stuck. How can you account for that giant gap in caloric intake being over double? I've stayed the same weight at 4000 calories as at 3000 calories over the course of several months. Furthermore, I seem to lose muscle in equal proportions when dropping "weight" despite having well over an adequate daily protein intake. I know people will scream it's impossible and violates the laws of physics, but I guess I'm just magical then. I will add then when I'm consuming 5000+ calories a day I get super hot all the time, so maybe it's converting them into excess heat. I know that calories aren't "disappearing" but what's the point of CICO if your body just throws away the extra surplus calories?
Hopefully you might see this... When I was younger I heard about a diet hypothesis that multiple days of severe under eating followed by days of silly overeating (repeating) took advantage of how your body responds to starvation and the following re-feeding period (they focused on sex hormones but I think it's more likely because of insulin/mitochondria/ketones/ etc.). In their hypothesis they recommended 12 day periods of both. When I did this, I went from somebody that struggled with weight and athletic performance to being a genuine freak. I went from doing 100m sprint in 14 seconds to under 11 seconds. I went from 10-20 push-ups in a minute to well over 60 in a minute. I went from struggling to force out a handful or chin-ups to them becoming virtually effortless (I'm talking dozens). I also looked really, really good and I achieved this without any exercise or training besides what an otherwise active person does. I regret not continuing this diet but the back and forth took a lot of willpower but I'm wondering if a shorter 7/7 period might achieve the same thing. PS: general fasting or common intermittent fasting protocols that I've tried had little similar effect. I assume the calorie restriction period made my body super efficient and during the re-feeding period the nutrients consumed were used in that super efficient state BUT not long enough to negatively effect that efficiency (basically all these super efficient cells/processes suddenly had a lot more fuel to power them).
Love your content, easy to follow and concise as always. but I have a question. I am on day three of a ten day water fast. As you did not cover either intermittent or prolonged fasting is my assumption that, ASP and insulin are both down regulated while fasting?
I hypothesize… It seems that the human body is prepared to take up energy from where it can, this the existence of insulin, ASP and ultimately glucagon. However it seems that the body would switch hormones according to the energy source. It occurs to me that in nature, high carb food sources are not very high on fat and viceversa. Would it be fair to say that artificially made foods and dietary trends rich in both sugar and fat would render both ASP and insulin high, resulting in “energy hiperstorage”? So maybe the answer would be to find out your specific calorie maintenance level, compress that in a time lapse where you let your body fully metabolize the energy before the next intake and keep carbs low if you ingest high fats and viceversa…
Fat mass changes measured in Calorie balance over the course of a year almost never deviate more than 4% whether losing or gaining fat weight. That 4% variance represents about 13lbs of human adipose tissue in stored energy. That's why caloric balance doesn't matter. You can reduce caloric intake by 20% and your body will only allow a tiny fat loss, of perhaps 4% of calories consumed, a larger muscle loss and a reduction in metabolism that will worsen your health.
Hello, thank you for this video. My question is how this works for high protein, low fat, low carb diet? What are the hormones that regulate protein intake and how they play into the ASP and Insulin hormones. Thanks
I understand you tried to simplify the model, but i think you make some assumptions and miss some points that are still important. I also believe you inject unintended emotion into your explanation "screaming cells", and recommend less emotional terms. Questions: 1. Does absorption of Fat vs absorption of carbs differ? there is another output you didn't mention in terms of solid waste (which can expel both types). 2. arent some fats used by the body as nutrients? Certain complex carbs are used in the gut too. 3. Aren't the kind of fats important to understand? and do you agree that some are inflammatory and may increase insulin resistance? 4. I like the contrasting comparison of low/high fat/carb, but does protein help both situations? Does it help one or the other? I may call what i do Keto, but it really is just low carb and more of everything else. I think I eat more than ever, but have lost a lot. The low carb approach is becoming accepted by the medical community as an effective treatment for T2D. I'm thinking that the problem is too multidimensional, with too many inner dependencies to look at it from too simplified of a perspective. It may just be the elimination of so much processed carb is really the benefit, and consuming simpler unprocessed foods helps.
Excellent video. I’m low carb but I look at the importance of low carb as a way to keep insulin levels as low as possible. I would place high intensity exercise as the No. 1 strategy for any kind of weight loss and health improvement.
I just found your channel today and I'm really digging your presentation style and the info you're giving out! I missed something (or misunderstood something) in this one - If you overeat, NPY decreases, Peptide YY and Leptin increase. All of those should remove your drive to eat, so obesity shouldn't be possible unless people are eating without the drive to eat. And this happens in eating disorders - people are compelled to eat even when they don't really want to. But for the majority of overweight/obese individuals, they have the drive to eat despite having satisfied their metabolic needs. So why is that? Thanks for the awesome videos!
Im guessing 1. certain emotions overwrite the feeling of satiety. 2. the foods we are eating do not allow for these natural processes to occur, ie; 200kcal from orange juice vs 200kcal from actual oranges will have a different effect on your satiety
@@stephx9759 I can't speak to explanation 1, But for #2, that explains short-term overeating, but my understanding of leptin is it's our body's fuel gauge. 200 Cal of OJ instead of oranges causes us to overeat by 100 Cal, so insulin kicks in and shoves that extra energy into our fat cells. Our fat cells start generating more leptin and that SHOULD delay hunger for the next feeding session. Since leptin is constantly being produced, the fat cells should produce elevated levels of leptin until we hit a 100 Cal deficit in our diet and they get back down to baseline. We USED to be really sensitive to leptin levels. It was critical to our survival. If our fat stores get low, we get hungry. Now there seems to be something happening that is stopping that signaling. We're fat because our fuel gauge is broken. Wild animals don't count calories. Why should we have to? Calorie labels are really new, and since we've become obsessed with calories, we've only gotten fatter.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can eat whatever you want and as long as your insulin is 0 that you’ll lose weight. The point is that if your insulin is always spiked, you can’t get enough energy into your blood stream from your fat, so you feel weak, so you eat more. You also act like your body’s minimal energy use is also it’s optimal energy use. A cell may want X joules of energy per day, but it can survive on Y=(X-N). High insulin levels may force a cell to energy state Y, rather than X, diminishing metabolism. Yes, it’s all calories in and calories out, but understanding the ways in which our food intake can diminish our body’s metabolic rate is just as important as tracking calories from food. I don’t consume the content this seems to be directed at, but I do think that constantly spiking your insulin levels through diet makes it nearly impossible to maintain a healthy weight because your metabolic rate is diminished by doing so. Yes, calories in/calories out, but to me the greater question is how can I get my body to always be using as much energy as possible.
Interesting and helpful, however how a diabetic should act? In accordance with all I have been reading, diabetics cannot have a large carbohydrates intake...
I heared several times in other videos that for burning fat it’s also important to first empty the glycogen storage because the body will use that type of energy before using the fat. I am on my journey to understand all of this better but so many informations are false or just explained overly easy. Love your Content ❤️
Also, if you are fat adapted you will easily use your fat reserves and will not feel hunger, at least I do not - I feel more of the keto clear headedness. I knew I had overdone the carbs recently (visit to parents who are reasonably sceptical about my diet "Here have a potato, not the olive oil") as I was hungry for the first time in perhaps a year.
Some diets just avoid fat in general so you don't even have to burn the fat (i.e Walter Kempner sugar+rice diet. Fit for life, mixed in with a few "gurus" that exploited their research like durian rider.)
My "maintenance metabolism" level is about 2300kk. I just know it because I maintain calories control over years, with regular exercising and balanced diet. When I listened to Ekberg and decided to do keto I dropped carbs intake from about 250g per day to less than 30g per day. At the same time I kept 2300kk ration just in case. I lost 5kg in a month. With the same calories intake level. Unfortunately I also discovered that keto diet works poorly with resistance training as my performance dropped significantly and any progress stopped ((
![The Easiest Way to Lose Body Fat [Study 242]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GcaQiFhTd2A/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why your Low Carb Diet is hurting your Heart, and How to Improve it. [11 Studies]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tla-JrqhhHI/mqdefault.jpg)
I also turned off mid-video ads so you can get through it uninterrupted; hopefully RUclips doesn't add them back in. Let me know your thoughts.
0:00 - Introduction
0:57 - DO NOT SKIP TO THE CONCLUSIONS [I WILL SEE IT IN MY ANALYTICS AND HAUNT YOU]
2:26 - Your Body "In Flux"
8:18 - Simple Understanding of Fat Gain and Loss
10:35 - What controls Hormones?
13:18 - What is Metabolism?
18:35 - Calories In vs Out
19:21 - Calories vs Hormones
26:25 - Keto vs Carb Diet
33:45 - Understanding Keto and High Carb with Metabolism
36:20 - Certain Nutrition still have OTHER Advantages
37:44 - Shifts in Metabolism
39:35 - Conclusions/Take Aways
40:32 - THANK YOU
Some More Evidence Hormones are Regulated by Metabolism:
Glucagon Release by Blood Sugar Levels affecting ATP: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279127/
Peptide YY by Fat Content: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17726080/
Glucagon-Like Peptide triggered Release by Amino Acids and Glucose increasing ATP: diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/55/Supplement_2/S78
The examples continue, but you get the idea.
Thx a bunch for your videos!
What i would really like to know in this low carb vs high carb discussion is (1):
Is there an advantage in the form of faster health gains or regains regarding getting fasting insulin down to a normal level from a ketogenic diet over a high carbohydrate diet when calories are the same in both groups and what about in the longer perspective?
(2):
It is known that exercise decreases insulin resistance. Does this only affect the tissue involved in exercise or also the brain cells? If it also affects the brain cells then how much compared to the muscle cells if there is a difference and why? :)
what about protein and fructose and ketones?
@physionic soooo - what I got out of the last 42 min of my life was "there is no hope for you, your body will force you to stay fat, Fatty."
did not hear any solution, just that everyone is wrong that claims that there might BE a solution, and that there IS no solution , your body will just keep you fat, it might allow you to get FATTER, but if you ever try to LOSE fat it will find ways to defeat you, you are screwed.
Awesome. This is depressing AF.
You lost me on the metabolism and hunger.
It is common knowledge, and you don't need a degree to know it, that obese people are hungry all the time despite not being in a caloric deficit, and people who go into low-carb diets experience a reduction in hunger despite being in a caloric deficit. And these people are arguably in a caloric deficit given that the only 2 molecules that partake in this very specific metabolic process of oxidation into ATP are glucose, or rather glycogen, and triglycerides, not even fat in general. If you reduce the amount of glucose your body absorbs to nothing or almost nothing while eating until satiation, the rest has to come from the very limited amount that your liver can make, which means that your body will experience the "caloric deficit" you mention without feeling hungry, which directly contradicts your proposed model as people experience hunger on caloric restrictions specifically because they do high carb low fat diets. This also ignores another key component of metabolism which is the absorption of nutrients itself, which you never even mentioned in the video for reasons I don't understand since that would in part explain why a lot of people still lose a lot of body fat by eating a low carb, High Fat diet consistently. Also since insulin is the hormone that signals the inclusion of fat into adipose tissue, a reduction in insulin means a reduction of fat that goes into the adipose tissue regardless of a higher fat intake even when taking ASP into account as, despite your spectacularly deceitful imagery, your insulin will decrease much more than you ASP will increase.
Moreover, as you said, the whole "energy expenditure" model you advocate for can only work on very short time frames, and if there's one thing to know about fat loss is that what matters is what you do long term. And since your "energy expenditure" (which is an inaccurate term for simple reasons I'll mention a bit later) varies with your sex, activity level, height, weight, age, and plenty of other factors that may vary through time, then it would be a very foolish idea to provide long term recommendations, like lifestyle changes, base on metrics that are not gonna be accurate after a couple of weeks especially if those changes imply becoming a slave to food, having to constantly monitor and calculate exactly how much you eat contrary to what 99.99999% of living creatures on the planet do.
As for why "energy expenditure" is an inaccurate framework, is due to the law of conservation of mass you mentioned at the beginning: matter cannot be transformed into energy and vice versa. Given that your body works on chemical reactions, energy is not the main component but a by-product, and since this metric is based on a very specific process that most of the nutrients that your cells need do not partake in, then this is a marker that ignores 99% of the actual metabolism, is missing the forest for the tree in front.
A more accurate depiction, and one that can be easily explained without lying to everyone, would be that your metabolism is the collection of chemical reactions that facilitate the distribution of nutrients, such as amino acids, cholesterol, triglycerides, vitamins, glucose and minerals from the bloodstream to the cell walls and then into the cells themselves. Some of those reactions produce heat and is this incidental conversion from chemical energy to radiant heat that allows your body to stay at a somewhat constant temperature. This does not break, or argue against, the laws of physics, it doesn't ignore hormonal activity and it doesn't disregard other critical metabolic processes just to latch on to 1 simple number to let us pretend that the universe is based on math and not the other way around.
Not only that, despite your criticisms against the hormone base model, your whole concept of metabolism is still reduced on just one very specific process and it's not even accurate about it when the people who promote the hormonal model take into account, not only this oxidative process in much more accurate terms than you, but also the impact that other nutrients or stresses have not only on fat loss but your overall metabolic health. Sure if you semi-starve yourself you might lose fat, but you're still starving yourself.
In conclusion, there's no reconciliation to be had for a model that does not take into account how things affect your body outside of mere fat gain or fat loss, especially if the model is inaccurate and its measurements do not hold true for more than a couple weeks.
Wow, I almost didn't notice you conflating overall energy expenditure with the basal metabolic rate at the end. If you have two people with different heights and weights they would still have different overall "energy expenditure" despite having the same rate of non-exercise activity thermogenesis due to the difference in the number of cells, sure, but if your metabolism is actually slowing down that's a bad sign and you can know for sure that that person will, not only stop losing fat at some point, but experience a lot of other symptoms like being really cold and suffering aches and pains and a reduction in the autoimmune function. So I don't think a would trade feeling sick and cold all the time just so that I can eat a small plate of pasta that will make me feel hungry and miserable after 30 minutes, thank you.
You did an absolutely wonderful job of explaining basic metabolism that the average person who is not a medical student should be able to comprehend. Well done sir!
I am a 66 year old male who used to be morbidly obese according to the opinions of two medical doctors. I was also plagued with several chronic health conditions for decades. I had great success with a regiment of aggressive intermittent fasting by eating just one meal per day in a two hour window. I stopped eating all sugars, and drastically reduced my carb intake. I stopped eating all highly processed foods, and prepared every meal myself from mostly locally produced, organic, non GMO whole foods. I have been doing this for just over two years now.
In the first 2 to 3 months i lost about 60 pounds of excess fluids and body fat without any increase to physical activity at the time. Even though i do eat one very big meal every day, it is very possible that my caloric intake is also reduced from my prior eating habits that involved consuming more frequent, smaller meals throughout the day with higher amounts of sugars and carbs.
Over time, i was also able to reverse all of those chronic health conditions as well. The fatty liver condition was gone. The edema in the feet and lower legs was gone. And because of that edema i was prone to easy bruising and wounding of the lower extremities, healing would take forever, and cellulitis infections requiring hospitalization occurred a couple of times. But with the edema gone, so was the constant threat of cellulitis. I also suffered with peripheral neuropathy in the feet. That was the most stubborn of my conditions that also subsided. The nerve damage was eventually and apparently repaired. I also had COPD symptoms from decades of smoking. Even those symptoms subsided. No more chronic cough. No more wheezing. And no more shortness of breath, or at least not as it used to be. And i am still a modest smoker. Imagine that.
I feel as though i am in full control over my weight. I do see modest weight gain when i 'cheat' and enjoy a cookie or two, croissant or some ice cream on a hot day, lol. But when i go without those items, and cut back a little on the portions of what i consume, my weight goes right back down. You might think that the aggressive change of the OMAD regiment would be a difficult transition, especially for someone of my age with decades of poor eating habits. But for some reason i was able to adapt immediately with relative ease.
Thanks again for taking the time to make your highly valuable RUclips content! You are a valuable and precious resource to humanity! My very best wishes for your future success with every venture you pursue!
Thank you!
By "no sugar" do you mean no added sugar? You're still eating fruits and vegetables, right?
@@WeighedWilsonYes. I consume a lot of fresh steamed vegetables, and fruit once in a while.
It's great to have an objective view such as yours to the entire concept.
The number of views may be less, but please keep making such videos, you won't believe how much effect it has had on my understanding and outlook.
Thank you, Param. I certainly plan on continuing.
@@Physionic really authentic. i feel like im in class with a really good professor
@@Physionic Thanks for explaining why my 175 pound weight loss is just my imagination ! Factors you failed to consider, is how high carbs diets increase your set point and hunger !
@@studygodsword5937 It's like you made this comment before watching a single second of the video lol
I am 79. I have been experimenting with my diet since about 1972, starting with Adele Davis. I've done zero fat vegan all the way to high fat carnivore and everything in between. I have tried all of these for extended periods of time, meaning years at a time. The only way I have ever felt normal is when I eat zero carb/carnivore. So I will eat that way until I die, as long as meat is still available.
Im glad for your success, but you do know true carnivores eat the stomach contents of their prey first, right? These are plants, since they don't routinely eat other predators. So one big salad before eating raw organs, blood, and last is muscle meat. Do you eat your carne raw? Starting with organs and blood?
Just curious. What do you eat? Beef? Grass fed? Fish? Wild caught?
Did you make it to 80?
@mowthpeece1 I've been thinking about consuming blood for my iron deficiency... hmmm... maybe the lack of organs and blood is why 1/3 of the world have iron deficiency?
@@mowthpeece1 are you a clown?
I am 5 months into my eating healthy. I've been hyper learning this whole time and I'm thankful you made this content. Especially at my stage
All the best in your journey.
The issue with calories is that the chemical process measured in the bomb calorimeter to give off heat (oxidation reaction) and give you a calorie estimate is not the same chemical reaction process for producing ATP in your body. They are different amounts of energy in different chemical reactions with completely different reagents. Whether you have an abundance of ketones or an abundance of carbohydrates impacts how ATP is generationed.
I'm sorry .. A calorie is not a calorie. Not every item you eat produces the same items or amino acids when desolved in you digestive system. You don't want to discuss the details.. But the details are exactly what the big food companies want to obviscate. 300 calories of a highly processed item like a twinkle and 300 calories from a steak do not produce the same chemical reactants in your digestive system. They do not produce the same amount of atp for your cells. They do not produce the same amount of waste. The do not contain the same amount of protein. The do not have the same impact on blood sugar. They do not have the same impact on fatty liver or A1C. In fact, everything is different.
The details are what is ACTUALLY happening. The type of fat (saturated vs not) and the length of the fatty acid chains determine if the item is taken directly to liver via the portal system or fully processed by the digestive system. Same with the type of carbohydrates. Fructose and glucose are procesed completely differently. Fructose goes directly to liver for processing.
Ketones being produced or not completely alters the atp producing mechanisms and chemical equations utilized to produce atp. Are you generating your own glucose from fatty acids and protein or are you eating super high carbohydrate foods? Have you consumed something that blocked absorption or that increased absorption (hard to absorb certain vitamins without fat is one example, certain plants block absorption of other vitamins, etc.)
The exact chemical reactions that take place are completely controlled by the output of the chemicals as they enter the digestive system. The exact thing you ate is directly responsible for those chemical reagents. 500 calories of highly refined carbohydrates does not have the same impact on fat stored in your body as 500 calories of meat.
All of this means that a calorie is not a calorie to your body. A calorie is the amonnt of energy an item gave off in a bomb calorimeter. Sawdust will produce 'calories' in that device. You will get no energy from eating sawdust. So a calorie is not a calorie. Sorry Doc.
I left a very positive reply to this, but RUclips deleted it. Fascism stinks.
The idea behind KETO is not that it changes the caloric balance, but that it affects hormones differently and it affect the efficiency of mitochondria to utilize fat energy versus glucose pathway. So, KETO affects the DESIRE for eating. The reduction of craving makes it not only easier to cut calories but somewhat more effortlessly. This can lead to the ability (and even natural desire) to do intermittent fasting (proven to cut total calories consumed) and dropping to two meals a day or even one meal a day. Longer fasting is also made easier. Anecdotally, people feel more energy even while in a caloric deficit. Going back to the mitochondria, if the mitochondria is better set up to utilize fat molecules, then when in a caloric deficit, the efficiency of uptake from the emitted fat molecules from fat cells will be more effective and feeling of energy will be better sustained. You can probably answer whether these last 2 statements make sense, but I would stand by the basic themes.
Yep. I feel bad for anyone who watched this video and took away that they should go on eating tons of carbs and sugar because "calories are the primary metabolic driver". Yes, that statement is true, but calories are not the primary HUMAN BEHAVIORAL driver. We don't buy calories at the store, we buy products, many of which have been engineered to be as "craveable" as possible. This craveability just so happens to rely on sugar.
I think you need to read more studies instead of watching youtube doctors.
Agree with you, today I do IF and do Jiu Jitsu on the last hour of fasting, and do my best train on years, I don't do KETO, but my main sources of carbs are fruits, eat a lot of meat and fruits, but when I decide eat sugar in cookies or icecream or a pizza, my cravings just go up, but honestly with fruits I have no issues.
The issue with keto is that it doesn’t make you lose fat any faster or better than calorie restriction.
Cause on one side of the coin it does turn up fat burning, but people forget about the other side of the coin, which is that it also turns up fat storage . Which is why research where kcals and protein are equated show no difference in fat loss
I agree with you. My own experience with Keto is that it strongest effect is the reduction of craving for food. Therefore it is effortless to reduce calories. Today I am good with two meals a day.
I have just discovered your channel and have since been binge-watching your content. Just excellent! As a former high-performance coach and lecturer in sport and exercise science, I am stunned by how many 'experts' fail to teach, and seemingly to grasp, the fundamentals. As it seems to be with so many fields, it is though even they are driven by passion and ideology rather than science. It is so refreshing to see someone else so passionate *about* the science.
I appreciate it, Peter.
Low carb diets make people less hungry. It is much, much easier to eat less when you're less hungry.
Also, hyperinsulenemia has a lot of downstream effects (insulin degrading hormone preferentially targeting insulin over amyloid plaque, anyone?)
Great stuff! I remember a little bit about this from my Cell Biology class last year. This all starts to be really important once you start looking at individuals with different diseases and conditions, as the diets/lifestyles needed can change. Lots going on!
Please conduct a comparative analysis of the low-carbohydrate and low-fat approaches, not only focusing on weight loss but also considering overall well-being, cognitive performance, sleep quality, body composition, and so on. Thank you!
My brother and I have had such a comparison. My diet of choice is LCHF (so-called, Low-Carb/High-Fat, or Keto). His was a 'vegan' diet, which I assume was low fat. By low fat, I mean fewer than 10% of calories from fat and oils. I easily lost weight with no hunger - NO HUNGER! He lost weight also, except that his hunger was never satiated. He said he would eat until his stomach could hold no more food, and he was still hungry. About the only thing he could eat in a restaurant was a dry salad, and maybe boiled potatoes.What a grim life! And it didn't keep him from developing prostate cancer.
Hey Nick, you taught my freshman year Health 1000 class. Just wanted to say you really motivated me to learn more about health and fitness and helped to guide my decisions in college.
I'm in the process of watching this all the way through but let me just say how relevant this is. So much misunderstanding of how metabolism works on the internet right now from people who read Fangs book and think they've found the answers. I am also a huge proponent of fasting but I think that the insulin point is way too harped on and I look forward to watching you bring some real facts to the discussion
Keep up the good work and providing good content.
Hi, one of my favorite times of my life thus far was teaching your class, and this may be one of my all time favorite comments. This is incredible - I hope things are going well with your decision; what major did you end up pursuing?
And yes, fasting is wonderful, no doubt. I use it, myself - simply the understanding behind fasting is less than ideal when we're discussing certain individuals.
@@Physionic I'm a Health and Fitness Specialist with a minor in nutrition. I remember thinking "this dude has got it going on he's like a swole nerd that learned all this stuff and now is jacked and really smart. I hope you don't take that the wrong way because that's the path I'm trying to take myself now haha. Yeah that's kind of been a guiding frame work for me in college the last few years. Work out hard and use that focus and motivation to channel it into my schoolwork. But thats kind of how I saw you and it helped motivate me haha.
I'm in a biochemistry and metabolism class right now which has helped me actually be able to comprehend some of the more higher level concepts you discuss on here. I graduate this year and I want to try and watch you and other people on youtube to help me continue to learn after graduation when I'm in the workforce.
That's really amazing. I'm so glad I could help in my small way. Put a huge smile on my face. I wish you all the best with your studies (are you taking Dr. Cortright's class in metabolism?), and I hope you continue to learn and stay motivated as you progress in your career as a HFS. You rock - keep it up.
@@Physionic I actually have Dr. Wheeler. Super smart guy. I appreciate it man!
Take a look at the Vermont Prison Study. They wanted to measure metabolic outcomes with a 10% increase in body mass.
The more they fed the subjects, the faster their metabolic rate. Eventually they were feeding them 10 000!!!! calories per day to increase body weight. As soon as the study ended, ALL subjects returned to their normal weight. That is what a healthy metabolism does. Upregulates accordingly to attain homeostasis.
However, obesity is NOT normal situation. Lipodema for example: a metabolic auto immune disease that will fat gain with 5% carbohydrates intake.
A healthy metabolic subject is COMPLETELY different to a diseased metabolic subject.
Most people have unhealthy metabolism.
Apparently it is YOU who should take a look at the study because you very clearly have not read it. The study says diddly squat about metabolic rate, because measuring "metabolic outcomes" wasn't their goal at all, rather, it was to investigate adipose tissue cellularity. As for body weight and composition changes, what happened was exactly what you would expect from following the CICO model: The participants gained weight and body fat with reduced physical activity and increased caloric intake, maintained their increased weight while being fed maintenance calories, and then *lost that weight and fat again with reduced caloric intake and increased physcial activity* , which, as you so happened to omit, was part of the study as well.
Here's the study, in case anybody doesn't believe me: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292021/pdf/jcinvest00194-0053.pdf
It's so insane nowadays how people cite sources to disprove themselves lmao.
Sorry but I disagree with the statement that your metabolism doesn’t turn off. I think you train your body to substantially reduce its metabolism when you sit in front of your computer for 8+ hours per day.. you have a normal BMR for living a normal life-one with more movement than a bathroom break every 3 hours and a substantially reduced to as close to zero BMR for when you’re barely living, because when you sit like that you’re barely living. Sure you can try to game it by exercising before or after but you can’t overcome the lower respiration, lower heart rate, lower body temperature that happens when you’re an obedient office worker…
According to Google, 1.5 lbs of beef contains approx 2,259 calories. I eat this amount of beef daily, sometimes more, and I lose weight daily. When I was calorie counting to lose weight at 1,300 daily calories, I was gaining weight and depressingly hungry all the time. CICO isn't real. Not according to my bathroom scale anyway. 185 lbs to 146 in the past 5 months doing this. A calorie is not simply a calorie. It gets broken down into various materials - not just "burned". A calorie unit of Snickers bar is not the same as a calorie unit of healthy meat. This is why CICO is extremely misleading ideology.
1 704,4 kcal according to my google
It would depend on the cut of meat.
So, the amount of calories you're consuming is below maintenance, and you're losing weight. Great! Continue what works!
@@StenBackstrom please explain my weight gain at 1300 calories daily (ultimately unsustainable anyway but was what it was)
@marcusdiaz81 I dont know your height, weight or activity level, but as a normal male, working out, you cannot gain fat on 1300. It could be water due to heavy salt intake over a short period. Or maybe you had cheat days? If people gained weight long term on starvation, then starvation wouldn't be a problem in poor countries.
THANK YOU...Getting older (70) and having had issues with triglycerides forever, and now weight gain ASP finally becomes known. Teh body seems to have so many back up systems for getting a job done.
THANK YOU, not only did I not skip, but I'll also be sure to watch this several times...
Pardon me if you have dealt with this in the video, but I didn't fully understand what was said because English is my second language and I get easily distracted.(I did not skip tho😂)
But I got some problems with calories in and out theory, and I am hoping if somebody could enlighten me with these issues I have.
The main issue I got here is that everything is calculated based on approximation. Sure there will be actual number of calories you either consumed or burned, but in reality you can never know exactly how much your body need to maintain the same shape and size, not to mention the caloric value of (for instance)a mango I had this morning will not be the same with what they tested on the lab to be listed in fatsecret.
I do think calorie deficit or calorie counting diet definately works. But because of the flaw that everything's counted approximately, I think it's no better than saying "you will lose weight if you eat less than you need and move more than you ate." Although this is true, you don't have to have master's degree to know that. (Not to offense anyone)
The second problem or a mystery I have is that calories in and out does not explain why you have stagnant phase while losing weight. I am not talking about ppl who lose will power and sneak in some junk food into diet. But there will be millions of ppl including myself who religiously stick to a diet, counting and weighing food intake, but hit a wall for a while(this takes up to weeks to even almost a month) and then the weight starts to drop again.
I don't think it can be explained by naturally decreased metablism because as you mentioned, metabolism can't just drop few hundred cals one day and then decide to get higher few weeks later.
I even experienced (quite often actually) you get pass this stagnation of weight loss by having a massive cheat meal.
You work out as usual, you eat freaking healthy diet food as usual, but one day the scale decides to stick to a number for a while. You keep going as usual but no weight loss for days. You try to incorporate a bit more exercise but NOPE! Your scale just loves the number and won't let go for even up to a month. Then one day you get so sick of diet and the number you see everyday, you feel like WTF and go on a colosal binge. You wake up the next day morning feel like shit to step on a scale but somehow not only you didn't gain weight but the number finally went down.
How is that possible in calorie in and out theory? That episode is not my wishful thinking but what I have experienced so many times in my life as a yoyo dieter. And I am 100% sure that I am not the medical anomaly who experienced the miracle.
When I am on a diet, I usually eat around my 'approximate' basal metabolism inbody machine tells me, accompanied by around 300~500 calories worth workout daily(again approximately calculated by motion detective devices). I try to measure my weight in a controlled condition(in the morning, after a cup of black coffee and pooping😂)
I mean if calrories in and out theory works, shouldn't I be losing weight almost non-stop? But in reality weight loss always comes in really uneven, bumpy downward curve instead of beautiful smooth downward line every dieter would dream.
I know this is rather old video you uploaded, but I hope I could hear some insight from you about this mystery I have so that I may go through this phase easier, or at least with an answer😂
Metabolic adaptation is the answer .
Go deep on that topic and younwill fnd your answers
Over time your body not only adapts to lower energy source intake (caloric restriction) but also to increased energy usage. So if you eat much less and exercise more your body tries to compensate in this scenario by slowing down metabolism. It's complex process so it's hard to explain in a few simple mechanisms but there is such adaptation.
Another interesting thing is that processing food you eat also requires energy. For example it takes 1-2 calories to digest one gram of protein (which contains 4 calories so after digestion you get only 2 calories). Processing carbs and fats is not so taxing metabolically. There are a lot of other processes going on but in general processing of food and energy in your body modifies how much energy is used so using just "static" calories in/calories out is oversimplification.
Hormones play a role, as mentioned in this video. Thyroid function can make you gain or loose weight more or less depending on how it function.
Fastest fluctuations in body weight is related to changes in water retention. It's important to stay hydrated but there are some factors related to died. Eating a lot of sugar and salt will make your body retain more water so first big drop after starting diet will be from less water retained, not fat loss.
Also if you are in calorie deficit and you don't have enough protein intake and resistance training you will start to loose not only fat but also muscle. This will lower your energy expenditure over time so you can no longer be in a calorie deficite. For long term fat loss it's good to build some extra muscle or at least do your best to maintain muscle mass. Muscles are build in much slower rate than fat is lost and are much more dense so to a degree you will look slimmer while reducing body fat. You can also utilize much more energy during exercise with more muscle mass so it also will support fat loss.
There are probably more factors in play but I hope that this give you some idea why weight is often lost to a certain point and then remains constant regardless of sticking to a calorie deficite died
This video is GOLD! Thanks Mr. Physionic!
The way I usually frame the calories in-calories out problem, or the suggestion to "eat less move more" is not that it's false (it's not), but that it's not particularly helpful. In practice, what, when and how much we eat affects us in different ways. It also seems highly likely that different people respond differently to various eating patterns. And one thing we've lost over the last few decades, in the modern food environment, is the ability (for many people, at least) to regulate our weight, and sort of course-correct. Because while people may have faced periods of starvation or food insecurity well into the 20th century (and still do in many parts of the world), it's not as if people in Western countries in the 1950s or 60s experienced a lack of food (in most cases), but they still remained thin. Even looking at different countries today, my native Sweden is definitely getting fatter, but it still has an obesity level that's about half of Colorado (the thinnest state in the U.S.). I can assure you, people are not going hungry. And this is where I think food quality comes into the picture, and specifically the presence of highly palatable foods that appear to drive people to eat past their natural satiety signals. So in that sense, I think hormones affect eating behaviors a great deal, it's just not really at the level of basic metabolism.
At 33:05 you are explaining a high carb / low fat intake scenario, showing the uptake and release of fats. I wonder: all of a sudden, a fat release from the fat cells into the blood stream is possible although insulin (high carb) is present? Why are your insulin levels low in this example? At the same time you are speaking of a HIGH Carb intake. In my opinion fat release is blocked for hours as long as insulin is present….Why are you missing the point to tell in this example, that fat release is blocked by insulin? Thank you for clarification.
More Hormones can release fat, not only Insulin. This is whay you loose fat with a high carb diet.
But if ketosis suppresses ghrelin, most who became obese in a carb based metabolic state don't face the ravenous hunger in a fat fueled state and would tend to be hypocaloric. I used to eat a bunch of candy at work cuz it was there and I was so hungry and I don't even really like candy. Now I can completely control when and what I eat. It's really the other benefits of keto that I find superior to when I was a mostly whole food lacto-ovo vegetarian. There's so much more to ketosis too like the capacity for ketones to fuel the brain when glucose uptake is compromised, the supression of some inflammation, being able to wake up and not feel "groggy", etc. For those of us with metabolic dysfunction from the standard diet, keto can work wonders
To add keto and IF helps reduce loose skin
Keto can also damage your kidneys and liver. Just something to consider and keep an eye out for.
Thanks!
Thank you, Granet!
"All of the molecules are in perfect flux, converted to CO2 and energy..." How does this elucidate anything? This is "simplified" beyond reason. You can't have a mass balance with energy as a product. You can perhaps use calories as a proxy for nutrition mass (it would be incorrect without a lot of adjustment), but you can't call ATP usage thermal energy and you can't have an oxidation product along with an energy in a mass balance. What about inefficiencies, losses, use of food for growth. It's NOT a first law situation: our body tries to be a steady state system with lots of controls that we are trying to overcome in order to lose fat stores and return to proper operation. "Running at a caloric deficit" has not worked for many people.
Let me explain it for those who don't understand why keto is the only diet that can work, for many people. Many of us suffer from raging hunger pretty much the whole day if our carb intake is high, were high carb intake is defined as more than 20 g total per day. Then if we stay low carb our appetite is under control and eating let's say 1800 calories per day becomes possible.
Let me also once and for all debunk this channel and others that talk about reviewing various studies that show that low carb does not result in weight loss and is not healthier. These people are defining low carb with as high as 50 g of net carbs per day - this is not even remotely low carb for the kind of person for whom keto is the necessary diet. Of course if you're eating high fat with more than 50 g of net carbs you will get fat, and if you're the kind of person who should be on keto, you will get morbidly obese in months. This is why you must listen to doctors like Dr bikman and Dr Fung who understand the different metabolic situation of those people who must be on keto.
I literally never said any of that, so thank you for the straw man. Additionally, I have content on how keto can be a great method for weight loss. So…
@@Physionic thank you for the reply! My comment about the studies was not based on this video but another one where you reviewed a set of studies. I have seen this not just on this channel but all over the place where studies that do not know what real keto is are cited as representing that, and it is hugely misleading. In your video you mentioned that there was an odd discrepancy between the North American and European and Asian results. This would be because the exact details of what each diet comprised beyond simply having been labelled low-carb are critical. I know you're not anti-keto however given your own metabolic health, you are likely not seeing/experiencing the significance of the hormonal situation, and that therefore for some people it is not a choice between high-carb low-fat and low-carb high fat, because only one of those two options has a remote chance of working for them. Other than that your explanations of cellular level mechanisms are fantastic which I really appreciate, and please do check out dr. Bikman if you haven't already, as his work is likely right up your alley. Thank you for the work you are doing!
@@_FightForYourFreedom_ its stupid to make here a comment for a diffrent video.
This amount of research and dedication to put this together deserves more views. It's so informative and easy to understand. Thanks!
It would be great to see you discuss this with Dr (PHd not MD) Bickman from InsulinIQ channel.
"…that means you're eating no protein, and you're gonna die."
The record for fasting is over a year, and he didn't die. Fasting means (among other things) not eating protein. Yes, if you stop eating protein you are going to eventually have issues, but there's a lot of nuance here.
My understanding of what Drs. Fung, Lustig, Jamnadas, etc., are saying is that BOTH calories and hormones are determinative of weight loss/gain/maintenance. Contrary to the standard calories-in-calories-out model, a dieter also has to consider insulin levels. If he's eating, say, 1500 calories/day, but taking those calories in via multiple small meals spread throughout the day, then his insulin level will remain high throughout the day and his fat will remain in his fat cells. So what matters is calories + insulin + timing. Plus, of course, the quality of the calories matters.
They're absolutely right
A person burns more than 1500 calories a day just laying down doing nothing. There is zero chance of not pulling from stored fat on a diet like that. The timing is only a factor for controlling hunger signals. When calories are equated, you will get the same result regardless of meal timing.
another factor to give more weight to is the effect of the hormones produced on the end result of calories taken in . IE: if the hormones make hunger... more calories are likely to be taken in and vice versa. Sure, if you take in fewer calories you'll lose weight. But the craving to eat is not a small matter in the outcome of level of calories. .If you only pay attention to the calories, you put yourself at a real disadvantage for dealing with the cravings and lack of satiety.
It’s just calories, because they are the “driver” to those hormones. I cannot directly manipulate my hormones in an effort to gain or lose weight, but I can manipulate my calories…which then manipulates my hormones… The modifiable habit for weight loss/gain is at the simplest level, calories. We are not an exception to a good old balanced chemical equation:)
From the most recent studies, food timing does not matter when calories are equated when it comes to fat loss... But from my own personal experience it does.. and this will not be liked by many of the so called experts and gurus.. but at least for me.. and it really makes sense.. one meal per day (calories equated) is WORSE for fat loss than spreading the meals out over the day. My theory is that when you dont eat, you dont have the energy incoming and your body stops figiting, your mitochondria stops decoupling (wasting energy via heat production) and overall you are using less energy via neat than you would if you eat spread out during the day. The whole time restricted fasting craze is all about reduction of caloric intake due to not being able to eat the same about in one meal that you would if you ate during the day. Longer fasts like 24 to 48 or even 72 hours in my opinion are more useful but done sparingly like once a month or so. Again... Just my own opinion
This is my first video of yours that I am watching and I am so happy that you are not only a passionate educator but an articulate one. Thank you for this public service, so many of us really appreciate this kind of breakdown!
Excellent Video especially on ASP (I think you meant acylation stimulation protein rather than acetylation SP). Calories definitely count - as do the hormonal factors especially in obese folks because they have far greater amounts of ASP, NPY, leptin levels (oft leading to leptin resistance and constant desire to eat which is why keto works for them due to the satiety) than regular folks who are not overweight. I think the other thing to mention is Resting Metabolic Rate which will decrease with continuous caloric restriction (and thus also stimulate hunger hormones) which is why you need to vary your fasting and non-fasting schedules (calorie up and down, smaller and larger windows of fasting) + exercise to stimulate your metabolism to get out of a plateau which both people on keto and non-keto diets get.
Anyway so glad you did this video because strict metabolomic studies have shown that both high carb, low fat vs high fat vs low carb have the same amt of fat loss over several weeks (actually the higher carb one lost a tiny bit more weight) though this was done in folks who were not too metabolically deranged.
Good post. I can tell you've thought this through.
I'm 27 minutes into the video, and I haven't heard you mention that the fat we consume doesn't get pushed into fat cells. The fat in fat cells is created from excess glucose that the body needs to find storage for. If you eat too much fat, it's excreted, not stored. If you eat too much sugar, it's turned into fat and stuffed into fat cells (and other places). Additionally, so long as you continue to eat sugar, the fat is created and stored but not allowed to be accessed and used for energy. So, if you eat carbs all day long, your body will use carbs for energy, but won't ever go for the fat that you stocked away previously. This is why so many humans resemble tanker trucks full of fat that they can't burn off; they eat sugar all day long in the form of carbs. PS there is no way that counting carbs and counting calories are equally sustainable ways to lose weight over the long haul, and keep it off. There are too many people documenting success on low carb than has ever been documented by counting calories. See Weight Watchers for proof. I heard WW just purchased the rights to some new weight loss drug, btw. Hmmm.
Because that isn't true. Fat we consume is absorbed and sugar we consume can be converted to fat, but 99% is not.
@Physionic 99% of sugar people consume is NOT converted to fat? How is that possible? The evidence is walking (or riding scooters) all around us. Are you going to argue that all those overweight people are fat because they consume too much fat? No, it's because they consume too much sugar (in all forms). Everything I said in my comment is true, notwithstanding whether or not actual fat is absorbed by fat cells directly to any extent. Put that part aside, then. The rest is true.
That's literally not true. If you ate 800 calories a day of pure sugar, you're definitely going to lose a ton of bodyfat. The only reason people on keto lose so much weight is because it's extremely difficult to eat an excess of calories. Even if you ate 6 eggs a day and 30 ounces of ribeye, that's only 1800 calories. The majority of people are going to lose weight. Also, you CAN gain fat on carnivore if you eat too much
@@conca324 If you tried to lose weight by eating 800 a day of pure sugar a day you would make yourself sick. It's not even a diet that's possible to do. Secondly, when you learn to burn fat instead of sugar, sugar cravings subside, and even if you're hungry, you're not "starving", as it feels like when you are a sugar-burner. So even stipulating that a low-carb diet reduces calories, it's much easier to go about your day without dying of hunger, obsessing over food, bringing to bear extreme willpower, and then finally giving in to the ice cream. Low-calorie low-carb diets of fat and protein are easy to sustain because your body resorts to burning the fat you're carrying around when it needs energy, rather than screaming for more sugar and threatening to completely shut down if not fed said sugar.
@@lvrichardson7966 obviously I'm not recommending someone try to lose weight by eating 800 grams of sugar haha. Although, I will say the RUclips channel Abs and Ice Cream went 100 days consuming 2000 calories worth or ice cream and 500 calories worth of protein powder per day. Not only did he end up losing 30 pounds (most of it bodyfat), but according to his bloodwork, he actually got healthier
If staying low calorie over time works for you, great. For me, I've lost and kpt weight off with a combo of watching calories, low carb to keep my blood sugar stable, and intermittent fasting/time restricted eating. IF means early dinner and brunch, not breakfast AND lunch. I find, for me, eating too many carbs just triggers me to eat more, then eat again in an hour or so. I'd rather be burning fat than burning off carbs all the time.
"IF means early dinner and brunch"
No it doesn't.
@@htp1146 That's how it's worked best for me. Everyone has to find what works for them.. Context is everything. Why so pedantic?
You were in a caloric deficit when you lost weight regardless of how you created that caloric deficit. IF can be one pathway to a caloric deficit. So can a vegan or a carnivore diet.
@@veniqerveganism cult is so bad that people hate them. Do carnivore only when you need to reverse some kind of disease or autoimmunity. Else, do omnivore diet heavily more on meat and eggs with decent amount of fat and decent or low amount of carb
@@veniqer If he was in a caloric deficit he'd be having hypothermia. But on a serious note, "calories" are not an accurate way to measure energy intake, causing people to necessarily undereat, creating issues in itself. Labels can be off on calories by 20%, so already you're working with bad information. Then you have to factor in the thermic effect of food, how much energy you are using to break down food in the first place. Then how much is going to waste via excretion. It's simply impossible to accurately measure in calories, a cool new phone app is not going to help you. Humans do not eat "calories" they eat mass.
Another important hormone is thyroid, in that when it's low you have no energy to do physical activity and yet your hunger doesn't decrease. Getting on the right side of thyroxin allowed me to lose 28 lbs in 3 months.
Yes? Is it all so simple? What if you are insulin resistant? What if you have stored glucagon thru entire body? Are you loosing fat also at the beginning? How long do you need to start loosing fat? I think that body first using stored glucagon, or not? What about protein(muscle)? How much are you loosing muscle mass at which diet?
Nic, thank you so much for making this video. You have a real gift for explaining complex things in ways that are easy to understand. Keep up the good work!
Like many Americans, I gained about a pound a year after age 30. Since my mid-40's, I have tried all kinds of popular diets, including low fat, vegetarian, Zone, Weight Watchers, Paleo, Keto, and Fasting. I lost some weight, but always gained it back.
I finally learned about the importance of insulin from Dr. Fung, Dr. Sten Ekberg, and Professor Ben Bikman, and that understanding has been so helpful. Our body seeks homeostasis. When our blood sugar gets too high, we release insulin, which stores that excess energy for future use. I think that you and I can both agree that as long as insulin is high, we cannot access our stored fat. People on low fat diets know how cold and almost frantically hungry they get when their blood sugar plummets. Over time, their metabolism slows down. Low fat diets are miserable and unsustainable. Just ask The Biggest Losers.
When it comes to keto, eating fat does not result in weight loss. In fact, instead of burning your stored fat, you are burning the calories you are eating. But keto taught me something that is very important and practical. Before cutting calories, it is CRITICAL to: 1) be fat adapted; 2) keep carbs and insulin low. When you eat a high carb, low fat diet, you are constantly cutting off access to the very energy sources you are trying to use. When you are fat adapted, it is easy to cut calories because you are getting your calories from your stored fat. You may be bored, but you are not really hungry.
Dr. Ted Naiman finally taught me what should have been self-evident from the very beginning. His book, the PE Diet, gives a very clear explanation of why we have an obesity epidemic, and what every overweight person needs to do to burn off their stored fat and regain their health. Cut carbs. Cut fats. Eat adequate amounts of protein. Exercise. Sleep. Stay hydrated.
Cutting carbs solves the insulin problem. Cutting fats solves the calorie problem. Eating protein solves the muscle loss problem. Exercise and sleep are the two most important things you can do for your health and longevity.
After an obese person becomes lean, they can get their energy from fats AND/OR carbs. As long as they eat adequate protein and a balanced number of calories, they will stay lean. As long as they do strength training and aerobic exercise, they will optimize their strength, their lean muscle mass, and their health span. Voila!
Thank you! The importance of keto and/or fasting for enabling fat loss when previously unable to lose and keep it off seems to be beyond his recognition. There can be a time at which you have to shut off the insulin.
@BigPictureYT, your comment is so wise. Thanks a lot for your time, to explain with such ease. Appreciate also the last french word: voilà ! Hello from France, Danielle
somehow it seems like you omitted to say that carbohydrates get converted to glycogen and then to fat... So consuming carbs = consuming fat.. its even worse... Carbs have many problems.. first of all you eat more of then before you feel sated.. Fat gives you feeling of fullness within seconds of consuming them..
Excellent video! I agree that metabolism drives hormonal activity. But this begs the question: what drives metabolism? The answer is the level of activity and stress in our lives. And this doesn't factor in the quality of our food supply. In our world where a good portion of people are sedentary and experience constant and considerable stress, and are fed by a collection of engineered food (engineered to be addictive...), the result is poor metabolic health - type II diabetes, obesity, etc. How do we fix this? Eat good food, be active and manage stress. This is simple to state, but difficult to achieve... Much more could be said about the negative impact of our synthetics (plastics, VOC, etc), our food supply and the plethora of medications and supplements that surround us. It's hard to be a healthy person in this world.
Genetics, muscle mass, food quality, glucose/insulin responses.
Food is not just its chemical composition. Food is its chemical composition _and_ its mechanical structure. You'll digest, absorb, and respond to an intact piece of plant or animal differently than you would to the same item, exactly the same molecules, if it's ground to a paste before you eat it.
--
It's not heat and CO2 that our food turns into. It's heat, CO2, and water.
--
The energy your cells _need_ is a tiny fraction of the energy your cells typically use. When people are starving, they may only burn something like 1200 kcal per day, and they survive, even though their weight would be stable at 2000 kcal/day under normal conditions.
--
You said "acetylation" stimulating protein. Did you mean acylation stimulating protein?
--
Fat loss is not caused by tautologies.
Fat loss is caused, somehow, by having just started a new regimen, whether it's diet, exercise, or some of each. Every fat person in the world, by the time we're actually fat rather than just kind of overweight, has lost hundreds of pounds on multiple different diets. Every diet works wonderfully, for most people, for a little while. Every diet (or at least every diet that bothers with it) has reams of short-term studies showing that it works wonderfully. It's not about being at a particular weight, as it would be if what mattered were the physics of moving a 200-lb body versus a 250-lb body. You can do exactly the same thing at exactly the same weight, but if you're two cycles later, when you weigh 20lb more at the start and have lost 20lb, the results will perfectly track where in the cycle you are, and not track at all with your actual weight. Almost every fat person has, in at least one of those cycles, kept a food diary, faithfully recording every bite of food, until weight loss stops even though food intake stays down and exercise stays up. So if you tell us we're all lying, we know better. None of it makes a difference. Every diet leads to substantial weight loss at first, well beyond what can be explained by loss of glycogen and water. Every diet leads to net weight gain usually within a year, two years max.
I've even had cycles where I start by getting in shape and building muscle while eating as much as humanly possible -- high-water-content, high-fiber, low-saturated-fat food of whichever macronutrient ratio the medical authorities were recommending at the time, but lots and lots of it -- and it didn't matter. I still lost weight at first.
Yes, it's a tautology that calories in minus calories out equals net change in calories in the body. But it tells us nothing, because that's what tautologies do.
A lot of what you saying is not true.
Wow man I listened now again
Every second pure gold!
I have no idea how you do not have at least a million followers ...
Yaron,From Israel
Hopefully one day, and thank you again, Yaron.
@@PhysionicNic, please don't change when your channel gets bigger.
If the dieter has insulin resistance, they will have abnormally high insulin levels both after eating and after not eating for 12 hours. High insulin revels inhibit fat metabolism forcing the liver to turn protein onto glucose to feed the cells. A calorie deficit during high insulin levels results in loss of bodily protein and very little fat.
Get insulin resistance resolved then a calorie deficit will result in primarily fat loss. Or, a prolonged major calorie reduction, over time, can also result in fat loss due to lower total calories results in lower carb consumption. IR just happens slower.
Also, fatty liver has been shown to slow the metabolic processes of the liver, hence lowering the metabolic rate.
But yes, agreed that calorie in/out is a necessary component of weight change.
I never skip. Always watch and listen to everything you have to say no matter how long. You are wonderful.
Aww, thank you, Patricia. That's really kind of you.
Could you please talk about PCOS, how to improve symptoms and what could help in the weigh loss with that syndrome.
Thanks so much for your videos! I’m a family med doctor practicing in Georgia and I see a lot of patients who struggle with obesity who are trying to lose weight. I’ve recently watched a few of your videos, and they have been really helpful in learning about what the research says in regards to weight loss, hyperlipidemia, diabetes management, ect. I always try to practice medicine with an evidence based approach, and I will say that your videos have helped me with that. I do have a question about this video. You talk about metabolism as being the primary driving factor for fat loss, which I understand. However, what is the primary driving factor for metabolism and how can we ultimately control it? Is it fasting, increasing physical activity? Since this seems to be an important part of fat loss, does anything seem to have a substantial effect on metabolism? Thanks!
There is a very big difference between a normal metabolic profile and a sick metabolic candidate. When in a healthy state, it is EFFORTLESS losing or maintaining weight. Eat when hungry, move a bit and glow with health.
HOWEVER, endocrine dysbiosis can make fat loss impossible without fixing root cause: eat less: gain weight. Exercise profusely: gain weight. Thyroid health, cortisol levels, liver function, estrogen and testosterone levels, leptin resistance, microbiome, pathogens such as Candida and numerous other factors impact metabolism.
Never trust a skinny chef, never believe an always been slim nutritionist or dietician!
I don't have the qualifications of the guy who made this video. I can appreciate how much he knows about how mitochondria work and I do have a theory I'm exploring which involves mitochondrial health in relation to multiple diseases. My grandmother has Alzheimers. MY father has type-2 Diabetes. I have personally struggled with weight gain my entire life staring from when I was old enough to be aware of my condition.
I've listened to a man named Dr. Robert Lustig speak about his experience with children in Memphis, TN as a pediatrician as well as many other trained physicians, scientists and doctors. I've listened to his theories of metabolic health. I may one day read his book 'Metabolical.' Of all the content I've read or listened to it seems to me that there are two common denominators when it comes to disfunctional mitochondria by my estimation. Those would be excessive fructose consumption in the absence of fiber, and excessive consumption of hyper-palatable processed foods which often have added sugars as well.
My theory at this point in my journey and research is:
Cell metabolism is destroyed by the over consumption of fructose or the production of fructose due to the over consumption of high glycemic foods or processed foods. Once the cells become inefficient, the basal metabolic rate drops, you get more hungry and expend less energy on a cellular level, then eventually develop the disease profiles which follow genetic predispositions, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Alzheimers, etc.
I never obtained a degree in any of these things. However, science is my all time favorite subject and I'm trying to use it to help my loved ones and friends and hopefully many more people along the way. I hope, even if I'm not entirely correct, my thoughts here can help you since you are helping others.
@@RD-us2kbThe primary factor that drives the metabolism is protein
There is some interesting information being presented by Dr Robert Lustig and Dr Richard Johnson on the effect of fructose on metabolism. You may find it enlightening (there are RUclipss).
I would listen to layne Norton he’s more accurate on the topic, scientifically, practically and has more experience in many ways
I do have one question. Does Insulin Resistance affect the equation at all? If you have high levels of insulin long after eating carbohydrates (because of IR), and with a lower glucose level (since those are being moved into fat cells), isn't the body going to have to "compensate" with lethargy and higher levels of hunger? Is there a mechanism which "drains" the excess insulin to allow fat mobilization?
Said in another way, why do I have the impression that for someone with IR, at least one of low carb, time restricted feeding or fasting seem pretty much necessary for "practical" weight loss?
Well said. This video is a long winded explanation of the most basic concept, energy in energy out. Unfortunately it isn’t that simple for many people…there are plenty of exceptions to this general rule and concept.
I feel like I ended up finding the answer later... If blood glucose gets too low, the body can create some using a process called neoglucogenesis.
I still believe that for someone with Insulin Resistance, the path is controlling insulin (low carb and various forms of fasting), and that will lead to a "practical" calorie deficit, and not the other way around.
I don't think that makes sense. IR means that the cells in the body are resistant to insulin, meaning it takes more insulin in the blood to get the same effect. But the pancreas is still able to release enough insulin to get the job done, or else the person would have Diabetes. The pancreas releases more insulin because the beta cells still detect higher blood glucose, if the blood glucose is under control then the insulin would not be released as much. In fact, one way to test for IR is by giving a glucose solution to a fasted patient and seeing what their blood glucose does after 3 hours.
As long as the person is not diabetic, then their hormones will work well enough to allow for weight loss without worrying about intermittent fasting or fats or carbs.
exercise
Insulin releases Adipose triglyceride lipase and CPT-1 which inhibit fat burning. More insulin means it's harder to burn fat and more fat is stored. If your body's ability to release insulin effectively is impaired, calories in, calories out isn't going to work the way it would in a healthy individual.
Glucose is present in all carbs. It is stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles. If that store isn't used up (because we can only store a certain amount) by taking a break from carbs or by using up the stored glycogen via exercise it gets stored as fat. Insulin is what is required to maintain the fat stores, so the more fat you store from excess glucose, the more insulin your body must produce. Take away the carbs you'll reset that hormonal response.
I watched many of your videos and you have never been so excited
You are simply living the world of research with inspiring passion
What makes your explanations so understandable and compelling
respect Man.yaron From Israel
Ha, it's one I've thought about a significant amount and I'm feeling a little more energetic of late, so it translated I suppose. I'm really glad it did, though - thank you!
It's evident that weight loss is primarily caused by a calorie deficit. When individuals like Dr. Fong claim that calories don't matter, they are referring to the fact that meticulous calorie counting may not be necessary. This is because a low-insulin environment, reduced glucose fluctuations, and the appetite-suppressing effects of being in ketosis can naturally regulate food intake. Some studies that attempt to discredit the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet often fall short by improperly controlling calorie intake, forcing the keto group to consume more than desired to maintain calorie balance. It begs the question: Why is the significant impact of ketosis on appetite, which plays a vital role in weight loss, often overlooked or not emphasized?
This is the best podcast about fat loss i’ve ever listened to! Congrats
I agree with the overall explanation in its entirety, although i would have liked to see more effects on satiety hormone when you where explaining the two types of diets for fat loss, this is because i find ot more sustainable long term when i am satiated with my diet than if i dont. Which is why i mostly maintain a ratio of 45% protein/fats and 10% carbs, sometimes 40/40/20 is what works best for me.
I've tried a variety of different calories overtime and actually had the exact same results no matter if I eat 500 calories over maintenance, or 500 below. The only difference is my hunger level. I have a friend that can literally eat 3 cheese steaks a day and still have the physique of an Olympic sprinter.
Well, that's like 2400 calories if we figure each one to be about 800 calories. And it's pretty high in protein with cheese and meat. So yea, that adds up about your buddy
Thanks
Thanks, yet again, Jesper.
I really wish we could edit this comment before posting but it forces you to just write that, it's so weird
My body weight is baffling. There have been years in which I lived on free junk food as part of my job and sat down the whole time. I put on maybe 10lbs. Then there are years like this and last year in which I have restricted myself to 2000Kcal on almost all days, hiked roughly 2 hours a day on average and lifted weights... but seen NO CHANGE after the initial water loss. I seem to be the same weight regardless of low carb, high protein diet or the current one which is based on the Zoe program which is all whole foods with mostly vegetables. Nothing seems to change anything!
Dude I've seen anti keto videos enough but no one ever mentions why exactly that diet works for so many people. Main reason we are getting fat is because we are often hungry, keto removes that hunger and keeps your blood sugar levels stable. You are acting like someone claims that you can eat unlimitted amounts of calories on that diet which is far from truth.
Great video. How is it that semaglutide prescribed as an obesity/fat loss drug significantly elevates insulin levels in users but still causes a massive loss in fat? Shouldn’t the opposite happen as per the carb-insulin model of fat loss? And how is it that overconsuming low insulin spiking foods whether it be cheese, eggs, nuts can still lead to serious fat gain if they barely move the needle in spiking insulin levels? Just saying bro
Interesting question. There's a key piece of information missing here. Semaglutide only increases insulin in the presence of glucose. As for your second point, I'm confused by the question considering its addressed in the video... I'm saying insulin is not necessary for fat gain.
I understand, and if I understand you correctly, overconsumption of calories above and beyond maintenance, will cause fat gain and increase your risk of T2D whether you are keto or not, given obesity is an independent risk factor for many serious cardometabolic health issues for the majority of the population. What I hear a lot on social media from some is the venement assertion that calories don’t matter and as long as you consume foods that minimally if at all spike insulin, nuts, cheese, eggs, EVO, etc., to your heart’s delight, you need not worry, even if you sit on your a*s all day. Thanks for clarifying
It's not that simple. And this is something that people who recommend high protein/low carb diets understand. These people are not stupid. Sure you need a deficit in calories to lose weight.. No one says otherwise.
But why do you intake more calories then you need in the first place? The simple analogy here is that telling someone that the need to make more money then they spend to get rich isn't really insightul or useful to them. The question is how do you either make more money or spend less...
It's the same with diet. How do you convince the body that it needs less calories. Well the answer is that you need to load up on the nutrients that the body cares about - and thus you will feel full and eat less - and create the deficit. Food is not just a caloric store. Fats and proteins are essential for life and are used by the body.
Proteins are the machinery for entire body and fats are often converted into essential chemical compounds like hormones. So a diet high in protein with sufficient fats and low in carbohydrates will satisfy the body and make it easier to create that deficit.
So sure something like carnivore is not the only way to get jacked like Shawn Baker.. But its easy and sustainable. The body is quite thrilled to get all the protein and fats it needs and he doesn't feel that hungry.
This made no sense to me. I'm doing low carb, it's working. I watched the whole video to see your same conclusion.
Been doing keto for a while. First time I’ve heard of ASP. thanks for putting this context out. I know have a more complete understanding of what’s going on with my diet.
So glad to have discovered this channel. Thank you Nicolas! This will help me serve my clients tremendously!
Wow! Thank you for putting your heart in explaining things. Thank you for making knowledge available for common people like me. This means a lot in the age of mis information.
Have just started watching your channel - I’ve been trying to understand a bit more about nutrition and the impact of food types on the body’s biological processes and this one is really helpful. I think I will have to watch it through a few times though as I can be a bit of a slow learner at times. Thanks again.
So (to a lay person like myself), this begs the question… Is there a diet in which you can lower both insulin AND ASP for the promotion of weight loss? And are there reasons why it would be a bad thing?
Nicholas' bar diagram is the top level message
The blue bar is what your body requires in energy to maintain life.
Underfeed, and you lose weight, the red segment
Overfeed, and you gain weight the green segment
Aka, the title of the video😊
Nicholas and Dr. Carvalho Make it very clear but it doesn't matter what you eat
Underfeed with high carb low fat diet, you lose weight
Underfeed with low carb high fat diet, you lose weight
In other words
Fewer calories in then calories required, you lose weight
By the way,
Undo feeding is much more efficient than exercise
There are many sites on internet which show how many calories you burn. Doing a specific exercise for let's say an hour confirms the fact that exercising for an hour to burn 500 calories is excellent for your overall health, but not eating 500 calories is equally effective
Several studies have shown that exercise that most people can have manage and maintain is a poor way of losing weight
So happy to discover your channel out, excellent content, new era where the scientist leaves the cave and comes out to talk to someone who is interested in learning more about it. Keto worked pretty well for me for awhile and did not then. I still like the Keto lifestyle, but floating between other styles I also feel good. I learned somethings: calorie matters, and real food is always the way to go even if low carb ou high carbs. Thank you sir.
I'm happy to hear it, Thiago. All the best in your future nutrition goals.
@@Physionic thank you!
Fantastic explanation!! Thank you!!
Great video, thanks for providing an independent voice on these complex diet, weight, and health matters. I've been a big follower of the keto squad but never felt like anyone said that keto alone would lead to weight loss. Keto makes it easier to lose weight through calorie deficit for reasons you stated or hinted at, especially when coupled with intermittent fasting. I lost 30lbs this way and have kept it off for 3 years by sticking to a keto and low carb/high fat diet.
I was intrigued by your comments about ASP which appear to be the complement of insulin but your views on ASP aren't supported by the few technical papers I was able to find. ASP is described as stimulating "triglyceride synthesis and storage in fat cells by enhancing glucose and fatty acid uptake" which gives it a more nuanced role in fat storage from fat because it appears to also increase the uptake of glucose to fat as well. Some of the articles cited 3 or 4 more hormones that have similar secondary or tertiary roles in how our bodies respond to food.
I do agree that many of the keto proponents do not discuss what happens to excess fat on a keto diet. I did find one recent proponent who suggested that excess fat on keto is simply passed out of the body which would be great if that's what actually happens. Your description of ASP's effects suggest otherwise.
I'd be interested in sources of information about what the body does with excess fat on a keto diet. In my case, it's not turning to fat. I don't seem to gain weight no matter how much fat I eat. It's only when I start tapping into carbs that the weight seems to go up. Any suggestions on clearing up this aspect of dieting and weight loss would be appreciated.
I don't disagree from a scholarly standpoint, but from the standpoint of reaching a highly diverse audience, I find that the insulin-centric presentation approach has merits. At the point where a person understands (1) the dietary approach required to lower the insulin level to a healthy level in conjunction with (2) the integration of a sufficient degree of fasting (caloric reduction) to achieve the goals of reducing insulin resistance and fatty liver, all of the biological details you're talking about come into play without needing to necessarily be understood. Similarly, the vast majority of drivers don't understand the details of how cars work, but they reach their destinations routinely with high-level, minimal instructions about cars. We'd have far fewer drivers if getting a driver's license required automotive technical competency.
I'm not hungry when I'm in ketosis, including, never having cravings, which makes it way more easy to limit caloric intake.
Also I'm less tired and drowsy when on keto, which makes it way more easy to have a higher activity level, ie. have a higher caloric output.
This combination made losing 80 pounds seem kind of effortless to me, meaning it demanded little willpower.
Also I got rid of many other ailments I struggled with over my lifetime. I simply feel much better in ketosis, which makes it much easier to have a healthier lifestyle.
I have no issues with this video and the fact that caloric deficit on a metabolic level is necessary to lose body fat. It's just that keto makes it much easier to control the calorie balance, at least to me.
But I can confirm that it absolutely possible to gain weight on keto. I've done that several times, although the gains haven't been massive or quick, and I feel they're easy to adjust.
Also I don't understand why people get hung up on the hormone mechanisms when the main issue should be to find a diet that makes you feel good and doesn't demand a ton of willpower to be in a caloric deficit over a period of time if you're aiming for getting rid of body fat.
and 2:
i also think because the video is partial, we need to remember that when energy needs to be compensated for insufficient calories, it can be gathered from muscles, from moving less etc.. it doesn't matter that cells need the same energy, some functions will slow down so overall less energy will be spent to balance the lack of calories
Very interesting and love the way explained things.
At 9:54 you said that insulin blocks the release of fat molecules from fat cells, but it also promotes storing fat molecules into fat cells. Now, I don't understand how is it possible for fat loss to occur when you consume less calories than you need, but you eat high carbohydrate diet so your insulin is high most of the time because of high blood glucose. Wouldn't insulin stop fat cells from releasing fat molecules, even though other cells ("other" such as muscle cells, bone cells...) need an additional energy from fat cells that they haven't got from food in order for body to work?
I like the way you think, Rejhan. Yes, you’re exactly right that a higher carbohydrate diet would increase insulin, and yes insulin would lead to fat molecules being taken up. However, even with a high carbohydrate diet, if you are in a calorie deficit, insulin drops. You can see proof of that across multiple studies in my video called “High Insulin Diet”.
@@Physionic Hi Nick! I've watched that video, I see what's your point, but even though that weight loss by itself lowers insulin, isn't insulin still higher due to high carbohydrate diet then if we would to consume a lower carbohydrate diet?
What I understand is that insulin is more dependent on weight loss than other way around. To me, it doesn't look like insulin causes weight gain by itself (what you also said), but that weight gain causes higher insulin.
If we say that insulin prevents weight loss, then high carbohydrate diet would still prevent you from losing weight because that energy deficit wouldn't be enough to lower insulin to the point where it allows your body to remover fat.
It is kinda illogical that insulin has any impact on weight loss when we know for sure that even extremely high carbohydrate diet will cause fat loss due to energy deficit, body needs to get energy somehow, but if we say that insulin prevents fat molecules from leaving from fat cells, then that would basically mean that you die because your body can't get any energy.
Correct me please if I am wrong.
This is good information. It will take me a while to process it though. Thank you.
I have had insulin resistance since I had my period…tried low fat and low calorie diet, FAILED MISERABLY…20 years of trial and error, the high fat diet helping the satiety is really the key to control the calorie intake. It’s the only way I don’t think about food ALL THE TIME.
i’m fitness/diet/weelness enthusiast so i follow a lot all this topic and all this channel on youtube, internet and wherever i can find informations..
i have to congrats with you cause i think this is the best video i’ve ever seen on the matter: clear, precise, explains complicated dynamics in a very very simple way, gives a pretty complete pictures of things… really Man… awesome video! congratulation again.
I’ll definitively check more of your videos!😜😜
Thank you, Ricky.
Thanks Nicolas. Always great content, but especially today. Keep going.
Thanks, Sam!
I appreciate the passion for nerding out on the nitty gritty. Helps us go deeper into these concepts. After listening all the way through, the only question I have is in the ASP fat storing, versus the insulin fat storing “systems” like when dropping into keto, does ASP step in immediately to store fat? Or is there some lag time that the body has to adapt to? Just curious about those in between times and how the body responds/what happens to fat burning in the meantime, if there is a “meantime.” Thanks
This is a great asset in my fatloss video library.
Thank you. As a nutritionist, I appreciate the content you are sharing.
I'm glad, Sausen - keep it up on your end, too.
So, Everything you have presented makes perfect sense. Complex but not too challenging to understand. The bigger question remains, how do you manipulate your metabolic set point? That deserves another well-thought-out presentation like this one. Thank you for this well-thought-out presentation.
Thank you. I actually have a video coming out on metabolic set points, but it doesn't go into as much depth as this video, so it's something I certainly expect to create in the future (with greater depth).
Your passion is not only wonderful it is greatly appreciated. Such fascinating topics you delve into, and due to your teaching I’ve come to have an understanding of what makes us tick. As someone who loves training and learning about the body I thank you !
Thank you! This was a very informative presentation. So exercise to increase metabolism and increase cellular use of both fat and glucose.👍🏼🙂
The way I've always read it: Muscle mass burns at rest. Hormonal balance affects perceived energy and base metabolic rate. Ambient temperature has a small impact too. So, basically, I've always looked at it as getting your resting metabolism as high as your body chemistry will allow, or dialing down intake. Either way, it's still calories in / calories out. The question is whether or not your lifestyle and metabolism are helping your cause or not.
I kinda feel like your points here are a more detailed, accurate, and specific version of this, and I really appreciate the details
Great video. I have one question. Do fat molecules need to enter the fat cells first in order to be distributed throughout the body or can they bypass that step?
Pumped for this!
Thank you, needed that overview.
I know that nearly everyone agrees on CICO, but all of my experience has shown it not to be true. I have been into bodybuilding for three years carefully tracking macros and caloric intake. When I bulk I can go to over 5000 calories a day with minimal slow weight gain getting stuck around 185 pounds. When I cut I can drop to 2200 a day and still slowly lose weight down to 175 before getting stuck. How can you account for that giant gap in caloric intake being over double? I've stayed the same weight at 4000 calories as at 3000 calories over the course of several months. Furthermore, I seem to lose muscle in equal proportions when dropping "weight" despite having well over an adequate daily protein intake. I know people will scream it's impossible and violates the laws of physics, but I guess I'm just magical then. I will add then when I'm consuming 5000+ calories a day I get super hot all the time, so maybe it's converting them into excess heat. I know that calories aren't "disappearing" but what's the point of CICO if your body just throws away the extra surplus calories?
Hopefully you might see this...
When I was younger I heard about a diet hypothesis that multiple days of severe under eating followed by days of silly overeating (repeating) took advantage of how your body responds to starvation and the following re-feeding period (they focused on sex hormones but I think it's more likely because of insulin/mitochondria/ketones/ etc.).
In their hypothesis they recommended 12 day periods of both.
When I did this, I went from somebody that struggled with weight and athletic performance to being a genuine freak.
I went from doing 100m sprint in 14 seconds to under 11 seconds.
I went from 10-20 push-ups in a minute to well over 60 in a minute.
I went from struggling to force out a handful or chin-ups to them becoming virtually effortless (I'm talking dozens).
I also looked really, really good and I achieved this without any exercise or training besides what an otherwise active person does.
I regret not continuing this diet but the back and forth took a lot of willpower but I'm wondering if a shorter 7/7 period might achieve the same thing.
PS: general fasting or common intermittent fasting protocols that I've tried had little similar effect.
I assume the calorie restriction period made my body super efficient and during the re-feeding period the nutrients consumed were used in that super efficient state BUT not long enough to negatively effect that efficiency (basically all these super efficient cells/processes suddenly had a lot more fuel to power them).
Love your content, easy to follow and concise as always. but I have a question. I am on day three of a ten day water fast. As you did not cover either intermittent or prolonged fasting is my assumption that, ASP and insulin are both down regulated while fasting?
I hypothesize… It seems that the human body is prepared to take up energy from where it can, this the existence of insulin, ASP and ultimately glucagon. However it seems that the body would switch hormones according to the energy source. It occurs to me that in nature, high carb food sources are not very high on fat and viceversa. Would it be fair to say that artificially made foods and dietary trends rich in both sugar and fat would render both ASP and insulin high, resulting in “energy hiperstorage”? So maybe the answer would be to find out your specific calorie maintenance level, compress that in a time lapse where you let your body fully metabolize the energy before the next intake and keep carbs low if you ingest high fats and viceversa…
32:30 how is insulin low on a high carb diet?
Fat mass changes measured in Calorie balance over the course of a year almost never deviate more than 4% whether losing or gaining fat weight. That 4% variance represents about 13lbs of human adipose tissue in stored energy. That's why caloric balance doesn't matter. You can reduce caloric intake by 20% and your body will only allow a tiny fat loss, of perhaps 4% of calories consumed, a larger muscle loss and a reduction in metabolism that will worsen your health.
Hello, thank you for this video. My question is how this works for high protein, low fat, low carb diet? What are the hormones that regulate protein intake and how they play into the ASP and Insulin hormones. Thanks
I understand you tried to simplify the model, but i think you make some assumptions and miss some points that are still important. I also believe you inject unintended emotion into your explanation "screaming cells", and recommend less emotional terms. Questions: 1. Does absorption of Fat vs absorption of carbs differ? there is another output you didn't mention in terms of solid waste (which can expel both types). 2. arent some fats used by the body as nutrients? Certain complex carbs are used in the gut too. 3. Aren't the kind of fats important to understand? and do you agree that some are inflammatory and may increase insulin resistance? 4. I like the contrasting comparison of low/high fat/carb, but does protein help both situations? Does it help one or the other? I may call what i do Keto, but it really is just low carb and more of everything else. I think I eat more than ever, but have lost a lot. The low carb approach is becoming accepted by the medical community as an effective treatment for T2D. I'm thinking that the problem is too multidimensional, with too many inner dependencies to look at it from too simplified of a perspective. It may just be the elimination of so much processed carb is really the benefit, and consuming simpler unprocessed foods helps.
You did not include water as a product from metabolizing food for energy.
32:19 high carb, low fat asp lower, insulin lower?? Kako insulin moze biti lower ako imamo high carb? Mozete li to objasniti? Hvala😊
Excellent video. I’m low carb but I look at the importance of low carb as a way to keep insulin levels as low as possible. I would place high intensity exercise as the No. 1 strategy for any kind of weight loss and health improvement.
I just found your channel today and I'm really digging your presentation style and the info you're giving out!
I missed something (or misunderstood something) in this one - If you overeat, NPY decreases, Peptide YY and Leptin increase. All of those should remove your drive to eat, so obesity shouldn't be possible unless people are eating without the drive to eat. And this happens in eating disorders - people are compelled to eat even when they don't really want to. But for the majority of overweight/obese individuals, they have the drive to eat despite having satisfied their metabolic needs.
So why is that?
Thanks for the awesome videos!
Im guessing 1. certain emotions overwrite the feeling of satiety.
2. the foods we are eating do not allow for these natural processes to occur, ie; 200kcal from orange juice vs 200kcal from actual oranges will have a different effect on your satiety
@@stephx9759 I can't speak to explanation 1,
But for #2, that explains short-term overeating, but my understanding of leptin is it's our body's fuel gauge. 200 Cal of OJ instead of oranges causes us to overeat by 100 Cal, so insulin kicks in and shoves that extra energy into our fat cells. Our fat cells start generating more leptin and that SHOULD delay hunger for the next feeding session. Since leptin is constantly being produced, the fat cells should produce elevated levels of leptin until we hit a 100 Cal deficit in our diet and they get back down to baseline.
We USED to be really sensitive to leptin levels. It was critical to our survival. If our fat stores get low, we get hungry. Now there seems to be something happening that is stopping that signaling. We're fat because our fuel gauge is broken. Wild animals don't count calories. Why should we have to? Calorie labels are really new, and since we've become obsessed with calories, we've only gotten fatter.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you can eat whatever you want and as long as your insulin is 0 that you’ll lose weight. The point is that if your insulin is always spiked, you can’t get enough energy into your blood stream from your fat, so you feel weak, so you eat more. You also act like your body’s minimal energy use is also it’s optimal energy use. A cell may want X joules of energy per day, but it can survive on Y=(X-N). High insulin levels may force a cell to energy state Y, rather than X, diminishing metabolism. Yes, it’s all calories in and calories out, but understanding the ways in which our food intake can diminish our body’s metabolic rate is just as important as tracking calories from food. I don’t consume the content this seems to be directed at, but I do think that constantly spiking your insulin levels through diet makes it nearly impossible to maintain a healthy weight because your metabolic rate is diminished by doing so. Yes, calories in/calories out, but to me the greater question is how can I get my body to always be using as much energy as possible.
Interesting and helpful, however how a diabetic should act? In accordance with all I have been reading, diabetics cannot have a large carbohydrates intake...
I heared several times in other videos that for burning fat it’s also important to first empty the glycogen storage because the body will use that type of energy before using the fat. I am on my journey to understand all of this better but so many informations are false or just explained overly easy. Love your Content ❤️
Also, if you are fat adapted you will easily use your fat reserves and will not feel hunger, at least I do not - I feel more of the keto clear headedness. I knew I had overdone the carbs recently (visit to parents who are reasonably sceptical about my diet "Here have a potato, not the olive oil") as I was hungry for the first time in perhaps a year.
Some diets just avoid fat in general so you don't even have to burn the fat (i.e Walter Kempner sugar+rice diet. Fit for life, mixed in with a few "gurus" that exploited their research like durian rider.)
@@l3eatalphal3eatalphaif you had a potato at your parent's you're fine. That potato isn't going to mess everything up.
Did keto for 2 years, felt better but stuck at a certain weight. Now I am doing a "normal" diet with complex carbs.
My "maintenance metabolism" level is about 2300kk. I just know it because I maintain calories control over years, with regular exercising and balanced diet. When I listened to Ekberg and decided to do keto I dropped carbs intake from about 250g per day to less than 30g per day. At the same time I kept 2300kk ration just in case.
I lost 5kg in a month. With the same calories intake level.
Unfortunately I also discovered that keto diet works poorly with resistance training as my performance dropped significantly and any progress stopped ((
You lost water partially coming from glycogen stores. That’s not fat.
@@juliasp14 5kg of glycogen? that would be nice
Thanks for putting this together Nick, it was both interesting and informative - and I listen to the entire thing!
Nice work, greaser - and kudos, thank you. :)
Superb. So what about inflamation caused by high carbohydrate intake? Doesn't that skew the recommendation for a lower carbohydrate diet? Thanks.