Now do a whole series debunking famous TH-cam like Jillian Michaels, Vshred or Biolayne. The drama algorithm should direct their viewers to you videos 😅
I personally enjoy this type of mythbusting content a lot as these. This one especially because I have seen several of the 'dietitians do mythbusting videos' floating around on YT and many create a new myth for every myth busted. That grinds my gears too.
Far too many people don't grasp the basics, so these videos are good. The "a calorie is not a calorie" myth is a good example. Yes, you will burn a few more calories on keto through the Krebs cycle, blah, blah, but nothing to get excited about. Keep going with this.
Dietitians are generally easy to debunk. I give MDs a break as they get little to nadda for formal nutri training (even though they will offer poor nutri advice...) but dietitians are supposed to have an expertise in the topic of nutri, yet they often don't. So, I don't cut dieticians any slack. They're generally terrible at what they went to college for, and that's why so many don't pay much attention to them.
both dietitians and MD's are stuck reading junk science that is paid for by Agri and Pharma in the USA . It's time we start calling out these paid for studies, which are propaganda designed to publish predetermined findings , which boost the products of the people who paid for the studies. For example : (1) demonization of eggs and butter paid for by companies that produce heart medication (2) demonization of coconut oil paid for by seed oil companies. (3) demonization of anything not made by Pfizer , during covid, and the hiding of all negative findings against Pfizer's products.
My late father used to say, “don’t believe everything you read in the papers” - now we need to remember not to believe everything you see on the internet.
Sorry that it took you so long to realise that. Seriously with medium like TH-cam, where almost anyone can feel free to just claim anything they want, most will talk first and think later, seriously.
Meal Timing: There's more to meal timing than calories. Eating too close to bed time messes with your circadian rhythms. You're body has work you do while you are asleep. It's hard for it to do that work if it's still trying to digest your last meal. Diet Soda: She said they don't effect insulin, but fake sugar can still spike insulin.
Can bodys really be that different? Since I can remember, I have hated breakfast. I am a huge foodie, but even thinking about food before lunchtime makes my stomach flip. I started refusing to eat breakfast when I was about 12 years old and my parents let me. I felt much better, I wasn't sleepy anymore at school and I felt much more energized overall. I am almost 40 now and I still love to start the day on an empty stomach....
We are different. I often love and need breakfast. Especially when starting the day with heavy work. Vice versa. If I lunched in the evening before, I do not feel to need breakfast at all with exception of something to drink.
Very grateful for this video. I watch it twice to make sure that I was picking up everything. These issues are so important and so widely dispersed as myths. We have to be careful how we talk about these issues, no need to dumb down answers especially if that leads to misperceptions. More videos like this esp some sound advice for most people trying to lose weight,such as Mediterranean diet or “Eat whole foods, mostly plants.” I will continue to watch all your videos and many more than once. Thank you.
Personally my weight loss program at the military hospital I use Fired me from the program because I gained weight, the funny thing is ,on my own I lost 85lbs and lost my type 2 diabetes diagnosis and more. Anyhow they aren’t interested in how I did it. 😮
Yes, had similar experiences 2 times. Was on a public healthcare weightloss program. I did not loose weight. Instead got accused of cheating etc:( I put in so much effort. A different episode i went to a Doctor. Made a program. Diet and excersise. Horrible results. 40hrs+ excetsise/week. And less than 1000 calories/day. Lost 0 weight. Actually gained weight. And lost muscle mass. Probably reason? Frequent small meals = constant insulin releases = blocking body from utilizing fat storage as furl = body catabolises the musvles instead... untill eventually slows down the metabolism more and more. My metabolism eventually went down into 500/day. Was horrible. Extremly fatigue. Got nutrient deficiency. Had to supplement a lot. And the Doctor? He believed i HAD to be lying. So he made many surprise visits to my Gyms. The irony was that almost any time he visited..... i was always at the gym. Before work, after work, etc. Btw the gym had close to 0 effect. Frequent small meals gave constant insulin. And the excersises skyrocketed my cortisol and insulin further. A perfect storm i guess. I eventually "fired" the doctor. And spent 5+ years eventually getting my metabolism from 500ish to at least 1000/day. I am a Man. So that is very very low metabplism. Eventually many years later i discovered OMAD. Gave great results. Made me curtious "why". So i understood it had to do with Insulin Resistance etc. Then i migrated firther into full keto OMAD. Had extremly great results. Lost weigjt so extremly fast that i had to deliberatly sabotage myself from not loosing weigjt too fast. If a person is Obese, i will "always" recommend looking into OMAD. And if want a full working lifestyle change.... then i recommend to look into Keto / Keto OMAD. And a bonus if Fasting. So healthy. And much easier to do fasting regimes when on keto.
Those that are pro high carbs sometimes point tothe fact that carbs are easy for the body to use as fuel so they immediately raise the metabolism. So more calories are burnt and fewer stored compared to eating fats. So it is not just calorie in calorie out.
@Svenskanorden1 Yes, and no. After the initial 2-3 days of a fast, the body GH will skyrocket. It is the body function to PROTECT the muscles. (Nature designed animals to protect muscles when we fast. Because in nature we may end up with days witjout successfull hunts). So destroying muscles when body needs us to hunt for food would been selfdestructive. So during a long fast, it is usually the first 48 hrs or so that is most vulnerable for muscle loss.
I began to lose weight when I skipped breakfast. Then it was a very small lunch and a normal dinner. Skipping meals actually helps you lose weight. Obviously if you make up for those skipped meals with excessive food at another meal then maybe the results won’t be so good.
I went to OMAD. Same total calories. Was DRASTICLY big difference. It seems like Insulin Resistance is a HUGE problem for some people. My metabolism skyrocketed from aprox 1000/day (where i just was fatigue) to 2500/day with OMAD and having energy. IR seems to block utilization of fat storage. And NAFDL sluggish. And muscle loss and slowing down metabolism since not able to access fat storage while insulin. Easily lost weight on OMAD. Even easier when i went full Keto OMAD.
Hey, Nic! What about circadian rhythm and its relation to when you eat? I am not too familiar with the literature, but time of eating could potentially affect nutrient absorption efficiency, bile production and fat breakdown, and other such similar metabolic processes?
I too have greater respect for someone when they can admit that they don't know, or aren't completely sure about something. It's a real sign that they are more concerned with understanding a topic than looking like an authority on it.
also, I agree with you that "all calories are created equal" being a myth conflates total energy with nutrient density, but this is a common way for people to justify eating junk (because calories are calories), so providing some nuance to the topic is beneficial for the masses
How do you account for the fact that not all calories consumed are contributing to metabolism? Calorie talkers never take into account the probability that the intestines may not consume all of the ingested foods. The feces indicate that some food is excreted often with non chewed remains. There is the fact that fasting will delay bowel movements and excess consumption will drive greater volumes of feces and more frequent voiding. When I drank a liter of olive oil there was a great deal of it that was excreted. So what is it in the GI tract that decides to not consume available nutrients?
The caloric values of different foods are usually already adjusted to account for losses that occur during digestion when consumed by an average person in normal amounts. Drinking an entire liter of oil is not a normal amount for any sane person and is well in excess of your bile production so losses would obviously be higher in that specific instance.
First…I’d love part 2: Second…I’m living proof that skipping meals and restricting carbs is helpful in losing weight. I’m currently doing OMAD which I find surprisingly easy to do and very helpful for weight loss. My only real cravings come at night…not because I’m starving but because I have a very bad habit of night time grazing (a cup of decaf coffee or tea helps me get past this without falling). Carb craving has largely disappeared by eating a “dirty” yet healthy Keto diet. My meals have been fairly Keto friendly but not obsessively so…for instance, I have home made lasagne some days which has some traditional noodles in it. While the noodles are used sparingly and the sauce has extra veggies added…this is far from a proper Keto meal. In spite of my compromises, I have been losing nearly a pound per day which I’m overjoyed about. I attribute my success to the fasting portion of my diet.
I do OMAD not by intentionally choosing to do so but simply because I only eat when I get hungry in also living in ketosis with zero carbs including fiber with nothing but benefits to my waste line and overall health
I think the reason she said that calories aren't created equal is because well if you eat 800 calories of broccoli vs 800 calories of cake, your body will work harder to break down the 800 calories of broccoli thus more calories are utilized, more calories out than breaking down the cake. But that still dosen't mean that these calories are not equal... Okay maybe, just maybe you'll absorb less calories from the broccoli as well since the cell walls hige some of the sugar and very few of these don't get broken down so you'll just shit out the cell wall with the sugar inside, but still the calories themselves are equal, the nutrients are just packaged and metabolized differently.
and actually "eating at night makes you gain weight" is not a myth. because time of eating does affect results(not only because all calories really aren't the same(see my other comment), but also because people aren't measuring their calories eaten, they are just eating until they feel full). studies measuring effect on weight gain of people eating at different times show that people should eat most in the morning and shouldn't eat at all in the evening. obviously people will survive while eating at any time, but if you want to lose weight, shifting food intake to breakfast will help
Huberman discussed recently the effect of circadian rhythms on fasting, and argued that it is slightly better to get your caloric intake earlier if you are fasting, than later in the day. Further, the assumption is that later in the day, you will be less active, meaning that you will be more likely to store the energy you intake later in the day. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Earlier in the day and you manage insulin better; later in the evening, and you might eat too close to bed time and lower your sleep quality because it's harder to digest stuff in the evening especially proteins and melatonin that is suppose to slowly augment in the evening messes with insulin release (it blocks it) and makes your blood sugar rise higher than if it were in the day. Our stomach is suppose to be near at rest when we sleep and a complete digestion is like 5-6 hours. And it's recommended to not eat 3h before sleep to optimize sleep quality
Sustained energy by eating breakfasts? Over eating if I don't? For me that doesn't work. I'm not hungry in the morning. Eating is forcing myself to eat more food. So I'm consuming more calories. Lunch and dinner I don't overeat. My stomach is only so big. I also cook my own food and have it portioned out. I don't snack. I may make a protein shake with nuts, oats, chia seeds, berries, banana, yoghurt if I've worked out. My issue is shopping on an empty stomach, eating out, buying take away every bite and then, drinking alcohol, then eating because I want snacks when I drink. No, not eating breakfast is not the issue I have with my weight. And no I do not have sustained energy after eating. If I eat too many carbs I crash and want to sleep. Less of an issue if I up my protein and fibre. Not an issue if I fast. I believe there is a study that does show that people eat more calories at lunch if they skip breakfast. What they also show, and is not promoted, is over the entire day they eat less calories overall as they did not eat a whole meal at breakfast. Their increase of calories at lunch is less than the whole meal at breakfast. I beehive this was a study done by Kellogg's, so they took the "you eat more if you skip breakfast" to promote eating breakfast cereals as "healthy". Propaganda.
I believe I found the holy grail that works for me, coming from someone who is obese formally 43% or above. I have done fasting and the greatest about of weight loss is around up to the two week mark, I will then refeed with bone broth then build up to solids. oddly enough I really like that vegan impossible/beyond meat and vegetables plus fats like butter, avocado, oils. So I just have done that and I maintain maybe loose about a pound a week eating like that. But while fasting I’m doing about 20-22 lb every 14 days. A lot of water, electrolytes, I still go for walks but only gym normally first 7-8 days. I guess I’m too scared to go past longer than 20 days. I do wonder the pros and cons from a more science fast point of view of what I am doing vs maybe a 30 day fast 3 weeks refeed and then another 30.
7:13 in the video, does it matter when you eat. That is such a complex issue. Dr Rhonda Patrick released a video showing that if you eat the exact same meal for breakfast, lunch and dinner, you have greater spikes in your insulin later in the day. I think this is because you've apparently got about a 12-hour window on the hormones you need to be able to efficiently process food. If you go outside of that window, then your body is forced to try create more of these hormones but there are less and it's not as efficient. That said, if you're practicing time-restricted eating, not starting to eat until midday and then eating again later in the day (Dr Andrew Huberman practices this) then you're staying within an 8-10hr window which is a much healthy place to sit (I'm sighting every video ever done on intermittent fasting there). Intermittent fasting apparently gives your gut time to repair and rest which can decrease cortisol, inflammation, assist in weight loss. There's also theories out there that eating too close to bedtime disrupts your circadian rhythm, which increases cortisol, inflammation, decreasing weight loss. I think the single greatest things I've learned from all the hours and hours I've spent studying nutrition, microbiology, physiology and neuroscience, is that everyone is different, responds to things differently, and it's pretty well impossible to know what will and won't work for you without doing lots of experiments and/or lots of genetic testing. The biggest things I've learned that pretty much all of us can do for our health is eat way more veggies, drink more water, and most of us respond very well to mono and polyunsaturated fats. Don't ever ever drink alcohol. ps. If you don't wanna sound like you're talking shit, just remember the source of the information and start it with "Dr blah blah said...". You'll sound way more credible. Lol
Cool fun evaluations! Yah I probably would just put the "calorie is a calorie" comment to semantics rather than an entropy statement. I guess she could have expanded on mentioning that bananas has soluble & insoluble fiber & resistant starch (which has characteristics of both) that help slow the absorption of sugar and fat and improve glycemic control. The other thing is that insulin sensitivity is reduced at night-time which is why TRF has been shown to have better weight loss in daytime vs night-timer diners. In clinical studies, circadian rhythms in peripheral insulin sensitivity appear to contribute to the diurnal variation in glycemic control. In a trial using frequently-sampled IV glucose tolerance test in normal-weight participants, insulin sensitivity was impaired by 34% in the evening vs morning. Impairments in insulin sensitivity later in the day have also been confirmed using insulin tolerance tests, mixed meal tolerance tests via triple tracer technique. About 15% of transcripts in skeletal muscle exhibit a rhythmic pattern including genes involved in glucose and lipid metabolism. Subcutaneous, but not visceral, adipose tissue also displays a large-amplitude circadian rhythm in insulin sensitivity: adipose tissue insulin sensitivity is 54% higher at noon than at midnight... That study someone else mentioned: Scientists Discover Why Late-Night Eating Leads to Diabetes and Weight Gain is legit. Northwestern research has shown that energy release may be the molecular mechanism through which our internal clocks control energy balance, ie the most optimal to dissipate energy as heat. The paper was “Time-restricted feeding mitigates obesity through adipocyte thermogenesis". Essentially we seem to be running on circadian clocks besides calories and nutrients. Happy Halloween ....dang time for candy! lol
In the spirit of “more context would be appreciated” I think that the dietitian claiming there’s zero benefit to timing meals fails to appreciate the impact of late eating on sleep, and the impact poor sleep has on hunger related hormones. If you’re eating up until 10 pm you’re likely to sleep poorly - likely even waking up throughout the night. I have personally experienced this and so try not to eat after about 7-8pm so that my stomach has time to settle. These things matter in your holistic approach.
How can skipping meals helping one to lose weight NOT be true?! mean this is just DUH! I usually only eat one or two meals a day, and it does not make me overeat. Actually, only eating makes a person overeat. These excerpts completely contradict all the longevity and fasting experts. Starving yourself might shrink muscles but skipping meals doesn’t starve my muscles, if one still works out the muscles. Because I’ve included weight training in my Time Restrictive Eating plan I’ve actually gained muscle that I never had before.
It does seem nonsensical. I think the fear is that if a person skips breakfast and they're not used to it, they'll eat more at lunch or dinner. Like you, when I skip meals, I tend not to overeat later. No doubt it's possible to use time restrictive eating and gain muscle, for the exact reason you mentioned - training.
I don't think there's really anything wrong with the "calorie is not a calorie" argument for weight loss, in that it can effect the type of weight you lose. For instance, consuming more protein will prevent excessive loss of muscle. I don't think these people are intentionally claiming 1 cal =/= 1 cal, they're cautioning against the common calorie-counting weight loss strategy where nutrition is completely ignored. People often do this with an attitude of being smarter because they know they'll still lose weight if they're in a deficit, and ignore whether it actually gets them the results they want or the effect it has on their health.
I have a question though. I have always been on the skinny side naturally, but recently I've started taking medication that makes me have more or less no drive to eat, no appetite, like I couldn't be bothered with it. I have lost weight because of that and try to take vitamin and mineral supplements. You said that losing weight is good because your mitochondrias become more efficient and your immune system more active right? So am I currently more healthy? Or less healthy? Is feeling hungry a good thing, or should you really ALWAYS eat something every time you're hungry? (I'm usually hungry for hours each day until I find the time to eat something)
The study at 11:50 only looked at the effect at 24 weeks (6 months) and called it "long-term". Under the context of scientific experiments, it may make sense, but it does not mean it will work in broader clinical practice and real everyday life. For that, you will need 24 months (2 years) or even 24 years to draw a conclusion. I said this because most successful weight loss inventions only have 1-2 years of data at most. After that, little data is available although anecdotal evidence like fat people's testimony often shows high rates of failure. The only exception is surgical, but with a notoriously huge risks and side effects profile. We also have no idea if low to very-low carb diets that are used this long for weight loss purposes will do more harm than good. Apart from physiologic effects (which I don't know very well, tbh), there are also psychological, behavioural and social concerns. The reason dieting doesn't work beyond two years is probably that these inventions fail to promote healthy lifestyles and address social determinants of health. Of course, these points are beyond physiology and closer to psychology, psychiatry and sociology but you get the point why these dietians are talking like this.
Almost all sutgical fat loss that i know of have a huge failure rates. (After 5+ yrs). And also a lot pf complications. Surgery imo should be the LAST option. Try omad, keto, do bloodwork on spectrum of hormones, etc, etc to try to solve the puzzles. If thry have mental issues, then that needs to be solved before any surgeries etc. I have been on keto (keto omad mostly) for over 3 years. With GREAT success:) Lost aprox 60kg 1st year. Aprox 20 kg 2nd year (i deliberatly tried to slow down my weigjtloss). Only have some 10-20kg excess fat storage left to loose. Which i try to sort of save up to each time i want to do a longer prolong fasting. 30 day fasts will usually results in 15kg temporary weigjtlpss, including 9 kg fat loss (most of the 9kg fat loss is permanent fat loss). While the aprox 4kg muscless loss is temporary. Most of it is actually just body functions which dehydrate water etc out of muscles during lpnger fasts. So most of "lost" muscle loss during a long fast will be returned within a month or so.
I am in a high fiber diet to see if my intestines start working. I am my own Guinea pig. For that I stopped the fasting for a while as you cannot eat that much fiber at night. Any work on high fiber foods and constipation? My brain works better on fasting though. A keto diet got me no hair grow and loads of white hair so I an still recovery from it. Fasting not an issue. Currently low tsh as been going down for a while since I started gap and keto diet. I did not lose much weight only now on calories counting. High fat still puts on weight. But your videos are always very interesting.
I have a doubt about using calories to measure the energy of food Maybe we should use the number of final net ATP available The synthesis of glycosis from proteins require many steps and consume much more ATP than just burning plain glycosis, so the final available energy in number of ATP can't be the same About mith #9, it's just pure chemophobia
Terrific vid Nic!! Dietitions spend alot of their education time learning about clinical practice following the existing guidelines of their relevant organisation. They don't spend much if any time becoming familiar with the actual current (and pertinent) research in the field. Hence, they end up being somewhat 'behind the times' and slave to the dogma of dietetics associations.
It can be true that people will overeat after skipping a meal, but I contend it's because they tell themselves that they need to stuff themselves to make up for the lost food, as one of the dietitians admits, ironic since they say they want to use up stores, i.e, lose fat, and it's possible the body does send some powerful cues, but I have found that when I go a long time between meals, I get full FASTER at the next meal, esp if I take my time. Somehow the fasting advocates have got people not expecting to get hungry or to wait it out a bit more, and ketones do suppress appetite. Most people could use similar prompting for regular dieting, though I think it works best when calorie deficits are modest, more like 300 calories or less, rather than the 500 often called for. But people are impatient. If eating late at night caused fat gain, people in Spain and Italy would be ginormous. Now, this issue of whether low carb is sustainable, is there any evidence that people tend to stick to it for five years-the gold standard- or more? I'm not saying there aren't tons of people who flock to videos to crow about long maintenance, but I question whether the numbers are better by even 10%. The problem with the dietitian's statement is that she targets low carb whereas the stats show that only a small percentage of people who attempt long-term calorie reduction stick with it, esp in our calorie-rich environment. Also does the metabolism slow just from reduced calories or from the subsequent fat loss? (By the way, I pretty much gave up diet or other colas years ago because of evidence -pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17023723/- that they contributed to osteoporosis, and because on diet forum I was on, where it was a small crowd, congenial and I believe honest as they could be, a warehouse worker said he showed up one day to find that a palate of Coke had fallen, some cans had broken open, and soaked some caught rodents. He said after moving the palate, there were only fur, bones, and a kind of ooze left, not smushed carcasses with innards squished out. It looked like the tissue was gone. Yeah, this might have been wrong information, but I'm not sorry it cured me of the habit of several cans a day. I might have a few cans a year, during really hot weather. Ok, I have binged enough on this for today.
'all calories are created equal' - I think you're arguing too formal here; physiologically you are right but what people are arguing is that the simple formula 'for weight loss cals in < cals out' is wrong. And you are confusing the situation. Yes of course, when all nutritios considerations are accounted for, you also have to watch the total caloric intake, but sometimes keeping things simple is didactically better, you can always amend minor glitches later, once the big picture is conveyed. Your detailed arguments are difficult to understand, you lose most lay people within the first five minutes; sometimes you have to be a doctor and a medicine man. That said, I like your videos.
That's a great point, Draziell. You're right, it can, but eating late at night, alone, does not cause weight gain. If, as you pointed out, it affects a person's sleep, then we're introducing new variables that definitely need to be considered, but I would argue that's true of all situations (i.e. we can keep adding context upon context to cover all the bases). So, on the face of it, assuming it doesn't cause any serious other factors to intrude, eating late at night (within one's energy limit), does not contribute to more weight gain.
It is possible to lose weight on high carb diet, but at least to me, it is very hard to lose weight on high carb diet without counting calories. When I’m on transitional high carb diet, even I’m eating healthy food and making sure my calories deficit is under control, I still feel hunger all the time and want to eat snacks it makes my life miserable and the eating habit temporary without gaining weight, thus it’s not sustainable
hey mate, I like your points here. Dietitians are perhaps the lowest level of the biochemistry ladder (maybe not yet even stepped on the ladder). Sure this isn't all of them (only perhaps 90% of them). On the subject of how many carbs we eat, perhaps the problem is the discovery of rice and wheat and how that hybridisation of that has helped bulk up the carbs provided in a single serve. This has been mixed with the "high pressure zone" of increased availability to make the perfect storm of bread, pasta and rice in very high quantities because of the low relative prices. Eating foods high in nutrients but low in carbs seems to have become a "luxury" item (with burgers, fries and a large size Cola drink being more the "American Norm" Keep up the good work.
As a soon to be dietitian, I see a lot of dietitians who get their degree and immediately start talking BS. That NAPLD explanation is almost comical, Most artificial sweeteners are a great strategy for people who drink lots of regular soda. Probably a lot of people that now don't use it because they saw it in that youtube video. These videos have consequences and they don't seem to understand that.
I love science, and your love of it, but I hate its overextrapolation, as I know you do So I would really like you to address some of these points for the sake of clean clear understanding, for the benefit of everyone, and to restore my faith in you Burning calories in a calorimieter is not the same as digesting them in a stomach Calories in are not the same as calories received directly to your blood Some of your calories hit your blood really fast through your stomach creating sugar spikes which then lead to crashes which then lead to cravings, (as well as insulin spikes, inflammation and fat storage) You really should have lauded this point far more. It is of so much more importance than being blind to a the 'eliberately 'inflammatory' purpose of a turn of phrase Some of your calories are slower to digest (fats, proteins, and especially resistant starches) Some of your calories are not digested by you at all, they are in fact digested by your microbiome Human beings are fairly inept at digesting food, if you do your research, due to an archaic reliance on symbiotic microbial assitance in this process Of the calories digested by your microbiome, many are lost as heat or exretia, and some are then digested by you, for example as short chain fatty acids Saying that a calorie is not a calorie is knowingly and deliberately illogical. This is rhetorical. To make people stop and think. And also ---------this is how the body sees it!!!!!!!!! To the body, all calories are NOT created equal!!!! What do we care about more, experiments in labs with calorimeters? Or in vivo actual observable effects Someone of your intelligence should pick up on this and delve into this far more. It is such a useful and salient point that you are calling a 'myth'. The statement you are 'debunking' was actually very beneficially invented, to make you delve deeper behind the facade of facile maths, and instead look more into the complexity of the actual situation Looking from an unbiased view, searching for your own hidden biases, is something I know that you love, so I am really surprised to see you missing the point or at least seemingly misdirecting peoples attention on this The 'Myth' as you call it, is a turn of phrase, trying desperately to help people escape from years of dogmatic pseudoscientific thinking that 'enables' people to wrongly assume that junk food calories are the same as whole food calories. I wonder who benefits from this myth, that all calories DO have the same effect on the human body (junk food vs whole foods), and get absorbed in the same way, at the same rate, and with the same blood sugar spike (among other) side effects: rather than just on an in vitro calorimeter in someones lab. Maybe you are a little too close to 'lab-mind' on occasion, to know your own biases and influences Please don't take this 'myth' out of context To do so is to commit the straw man fallacy You can do much better than this, and you usually do How often does anyone correct your work? Its important. No-one gets everything right. I hope that you a) don't mind, and see it as useful, and b) take this point on board, and c) watch out that you don't attack the things that have been created to help people in future, just because you could I am going to continue watching your channel for now, I was really pretty impressed, until this
Thank you, helpful content..just what you're missing sometimes is what they see clinically. People don't follow protocols or prescribed routines very well. A fat person who starves themselves ends up overeating because they don't have the control of a thin person does and their hunger hormone spikes significantly. So skipping meals doesn't work in the long term for fat people. Agree with technical definition of calories (that shows they don't understand).
How about researching how a galley slave or a concentration camp inmate lost weight by eating less and being driven by the slave driver! Then instead of a slave driver use a 'weight loss trainer" and lock up all of the food. In general, I'm sure that eating less will produce weight loss.
Hi Nic. The claim that "a calorie is a calorie" makes sense from a thermodynamic POV, however some rat experiments found that when exposed to some substances rats gain weight compared to control even if rations are identical. The only explanation I can think for this is that those substances reduce energy expenditure thus producing a caloric surplus. What's your opinion about it?
@@Physionic Yeah I feel like the 'calorie is a calorie' part was just semantics. Obviously eating lots of cookies is going to make you more likely to put on weight rather than eating lots of high-sugar fruits. Isn't this because plant fiber makes you digest the sugar more slowly?
Yes, here this guy is being picky unnecessarily. People are not scientists and they don't care about what a calorie is from a scientific standpoint. The point is, you may gain more wait by eating different foods that have the same amount of calories in them cause your body to react differently to them because of their effects on your gut microbiome, insulin response, etc, etc. So to the layman that a nutritionist is talking to, a 'calorie is not a calorie' means, don't be simplistically scientific as you are being. A calorie number on a food is NOT the only thing that affects weight loss or gain. This is a perfectly fine to say to someone who is not being super literally.
I disagree. It isn't just semantics. We keep having these debates in nutrition, because, partly, people aren't on the same page on basic information. It's important to have an immovable definition of calories, otherwise you get statements like "calories aren't equal", which immediately leads to confusion, because people are describing the qualities of foods, not calories. The properties of food are far murkier and certainly require a deeper discussion, but we can't get into them if we're already misinterpreting them - once we have a base of knowledge, we can pick apart the intricacies of food qualities.
@@Physionic Yeah okay, I can see that. I have that issue when people do that to psychiatrically or medically undermine things. Like when people who are just having a bad day say they're depressed; they could very well be depressed but if they're actually just having a bad day it completely undermines the actual experience of depression, the literal ramifications of that illness. If you can't agree on a basic definition of terms then you can't communicate properly.
I have never ate breakfast ... I have more energy if I just wait until lunch 1pm - 3:00 p.m. The times I did eat breakfast I go back to bed😅. And then I eat again around 7 or 8... I usually just eat meat & once I eat that I don't want nothing else 😅. I eat meat to hold my muscle weight. But if I start eating fruits and vegetables I will eat about three boxes of them and if I don't eat my meat, I can't gain no weight on me muscles 😅😂. Hey I'm in my sixties... I need to gain some weight you got any ideas ? on that! I can't help the rest of the world needs to lose.. I need to gain... my entire life and I eat good. I don't eat sugar or the junk I used to eat but I still didn't gain weight on that .... somebody help me out here ... I need to gain some weight! 😅😂
Dieticians are not nutrition for metabolic experts. I recall when the zone and keto diets were advanced in the complementary health universe in the 90s in my experiencethey all vigorously defended the low fat high complex carb food pyramid that was conventional brainwashing at thetimr. Now they prove Schopenhauers quote re new knowledge by living stage 3 - acting as if they always knew it... I recently looked in on a hospital dietician giving cv healthy eating advice and when asked about using potassium chloride saltshe had no idea ofthe research suggesti v its cv health benefits comparedto nacl. Apologies for the rant but its a pet peeve of mine for many years... just check the dietician approved meals served in most hospitals....
These dieticians don't know how the hell the body works, LOL. Starving is a feeling you get from being nutrient deficient, not because there's something wrong with the person's brain chemistry, although there are other factors like gut microbiome and neuropathic imbalance. Whatever diet you're on, if you're starving, then something isn't working right, and that's what you figure out. Nothing a combination of trace mineral complex and spirulina supplementation with reduced food intake can't resolve (10-20% every 3-4 days till you can do intermittent fasting, then you eat till you're satisfied 1-2 a day). Eventually your body will improve at digestion and extraction that you'll be eating less and getting *more* nutrients. A very counterintuitive notion in Western dietary guidelines, which wants to stuff you full of foods with low density nutrition and feel like starving every 3 hours. That's what's considered "normal", but in reality it's an unmitigated metabolic disaster. I eat less than 25% of the food I use to eat in my 20s and my health has been the best it's been my whole life, and my skin has also improved greatly. Every skin condition I've had since childhood has healed, my sunburns from earlier in life are healing, and my moles from sun damage have been healing. Amazing what some foundational nutrition can do, which are minerals above all else, not vitamins, not proteins, and definitely not calories. Minerals help everything else function better, better utilizing and recycling amino acids and vitamins. 🍓🍵🙏
A no-carb diet is just not sustainable long-term? Oh yeah. The Inuit were only able to sustain a no-carb diet for 60,000 years. That we know of. Resulting in long-lived athletes who knew none of the typical chronic diseases of 'civilized' man - until we changed their diet by introducing carbs & convenience foods. Indigenous peoples around the world had the same experience. Since time began: negligible or no-carb diets for millennia with good health, then a switch to modern crap diets accompanied by a massive decline in health & lifespan and huge susceptibility to all the chronic ills of 'civilization': heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementias. Outside the arctic there was greater mortality due to illness & infection: diseases are suppressed in low-temperature environments & are more common & more virulent in higher-temperature environments. But outside exposure to tropical diseases, for instance, the NZ Maori, Australian Aborigines, Namibian San, Brazilian Yanomamo & Kayapo, Polynesian Samoans, & Tongans... these were all pretty healthy & robust human populations. Until they switched to modern processed & high-carb diets. While claims to know definitively what people ate 100,000 years in the past are ludicrous - all such "knowledge" is necessarily provisional - it does appear that humans either started out as hunter-gatherers or as carnivores, either way living on a no-carb or near no-carb diet. What seems even more likely is that dieticians are taught bunk. They certainly parrot back bunk.
I agree with your assessments of the claims in this video, except that about the keto diet. Low-carb and keto are not the same. Low-carb forces people to give up simple sugars and empty starches, which includes most fast-food and junk-food. Keto, on the other hand, is generally carnivore, which invites a whole host of problems in the long-run. I think it's a terrible and very irresponsible recipe for weight loss.
@@Physionic How else do you do it? It's generally carnivore. I guess you can survive on tofu or pea-protein shakes for a while. There's really no way to get around it. Maybe someone can experiment by gulping olive oil and supplementing with a no-carb plant protein. Totally silly, imo. (And torturous.)
My understanding is a traditional ketogenic diet is high fat, very low carb, low protein. So, it doesn’t fit a lot of meats in. The point being to focus on fats from various sources.
According to my learning from videos, 'Keto' is how ever low in carbs u want it to be. There are so few net carbs (carbs minus fiber) in leafy greens, that most Doc's I listen to recommend eating up to 8 cups a day. Avocados are also recommended...no, Keto is not the same as carnivore.
@@staceykersting705 Keto is definitely not "however low in carbs you want it to be." Most people on keto diets hover around 20-30g carbs. If, for example, one would eat 20 cups of kale a day, dressed with lots of fat, would it meet one's protein requirements? I don't think so, not even for me, and I eat less protein than most people - even though I am neither keto nor low-carb. I suppose you can argue that there's a technical difference between keto and carnivore, but it virtually amounts to the same thing. I doubt that there are many who adhere, or can adhere, to a low protein keto diet (as is an epileptic diet) for any appreciable amount to time.
I sympathize with the “calorie is not a calorie” paradigm because even though not literally true it is a good antidote to the argument of junk food companies that “all calories are created equal” hence (non sequitur) you might as well have a donut as a salad with the same calories.
Yeah if overweight people maintained their weight on a diet of donuts and a banana and they just cut out the banana, they'll lose weight..maybe that's not optimal but if that's what gets them to be consistent, they'll have better health measures from the weight loss than if they remained overweight with the bananas with the donuts. And that's the same story with the low carbers. That's what gets the job done for them and the health benefits of eating more fiber and nutrients, while still being overweight, might not be better than the weight loss that they can actually stick to Furthermore many overweight people feel they can add a superfoods smoothie on top of everything else that they are eating and that's not really a good idea
11:15 low-carb is trash. Perhaps her saying it's not sustainable is a nanobit of an overgeneralization but your response seemed really weak. So what if there's thousands of anecdotes, every diet has anecdotes no matter how pathetic it is and this is nothing about its sustainability. And the study that you mentioned doesn't support sustainability either since it was only a half a year.
@@pwykersotz just because someone thinks low carb works for them doesn't mean high carb wouldn't be better. People think all kinds of dysfunctional things are working for them. But the totality of evidence makes it clear that the ideal way on every level is a whole food plant-based diet of legumes, greens, grains, fruits, veggies, mushrooms, nuts, seeds, herbs and spices and a variety of each. There's no need to eat animals or even really worry about any sort of tracking whether it be caloric, macros, you just eat real food and feel f****** great!
@@pwykersotz surely you don't think you're body is so unique that you depend on consuming body parts, organs and secretions when I completely don't. Do you think you're a completely different creature just because of your n of 1 (assuming you eat animals and think this is good for you). People think something is working for them even if it's something that has been shown to be detrimental. And this is just because people get stuck in habituated movement and are scared of change even if it's for the best.
Our laws say, The burden of proof is in the accusation's from those who give those accusations and are to be proved beyond the shadow of doubt. If not, then it becomes hearsay or a lie. The bible says, "Trust No man". This guy's videos are based on what he has read, however much, and then he gives his opinions on his ideas as well as his people he has on his videos. I read where iit is stated that the best eating habits are like our grandparents ways. My grandfather had emphysema and phlebitis all his life. He lived through 2 heart attacks and the third on killed him, but he lived a rip old age and his father was 92 and an acholic all his life. My father came from a family of eight and my last aunt died in February this year. They all ate natural meats, veggies, and fruits. My mom smoked at a young age and had heart surgery and had to give up smoking but still lived to be 82. It wasn't genetics because it was on both sides of my family. I still eat as they did and am 74 as of this year and have had 2 common colds in 36 years.
"all calories are equal" is a myth from nutrition pov. they are equal only in a sense "they produce same amount of heat if you burn them in a lab", but who cares about that? people aren't burning calories in a lab, peopre are eating them. and from eating them pov calories are very different even ignoring stuff like sugar spikes, i.e. from pure energy pov, on several accounts: 1) it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, what matters is how many calorues you absrob. calories pooped out will not make you fat. any scientist sholud know that ffs. and some foods leave more calories unabsorbed. 2) some foods(with equal amount of calories compared to others) increase metabolic rate i.e. make you burn more calories at rest. i.e. you consume same amount of calories, but they make you spend more calories, losing weight 3) some foods(with equal amount of calories compared to others) make you want to eat more later. it will increase you calories consumption in the end, i.e.you can argue that it's the case of more calories, not same amount of calories. but in this meal it's same amount of calories. i.e. you eat same amount of calories now, but wrong choice of calories source make you obese(because you'll eat more calories later, but in this meal there are good calories and bad calories, i.e. calories are not equal) all of which means it's pointless to compare just calorie counts of different food, because different foods will have different effect on your weight gain with same amount of calories listed. which means that calories are not equal in how they'll affect your weight
While I personally agree with all your caveats on this, I think you miss the point. A calorie IS a calorie for the purpose of the raw math. And most people (including this dietician) who say it isn't are confusing the issue. A better way to say it is "Calories from some sources lack proper nutrients and may impact behavior as your body tries to compensate." But no one says that. And essentially, that means no one is listening to each other, because purists on both sides argue past each other.
@@pwykersotz lol, you completely miss the poing. nobody cares about raw math. people don't do raw math, people choose what to eat based on calorie labels on food. those labels are completely pointless because with one food you will be gaining weight and woth other food you will be losing weight with same number of calories on the label. because labels contain meaningless raw math, not the real impact on human body
and regarding your response to myth 9: the argument is ridiculous. non-diet soda is worse than diet soda, but how is it relevant? did she said you should drink non-diet soda instead? she didn't. obviously she meant you should drink something better, like water. where is your comparison of diet soda vs water? you didn't show one, but i can tell you, water will be better. first, almost all artificial sweateners are linked to some issues. second, any aritifical sweatener will have effect on teaching your body that sweat sense in the mouth doesn't lead to glucose spike in the blood later, and your body will not be ready handling that glucose spike when you really eat sugar
so one can of soda per week is benign. what about one pack of cigarettes per week? hitting your knee with a hammer once per week? surely you'll not die from mild knee-hittting
Those aren't the same thing. How about breathing car exhaust from walking around your neighborhood? That's a closer comparison. Some people will hit 100 while still doing that. Others might see complications. Things like soda are dose dependent. Of course, if you can't stop, that's also a problem.
@@SergePavlovskyThat is an irresponsible assertion. You have a safe amount of radiation you can be exposed to on daily basis. You have a certain amount of cyanide you can eat. Everything is dose dependent. If your point is that it is healthier overall to have zero added sugars, I agree with you. But you'd be hard pressed to identify which of two people had five grams of added sugars for their entire life, and which had twenty grams of added sugars daily for their entire life.
@@pwykersotz this is illiterate assertion. not everything has non-zero safe dose, are you banned on wikipedia? safe amount of added sugar is zero. basically you are arguing that russian roulette is safe with large cilinder. in reality large cilinder reduces risk, but not eliminates
To not advise against a low carb diet makes me question your intellectual authority on health or diet.cocaine is also an effective weight loss strategy to make a point.
I irrationally despise looking at the sides of people's faces while they are looking at another camera. Such a lame and overused video fad. Thankful that this channel does not do that.
She didn't say you can't lose weight on a low carb diet. She said it's not sustainable. Those are two different things. Thousands of people swearing by losing weight on a low carb diet is not the same as thousands of people sustaining that weight loss. And since most diets are successful in that people lose weight but 4/5 are not successful in that they don't keep it off, the difference should be noted.
All kind of bullshit here. The lady said the same calorie in cookies has a different effect on our body (sugar spike etc) when compared to banana in the same calorie. This is a fact.
For God's sake! Must you do that STUPID quotation mark thing with your fingers all the time? Monkey see, monkey do, so you do it because everybody else is doing it, so it seems!
Metabolism seems to be linked to circadian rhythm. I googled "circadian rhythm and weight loss"; this was one of the articles returned: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23512957/
![Debunking THREE Dietitians: 4 MORE Myths Broken by Science. [Part 2] @InsiderScience](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-Co2If1VHXE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Debunking THREE Dietitians: 4 MORE Myths Broken by Science. [Part 2] @InsiderScience](/img/tr.png)
![Long Term Effects from Fat Loss - Hormones, Weight Regain? [Study Breakdown]](/img/n.gif)
If you enjoy this type of content, I can create a Part 2. Let me know in the comments if you like it or not. If not, I have plenty of other ideas.
Now do a whole series debunking famous TH-cam like Jillian Michaels, Vshred or Biolayne. The drama algorithm should direct their viewers to you videos 😅
I personally enjoy this type of mythbusting content a lot as these. This one especially because I have seen several of the 'dietitians do mythbusting videos' floating around on YT and many create a new myth for every myth busted. That grinds my gears too.
Far too many people don't grasp the basics, so these videos are good. The "a calorie is not a calorie" myth is a good example. Yes, you will burn a few more calories on keto through the Krebs cycle, blah, blah, but nothing to get excited about.
Keep going with this.
A follow-up would definitely be good. How about the rest of your diabetes videos as well?
Which diabetes videos, Platonic?
Dietitians are generally easy to debunk. I give MDs a break as they get little to nadda for formal nutri training (even though they will offer poor nutri advice...) but dietitians are supposed to have an expertise in the topic of nutri, yet they often don't. So, I don't cut dieticians any slack. They're generally terrible at what they went to college for, and that's why so many don't pay much attention to them.
That creates this huge void that is filled by influencers who push all kinds of crazy alternative ideas
both dietitians and MD's are stuck reading junk science that is paid for by Agri and Pharma in the USA .
It's time we start calling out these paid for studies, which are propaganda designed to publish predetermined findings , which boost the products of the people who paid for the studies.
For example :
(1) demonization of eggs and butter paid for by companies that produce heart medication
(2) demonization of coconut oil paid for by seed oil companies.
(3) demonization of anything not made by Pfizer , during covid, and the hiding of all negative findings against Pfizer's products.
My late father used to say, “don’t believe everything you read in the papers” - now we need to remember not to believe everything you see on the internet.
Sorry that it took you so long to realise that. Seriously with medium like TH-cam, where almost anyone can feel free to just claim anything they want, most will talk first and think later, seriously.
People: oh doctors don't know anything about nutrition
Dieticians: ...
Meal Timing: There's more to meal timing than calories. Eating too close to bed time messes with your circadian rhythms. You're body has work you do while you are asleep. It's hard for it to do that work if it's still trying to digest your last meal.
Diet Soda: She said they don't effect insulin, but fake sugar can still spike insulin.
Artificial sweetener can spike insulin or blood glucose but it's very individual and it doesn't spike mine. Each person should check it for themselves
Can bodys really be that different? Since I can remember, I have hated breakfast. I am a huge foodie, but even thinking about food before lunchtime makes my stomach flip. I started refusing to eat breakfast when I was about 12 years old and my parents let me. I felt much better, I wasn't sleepy anymore at school and I felt much more energized overall. I am almost 40 now and I still love to start the day on an empty stomach....
We are different. I often love and need breakfast. Especially when starting the day with heavy work. Vice versa. If I lunched in the evening before, I do not feel to need breakfast at all with exception of something to drink.
Great video! Really like the debunking videos 👍🏽👍🏽
Thanks for the feedback, Irving - I'm sure we'll discuss in the community. :)
Very grateful for this video. I watch it twice to make sure that I was picking up everything.
These issues are so important and so widely dispersed as myths.
We have to be careful how we talk about these issues, no need to dumb down answers especially if that leads to misperceptions.
More videos like this esp some sound advice for most people trying to lose weight,such as Mediterranean diet or
“Eat whole foods, mostly plants.”
I will continue to watch all your videos and many more than once.
Thank you.
Personally my weight loss program at the military hospital I use Fired me from the program because I gained weight, the funny thing is ,on my own I lost 85lbs and lost my type 2 diabetes diagnosis and more. Anyhow they aren’t interested in how I did it. 😮
Yes, had similar experiences 2 times.
Was on a public healthcare weightloss program.
I did not loose weight.
Instead got accused of cheating etc:(
I put in so much effort.
A different episode i went to a Doctor. Made a program. Diet and excersise.
Horrible results.
40hrs+ excetsise/week. And less than 1000 calories/day.
Lost 0 weight. Actually gained weight.
And lost muscle mass.
Probably reason? Frequent small meals = constant insulin releases = blocking body from utilizing fat storage as furl = body catabolises the musvles instead... untill eventually slows down the metabolism more and more.
My metabolism eventually went down into 500/day.
Was horrible. Extremly fatigue. Got nutrient deficiency. Had to supplement a lot.
And the Doctor? He believed i HAD to be lying.
So he made many surprise visits to my Gyms.
The irony was that almost any time he visited..... i was always at the gym. Before work, after work, etc.
Btw the gym had close to 0 effect.
Frequent small meals gave constant insulin.
And the excersises skyrocketed my cortisol and insulin further.
A perfect storm i guess.
I eventually "fired" the doctor.
And spent 5+ years eventually getting my metabolism from 500ish to at least 1000/day.
I am a Man.
So that is very very low metabplism.
Eventually many years later i discovered OMAD.
Gave great results.
Made me curtious "why".
So i understood it had to do with Insulin Resistance etc.
Then i migrated firther into full keto OMAD.
Had extremly great results.
Lost weigjt so extremly fast that i had to deliberatly sabotage myself from not loosing weigjt too fast.
If a person is Obese, i will "always" recommend looking into OMAD.
And if want a full working lifestyle change.... then i recommend to look into Keto / Keto OMAD.
And a bonus if Fasting.
So healthy. And much easier to do fasting regimes when on keto.
Lorraine gets "hangry" when she doesn't eat breakfast. Don't mess with her.
Those that are pro high carbs sometimes point tothe fact that carbs are easy for the body to use as fuel so they immediately raise the metabolism. So more calories are burnt and fewer stored compared to eating fats. So it is not just calorie in calorie out.
I've been on 3 day fasts. I didn't lose muscle, I was working out each day, just as strong, I just got leaner.
HOw were you measuring your muscle size if I may ask?
@Svenskanorden1
Yes, and no.
After the initial 2-3 days of a fast, the body GH will skyrocket.
It is the body function to PROTECT the muscles.
(Nature designed animals to protect muscles when we fast. Because in nature we may end up with days witjout successfull hunts). So destroying muscles when body needs us to hunt for food would been selfdestructive.
So during a long fast, it is usually the first 48 hrs or so that is most vulnerable for muscle loss.
I began to lose weight when I skipped breakfast. Then it was a very small lunch and a normal dinner. Skipping meals actually helps you lose weight. Obviously if you make up for those skipped meals with excessive food at another meal then maybe the results won’t be so good.
I went to OMAD. Same total calories.
Was DRASTICLY big difference.
It seems like Insulin Resistance is a HUGE problem for some people.
My metabolism skyrocketed from aprox 1000/day (where i just was fatigue) to 2500/day with OMAD and having energy.
IR seems to block utilization of fat storage. And NAFDL sluggish. And muscle loss and slowing down metabolism since not able to access fat storage while insulin.
Easily lost weight on OMAD.
Even easier when i went full Keto OMAD.
I saw some research that suggested protien absorption between 6am and 10am is highest. I'll try to track down.
Hey, Nic! What about circadian rhythm and its relation to when you eat? I am not too familiar with the literature, but time of eating could potentially affect nutrient absorption efficiency, bile production and fat breakdown, and other such similar metabolic processes?
I too have greater respect for someone when they can admit that they don't know, or aren't completely sure about something. It's a real sign that they are more concerned with understanding a topic than looking like an authority on it.
also, I agree with you that "all calories are created equal" being a myth conflates total energy with nutrient density, but this is a common way for people to justify eating junk (because calories are calories), so providing some nuance to the topic is beneficial for the masses
YES!!! the conclusions most ppl draw from that information what they want to hear.
Timing of day regarding eating and weight loss and weight gain is significant. Explore the realm of circadian rhythm and metabolism.
How do you account for the fact that not all calories consumed are contributing to metabolism? Calorie talkers never take into account the probability that the intestines may not consume all of the ingested foods. The feces indicate that some food is excreted often with non chewed remains. There is the fact that fasting will delay bowel movements and excess consumption will drive greater volumes of feces and more frequent voiding. When I drank a liter of olive oil there was a great deal of it that was excreted. So what is it in the GI tract that decides to not consume available nutrients?
The caloric values of different foods are usually already adjusted to account for losses that occur during digestion when consumed by an average person in normal amounts. Drinking an entire liter of oil is not a normal amount for any sane person and is well in excess of your bile production so losses would obviously be higher in that specific instance.
First…I’d love part 2: Second…I’m living proof that skipping meals and restricting carbs is helpful in losing weight. I’m currently doing OMAD which I find surprisingly easy to do and very helpful for weight loss. My only real cravings come at night…not because I’m starving but because I have a very bad habit of night time grazing (a cup of decaf coffee or tea helps me get past this without falling). Carb craving has largely disappeared by eating a “dirty” yet healthy Keto diet. My meals have been fairly Keto friendly but not obsessively so…for instance, I have home made lasagne some days which has some traditional noodles in it. While the noodles are used sparingly and the sauce has extra veggies added…this is far from a proper Keto meal. In spite of my compromises, I have been losing nearly a pound per day which I’m overjoyed about. I attribute my success to the fasting portion of my diet.
There is a part 2 already. :)
@@Physionic Awesome… I’ll find it… Thanks for your excellent work…
substitute the lasagna pasta with zucchini strips
I do OMAD not by intentionally choosing to do so but simply because I only eat when I get hungry in also living in ketosis with zero carbs including fiber with nothing but benefits to my waste line and overall health
Fact: eating at night will have a negative impact on your health , period
This grinds me gears too and more. People suffer with the distribution of ignorance.
Yes, pls! Part 2 would be appreciated!
Editing part 2 this week!
I think the reason she said that calories aren't created equal is because well if you eat 800 calories of broccoli vs 800 calories of cake, your body will work harder to break down the 800 calories of broccoli thus more calories are utilized, more calories out than breaking down the cake. But that still dosen't mean that these calories are not equal... Okay maybe, just maybe you'll absorb less calories from the broccoli as well since the cell walls hige some of the sugar and very few of these don't get broken down so you'll just shit out the cell wall with the sugar inside, but still the calories themselves are equal, the nutrients are just packaged and metabolized differently.
and actually "eating at night makes you gain weight" is not a myth. because time of eating does affect results(not only because all calories really aren't the same(see my other comment), but also because people aren't measuring their calories eaten, they are just eating until they feel full). studies measuring effect on weight gain of people eating at different times show that people should eat most in the morning and shouldn't eat at all in the evening. obviously people will survive while eating at any time, but if you want to lose weight, shifting food intake to breakfast will help
Love this style of video
Thank you!!! U rock 💪🙏🏻
Thanks for helping me in my journey of trying to have a healthier life❤️❤️
Some industries have experts who are often wrong but never in doubt.
🎃❤ Happy Halloween from East TN 👻
Happy Halloween!
Huberman discussed recently the effect of circadian rhythms on fasting, and argued that it is slightly better to get your caloric intake earlier if you are fasting, than later in the day. Further, the assumption is that later in the day, you will be less active, meaning that you will be more likely to store the energy you intake later in the day. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Earlier in the day and you manage insulin better; later in the evening, and you might eat too close to bed time and lower your sleep quality because it's harder to digest stuff in the evening especially proteins and melatonin that is suppose to slowly augment in the evening messes with insulin release (it blocks it) and makes your blood sugar rise higher than if it were in the day. Our stomach is suppose to be near at rest when we sleep and a complete digestion is like 5-6 hours. And it's recommended to not eat 3h before sleep to optimize sleep quality
Sustained energy by eating breakfasts? Over eating if I don't?
For me that doesn't work. I'm not hungry in the morning. Eating is forcing myself to eat more food. So I'm consuming more calories.
Lunch and dinner I don't overeat. My stomach is only so big. I also cook my own food and have it portioned out. I don't snack. I may make a protein shake with nuts, oats, chia seeds, berries, banana, yoghurt if I've worked out.
My issue is shopping on an empty stomach, eating out, buying take away every bite and then, drinking alcohol, then eating because I want snacks when I drink. No, not eating breakfast is not the issue I have with my weight.
And no I do not have sustained energy after eating. If I eat too many carbs I crash and want to sleep. Less of an issue if I up my protein and fibre. Not an issue if I fast.
I believe there is a study that does show that people eat more calories at lunch if they skip breakfast. What they also show, and is not promoted, is over the entire day they eat less calories overall as they did not eat a whole meal at breakfast. Their increase of calories at lunch is less than the whole meal at breakfast. I beehive this was a study done by Kellogg's, so they took the "you eat more if you skip breakfast" to promote eating breakfast cereals as "healthy". Propaganda.
Gods work here. These drive me CRAZY.
I miss the food pyramid. It was so easy to understand.
I believe I found the holy grail that works for me, coming from someone who is obese formally 43% or above. I have done fasting and the greatest about of weight loss is around up to the two week mark, I will then refeed with bone broth then build up to solids. oddly enough I really like that vegan impossible/beyond meat and vegetables plus fats like butter, avocado, oils. So I just have done that and I maintain maybe loose about a pound a week eating like that. But while fasting I’m doing about 20-22 lb every 14 days. A lot of water, electrolytes, I still go for walks but only gym normally first 7-8 days.
I guess I’m too scared to go past longer than 20 days. I do wonder the pros and cons from a more science fast point of view of what I am doing vs maybe a 30 day fast 3 weeks refeed and then another 30.
Clever and clearly explained.
7:13 in the video, does it matter when you eat. That is such a complex issue. Dr Rhonda Patrick released a video showing that if you eat the exact same meal for breakfast, lunch and dinner, you have greater spikes in your insulin later in the day. I think this is because you've apparently got about a 12-hour window on the hormones you need to be able to efficiently process food. If you go outside of that window, then your body is forced to try create more of these hormones but there are less and it's not as efficient. That said, if you're practicing time-restricted eating, not starting to eat until midday and then eating again later in the day (Dr Andrew Huberman practices this) then you're staying within an 8-10hr window which is a much healthy place to sit (I'm sighting every video ever done on intermittent fasting there). Intermittent fasting apparently gives your gut time to repair and rest which can decrease cortisol, inflammation, assist in weight loss. There's also theories out there that eating too close to bedtime disrupts your circadian rhythm, which increases cortisol, inflammation, decreasing weight loss.
I think the single greatest things I've learned from all the hours and hours I've spent studying nutrition, microbiology, physiology and neuroscience, is that everyone is different, responds to things differently, and it's pretty well impossible to know what will and won't work for you without doing lots of experiments and/or lots of genetic testing. The biggest things I've learned that pretty much all of us can do for our health is eat way more veggies, drink more water, and most of us respond very well to mono and polyunsaturated fats. Don't ever ever drink alcohol.
ps. If you don't wanna sound like you're talking shit, just remember the source of the information and start it with "Dr blah blah said...". You'll sound way more credible. Lol
Right, Megan. When we get into the health aspects of nutrient timing, that's a different story - there are plenty of examples wherein it matters.
Cool fun evaluations! Yah I probably would just put the "calorie is a calorie" comment to semantics rather than an entropy statement. I guess she could have expanded on mentioning that bananas has soluble & insoluble fiber & resistant starch (which has characteristics of both) that help slow the absorption of sugar and fat and improve glycemic control.
The other thing is that insulin sensitivity is reduced at night-time which is why TRF has been shown to have better weight loss in daytime vs night-timer diners. In clinical studies, circadian rhythms in peripheral insulin sensitivity appear to contribute to the diurnal variation in glycemic control. In a trial using frequently-sampled IV glucose tolerance test in normal-weight participants, insulin sensitivity was impaired by 34% in the evening vs morning. Impairments in insulin sensitivity later in the day have also been confirmed using insulin tolerance tests, mixed meal tolerance tests via triple tracer technique.
About 15% of transcripts in skeletal muscle exhibit a rhythmic pattern including genes involved in glucose and lipid metabolism. Subcutaneous, but not visceral, adipose tissue also displays a large-amplitude circadian rhythm in insulin sensitivity: adipose tissue insulin sensitivity is 54% higher at noon than at midnight...
That study someone else mentioned: Scientists Discover Why Late-Night Eating Leads to Diabetes and Weight Gain is legit. Northwestern research has shown that energy release may be the molecular mechanism through which our internal clocks control energy balance, ie the most optimal to dissipate energy as heat. The paper was “Time-restricted feeding mitigates obesity through adipocyte thermogenesis".
Essentially we seem to be running on circadian clocks besides calories and nutrients.
Happy Halloween ....dang time for candy! lol
Thank you!
In the spirit of “more context would be appreciated” I think that the dietitian claiming there’s zero benefit to timing meals fails to appreciate the impact of late eating on sleep, and the impact poor sleep has on hunger related hormones. If you’re eating up until 10 pm you’re likely to sleep poorly - likely even waking up throughout the night. I have personally experienced this and so try not to eat after about 7-8pm so that my stomach has time to settle. These things matter in your holistic approach.
How can skipping meals helping one to lose weight NOT be true?! mean this is just DUH! I usually only eat one or two meals a day, and it does not make me overeat. Actually, only eating makes a person overeat. These excerpts completely contradict all the longevity and fasting experts. Starving yourself might shrink muscles but skipping meals doesn’t starve my muscles, if one still works out the muscles. Because I’ve included weight training in my Time Restrictive Eating plan I’ve actually gained muscle that I never had before.
It does seem nonsensical. I think the fear is that if a person skips breakfast and they're not used to it, they'll eat more at lunch or dinner. Like you, when I skip meals, I tend not to overeat later.
No doubt it's possible to use time restrictive eating and gain muscle, for the exact reason you mentioned - training.
Skip breakfast...eat a bigger lunch to compensate. I always eat much more than i gave up after a fast because i have a bigger appetite
I don't think there's really anything wrong with the "calorie is not a calorie" argument for weight loss, in that it can effect the type of weight you lose. For instance, consuming more protein will prevent excessive loss of muscle. I don't think these people are intentionally claiming 1 cal =/= 1 cal, they're cautioning against the common calorie-counting weight loss strategy where nutrition is completely ignored. People often do this with an attitude of being smarter because they know they'll still lose weight if they're in a deficit, and ignore whether it actually gets them the results they want or the effect it has on their health.
I have a question though. I have always been on the skinny side naturally, but recently I've started taking medication that makes me have more or less no drive to eat, no appetite, like I couldn't be bothered with it. I have lost weight because of that and try to take vitamin and mineral supplements. You said that losing weight is good because your mitochondrias become more efficient and your immune system more active right? So am I currently more healthy? Or less healthy? Is feeling hungry a good thing, or should you really ALWAYS eat something every time you're hungry? (I'm usually hungry for hours each day until I find the time to eat something)
What medication are you taking?
Thanks 🙏
The study at 11:50 only looked at the effect at 24 weeks (6 months) and called it "long-term". Under the context of scientific experiments, it may make sense, but it does not mean it will work in broader clinical practice and real everyday life. For that, you will need 24 months (2 years) or even 24 years to draw a conclusion.
I said this because most successful weight loss inventions only have 1-2 years of data at most. After that, little data is available although anecdotal evidence like fat people's testimony often shows high rates of failure. The only exception is surgical, but with a notoriously huge risks and side effects profile.
We also have no idea if low to very-low carb diets that are used this long for weight loss purposes will do more harm than good. Apart from physiologic effects (which I don't know very well, tbh), there are also psychological, behavioural and social concerns. The reason dieting doesn't work beyond two years is probably that these inventions fail to promote healthy lifestyles and address social determinants of health.
Of course, these points are beyond physiology and closer to psychology, psychiatry and sociology but you get the point why these dietians are talking like this.
Almost all sutgical fat loss that i know of have a huge failure rates. (After 5+ yrs).
And also a lot pf complications.
Surgery imo should be the LAST option.
Try omad, keto, do bloodwork on spectrum of hormones, etc, etc to try to solve the puzzles.
If thry have mental issues, then that needs to be solved before any surgeries etc.
I have been on keto (keto omad mostly) for over 3 years. With GREAT success:)
Lost aprox 60kg 1st year.
Aprox 20 kg 2nd year (i deliberatly tried to slow down my weigjtloss).
Only have some 10-20kg excess fat storage left to loose.
Which i try to sort of save up to each time i want to do a longer prolong fasting.
30 day fasts will usually results in 15kg temporary weigjtlpss, including 9 kg fat loss (most of the 9kg fat loss is permanent fat loss).
While the aprox 4kg muscless loss is temporary. Most of it is actually just body functions which dehydrate water etc out of muscles during lpnger fasts. So most of "lost" muscle loss during a long fast will be returned within a month or so.
Calorie from fiber and gluten are not the same as calorie from red meat or glucose. Maybe a digestable calorie would be the most correct term.
I am in a high fiber diet to see if my intestines start working. I am my own Guinea pig. For that I stopped the fasting for a while as you cannot eat that much fiber at night. Any work on high fiber foods and constipation? My brain works better on fasting though. A keto diet got me no hair grow and loads of white hair so I an still recovery from it. Fasting not an issue. Currently low tsh as been going down for a while since I started gap and keto diet. I did not lose much weight only now on calories counting. High fat still puts on weight. But your videos are always very interesting.
enjoying your channel more and more. good to have some clarity on some of my thoughts on nutrition, right or wrong. dr berg to blame haha
Please debunk Deep Nutrition by Cate Shanahan!
OMG Food cures Hunger ..... yep you blew my mind there 😁
I have a doubt about using calories to measure the energy of food
Maybe we should use the number of final net ATP available
The synthesis of glycosis from proteins require many steps and consume much more ATP than just burning plain glycosis, so the final available energy in number of ATP can't be the same
About mith #9, it's just pure chemophobia
Terrific vid Nic!! Dietitions spend alot of their education time learning about clinical practice following the existing guidelines of their relevant organisation. They don't spend much if any time becoming familiar with the actual current (and pertinent) research in the field. Hence, they end up being somewhat 'behind the times' and slave to the dogma of dietetics associations.
Thank you, RB - good to see you again!
They're like spokespersons following a script
“Grinds my gears…” 😂
It can be true that people will overeat after skipping a meal, but I contend it's because they tell themselves that they need to stuff themselves to make up for the lost food, as one of the dietitians admits, ironic since they say they want to use up stores, i.e, lose fat, and it's possible the body does send some powerful cues, but I have found that when I go a long time between meals, I get full FASTER at the next meal, esp if I take my time. Somehow the fasting advocates have got people not expecting to get hungry or to wait it out a bit more, and ketones do suppress appetite. Most people could use similar prompting for regular dieting, though I think it works best when calorie deficits are modest, more like 300 calories or less, rather than the 500 often called for. But people are impatient. If eating late at night caused fat gain, people in Spain and Italy would be ginormous. Now, this issue of whether low carb is sustainable, is there any evidence that people tend to stick to it for five years-the gold standard- or more? I'm not saying there aren't tons of people who flock to videos to crow about long maintenance, but I question whether the numbers are better by even 10%. The problem with the dietitian's statement is that she targets low carb whereas the stats show that only a small percentage of people who attempt long-term calorie reduction stick with it, esp in our calorie-rich environment. Also does the metabolism slow just from reduced calories or from the subsequent fat loss? (By the way, I pretty much gave up diet or other colas years ago because of evidence -pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17023723/- that they contributed to osteoporosis, and because on diet forum I was on, where it was a small crowd, congenial and I believe honest as they could be, a warehouse worker said he showed up one day to find that a palate of Coke had fallen, some cans had broken open, and soaked some caught rodents. He said after moving the palate, there were only fur, bones, and a kind of ooze left, not smushed carcasses with innards squished out. It looked like the tissue was gone. Yeah, this might have been wrong information, but I'm not sorry it cured me of the habit of several cans a day. I might have a few cans a year, during really hot weather. Ok, I have binged enough on this for today.
What about the people who wind up having their gallbladder taken out because of skipping meals?
What about the ones who don't?
'all calories are created equal' - I think you're arguing too formal here; physiologically you are right but what people are arguing is that the simple formula 'for weight loss cals in < cals out' is wrong. And you are confusing the situation. Yes of course, when all nutritios considerations are accounted for, you also have to watch the total caloric intake, but sometimes keeping things simple is didactically better, you can always amend minor glitches later, once the big picture is conveyed. Your detailed arguments are difficult to understand, you lose most lay people within the first five minutes; sometimes you have to be a doctor and a medicine man.
That said, I like your videos.
About myth 4, eating late a night doesn't disrupt circarian rhythm, which leads to poor sleep quality and, consequently, weight gain?
That's a great point, Draziell. You're right, it can, but eating late at night, alone, does not cause weight gain. If, as you pointed out, it affects a person's sleep, then we're introducing new variables that definitely need to be considered, but I would argue that's true of all situations (i.e. we can keep adding context upon context to cover all the bases). So, on the face of it, assuming it doesn't cause any serious other factors to intrude, eating late at night (within one's energy limit), does not contribute to more weight gain.
Don't believe anything on the internet, unless it's reviewed by Physionic - "The Enlightened One"
It is possible to lose weight on high carb diet, but at least to me, it is very hard to lose weight on high carb diet without counting calories.
When I’m on transitional high carb diet, even I’m eating healthy food and making sure my calories deficit is under control, I still feel hunger all the time and want to eat snacks
it makes my life miserable and the eating habit temporary without gaining weight, thus it’s not sustainable
hey mate, I like your points here. Dietitians are perhaps the lowest level of the biochemistry ladder (maybe not yet even stepped on the ladder). Sure this isn't all of them (only perhaps 90% of them). On the subject of how many carbs we eat, perhaps the problem is the discovery of rice and wheat and how that hybridisation of that has helped bulk up the carbs provided in a single serve. This has been mixed with the "high pressure zone" of increased availability to make the perfect storm of bread, pasta and rice in very high quantities because of the low relative prices. Eating foods high in nutrients but low in carbs seems to have become a "luxury" item (with burgers, fries and a large size Cola drink being more the "American Norm"
Keep up the good work.
I have such a nerd crush on your channel ☺️
I have a nerd crush on *him* 😳
What if my bacteria in my gut eats my calorie? There's a lot of bacteria.
As a soon to be dietitian, I see a lot of dietitians who get their degree and immediately start talking BS. That NAPLD explanation is almost comical, Most artificial sweeteners are a great strategy for people who drink lots of regular soda. Probably a lot of people that now don't use it because they saw it in that youtube video. These videos have consequences and they don't seem to understand that.
I'm glad you're entering the field, then, Steffen. Keep on the cutting edge of research and you'll shine bright.
Yes,do more. VIP topic with lots ofconflicting claims
I would appreciate your take on low Vit.A diets.
I actually get full quicky since I started fasting
I love science, and your love of it, but I hate its overextrapolation, as I know you do
So I would really like you to address some of these points for the sake of clean clear understanding, for the benefit of everyone, and to restore my faith in you
Burning calories in a calorimieter is not the same as digesting them in a stomach
Calories in are not the same as calories received directly to your blood
Some of your calories hit your blood really fast through your stomach creating sugar spikes which then lead to crashes which then lead to cravings, (as well as insulin spikes, inflammation and fat storage)
You really should have lauded this point far more. It is of so much more importance than being blind to a the 'eliberately 'inflammatory' purpose of a turn of phrase
Some of your calories are slower to digest (fats, proteins, and especially resistant starches)
Some of your calories are not digested by you at all, they are in fact digested by your microbiome
Human beings are fairly inept at digesting food, if you do your research, due to an archaic reliance on symbiotic microbial assitance in this process
Of the calories digested by your microbiome, many are lost as heat or exretia, and some are then digested by you, for example as short chain fatty acids
Saying that a calorie is not a calorie is knowingly and deliberately illogical.
This is rhetorical. To make people stop and think.
And also ---------this is how the body sees it!!!!!!!!!
To the body, all calories are NOT created equal!!!!
What do we care about more, experiments in labs with calorimeters? Or in vivo actual observable effects
Someone of your intelligence should pick up on this and delve into this far more. It is such a useful and salient point that you are calling a 'myth'. The statement you are 'debunking' was actually very beneficially invented, to make you delve deeper behind the facade of facile maths, and instead look more into the complexity of the actual situation
Looking from an unbiased view, searching for your own hidden biases, is something I know that you love, so I am really surprised to see you missing the point or at least seemingly misdirecting peoples attention on this
The 'Myth' as you call it, is a turn of phrase, trying desperately to help people escape from years of dogmatic pseudoscientific thinking that 'enables' people to wrongly assume that junk food calories are the same as whole food calories. I wonder who benefits from this myth, that all calories DO have the same effect on the human body (junk food vs whole foods), and get absorbed in the same way, at the same rate, and with the same blood sugar spike (among other) side effects: rather than just on an in vitro calorimeter in someones lab. Maybe you are a little too close to 'lab-mind' on occasion, to know your own biases and influences
Please don't take this 'myth' out of context
To do so is to commit the straw man fallacy
You can do much better than this, and you usually do
How often does anyone correct your work? Its important. No-one gets everything right. I hope that you a) don't mind, and see it as useful, and b) take this point on board, and c) watch out that you don't attack the things that have been created to help people in future, just because you could
I am going to continue watching your channel for now, I was really pretty impressed, until this
Thank you, helpful content..just what you're missing sometimes is what they see clinically. People don't follow protocols or prescribed routines very well. A fat person who starves themselves ends up overeating because they don't have the control of a thin person does and their hunger hormone spikes significantly. So skipping meals doesn't work in the long term for fat people. Agree with technical definition of calories (that shows they don't understand).
If a calorie = a calorie that means a litre = a litre or a mile = a mile! confusing!
How about researching how a galley slave or a concentration camp inmate lost weight by eating less and being driven by the slave driver! Then instead of a slave driver use a 'weight loss trainer" and lock up all of the food. In general, I'm sure that eating less will produce weight loss.
Is 1000 calories from gasoline the same as 1000 calories from tree bark?
Depends on ethanol content, j/king
Yes. The poisonous results of consuming these items is another matter entirely.
@@arielmalanga what is heavier 1 kg of feathers or 1kg of steel?
Hi Nic. The claim that "a calorie is a calorie" makes sense from a thermodynamic POV, however some rat experiments found that when exposed to some substances rats gain weight compared to control even if rations are identical. The only explanation I can think for this is that those substances reduce energy expenditure thus producing a caloric surplus. What's your opinion about it?
I think that's a fair assessment, Mario. I'd agree with you.
@@Physionic Yeah I feel like the 'calorie is a calorie' part was just semantics. Obviously eating lots of cookies is going to make you more likely to put on weight rather than eating lots of high-sugar fruits. Isn't this because plant fiber makes you digest the sugar more slowly?
Yes, here this guy is being picky unnecessarily. People are not scientists and they don't care about what a calorie is from a scientific standpoint. The point is, you may gain more wait by eating different foods that have the same amount of calories in them cause your body to react differently to them because of their effects on your gut microbiome, insulin response, etc, etc. So to the layman that a nutritionist is talking to, a 'calorie is not a calorie' means, don't be simplistically scientific as you are being. A calorie number on a food is NOT the only thing that affects weight loss or gain. This is a perfectly fine to say to someone who is not being super literally.
I disagree. It isn't just semantics. We keep having these debates in nutrition, because, partly, people aren't on the same page on basic information. It's important to have an immovable definition of calories, otherwise you get statements like "calories aren't equal", which immediately leads to confusion, because people are describing the qualities of foods, not calories. The properties of food are far murkier and certainly require a deeper discussion, but we can't get into them if we're already misinterpreting them - once we have a base of knowledge, we can pick apart the intricacies of food qualities.
@@Physionic Yeah okay, I can see that. I have that issue when people do that to psychiatrically or medically undermine things. Like when people who are just having a bad day say they're depressed; they could very well be depressed but if they're actually just having a bad day it completely undermines the actual experience of depression, the literal ramifications of that illness. If you can't agree on a basic definition of terms then you can't communicate properly.
I cut carbd for 6 months and lost
Nice theories but we that experiment with our own body know the results 👍👍
I have never ate breakfast ... I have more energy if I just wait until lunch 1pm - 3:00 p.m. The times I did eat breakfast I go back to bed😅. And then I eat again around 7 or 8... I usually just eat meat & once I eat that I don't want nothing else 😅. I eat meat to hold my muscle weight. But if I start eating fruits and vegetables I will eat about three boxes of them and if I don't eat my meat, I can't gain no weight on me muscles 😅😂. Hey I'm in my sixties... I need to gain some weight you got any ideas ? on that! I can't help the rest of the world needs to lose.. I need to gain... my entire life and I eat good. I don't eat sugar or the junk I used to eat but I still didn't gain weight on that .... somebody help me out here ... I need to gain some weight! 😅😂
I don't know so I search
Dieticians are not nutrition for metabolic experts. I recall when the zone and keto diets were advanced in the complementary health universe in the 90s in my experiencethey all vigorously defended the low fat high complex carb food pyramid that was conventional brainwashing at thetimr. Now they prove Schopenhauers quote re new knowledge by living stage 3 - acting as if they always knew it...
I recently looked in on a hospital dietician giving cv healthy eating advice and when asked about using potassium chloride saltshe had no idea ofthe research suggesti v its cv health benefits comparedto nacl.
Apologies for the rant but its a pet peeve of mine for many years... just check the dietician approved meals served in most hospitals....
These dieticians don't know how the hell the body works, LOL. Starving is a feeling you get from being nutrient deficient, not because there's something wrong with the person's brain chemistry, although there are other factors like gut microbiome and neuropathic imbalance.
Whatever diet you're on, if you're starving, then something isn't working right, and that's what you figure out. Nothing a combination of trace mineral complex and spirulina supplementation with reduced food intake can't resolve (10-20% every 3-4 days till you can do intermittent fasting, then you eat till you're satisfied 1-2 a day).
Eventually your body will improve at digestion and extraction that you'll be eating less and getting *more* nutrients. A very counterintuitive notion in Western dietary guidelines, which wants to stuff you full of foods with low density nutrition and feel like starving every 3 hours. That's what's considered "normal", but in reality it's an unmitigated metabolic disaster.
I eat less than 25% of the food I use to eat in my 20s and my health has been the best it's been my whole life, and my skin has also improved greatly. Every skin condition I've had since childhood has healed, my sunburns from earlier in life are healing, and my moles from sun damage have been healing. Amazing what some foundational nutrition can do, which are minerals above all else, not vitamins, not proteins, and definitely not calories. Minerals help everything else function better, better utilizing and recycling amino acids and vitamins.
🍓🍵🙏
A no-carb diet is just not sustainable long-term? Oh yeah. The Inuit were only able to sustain a no-carb diet for 60,000 years. That we know of. Resulting in long-lived athletes who knew none of the typical chronic diseases of 'civilized' man - until we changed their diet by introducing carbs & convenience foods.
Indigenous peoples around the world had the same experience. Since time began: negligible or no-carb diets for millennia with good health, then a switch to modern crap diets accompanied by a massive decline in health & lifespan and huge susceptibility to all the chronic ills of 'civilization': heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementias. Outside the arctic there was greater mortality due to illness & infection: diseases are suppressed in low-temperature environments & are more common & more virulent in higher-temperature environments. But outside exposure to tropical diseases, for instance, the NZ Maori, Australian Aborigines, Namibian San, Brazilian Yanomamo & Kayapo, Polynesian Samoans, & Tongans... these were all pretty healthy & robust human populations. Until they switched to modern processed & high-carb diets.
While claims to know definitively what people ate 100,000 years in the past are ludicrous - all such "knowledge" is necessarily provisional - it does appear that humans either started out as hunter-gatherers or as carnivores, either way living on a no-carb or near no-carb diet.
What seems even more likely is that dieticians are taught bunk. They certainly parrot back bunk.
So many self appointed "experts" around. 🙄🙄
I agree with your assessments of the claims in this video, except that about the keto diet. Low-carb and keto are not the same. Low-carb forces people to give up simple sugars and empty starches, which includes most fast-food and junk-food. Keto, on the other hand, is generally carnivore, which invites a whole host of problems in the long-run. I think it's a terrible and very irresponsible recipe for weight loss.
That's news to me. I've never heard keto is carnivore - the definition I've heard is a high fat, very low carb diet (less than 5%).
@@Physionic How else do you do it? It's generally carnivore. I guess you can survive on tofu or pea-protein shakes for a while. There's really no way to get around it.
Maybe someone can experiment by gulping olive oil and supplementing with a no-carb plant protein. Totally silly, imo. (And torturous.)
My understanding is a traditional ketogenic diet is high fat, very low carb, low protein. So, it doesn’t fit a lot of meats in. The point being to focus on fats from various sources.
According to my learning from videos, 'Keto' is how ever low in carbs u want it to be. There are so few net carbs (carbs minus fiber) in leafy greens, that most Doc's I listen to recommend eating up to 8 cups a day. Avocados are also recommended...no, Keto is not the same as carnivore.
@@staceykersting705 Keto is definitely not "however low in carbs you want it to be." Most people on keto diets hover around 20-30g carbs. If, for example, one would eat 20 cups of kale a day, dressed with lots of fat, would it meet one's protein requirements? I don't think so, not even for me, and I eat less protein than most people - even though I am neither keto nor low-carb.
I suppose you can argue that there's a technical difference between keto and carnivore, but it virtually amounts to the same thing. I doubt that there are many who adhere, or can adhere, to a low protein keto diet (as is an epileptic diet) for any appreciable amount to time.
I sympathize with the “calorie is not a calorie” paradigm because even though not literally true it is a good antidote to the argument of junk food companies that “all calories are created equal” hence (non sequitur) you might as well have a donut as a salad with the same calories.
Yeah if overweight people maintained their weight on a diet of donuts and a banana and they just cut out the banana, they'll lose weight..maybe that's not optimal but if that's what gets them to be consistent, they'll have better health measures from the weight loss than if they remained overweight with the bananas with the donuts.
And that's the same story with the low carbers. That's what gets the job done for them and the health benefits of eating more fiber and nutrients, while still being overweight, might not be better than the weight loss that they can actually stick to
Furthermore many overweight people feel they can add a superfoods smoothie on top of everything else that they are eating and that's not really a good idea
12:49 This one is the dumbest of them all!
11:15 low-carb is trash. Perhaps her saying it's not sustainable is a nanobit of an overgeneralization but your response seemed really weak. So what if there's thousands of anecdotes, every diet has anecdotes no matter how pathetic it is and this is nothing about its sustainability. And the study that you mentioned doesn't support sustainability either since it was only a half a year.
Low carb works fine for some people. That it doesn't for you (I assume based on your comment) is also ordinary. Different people have different needs.
@@pwykersotz just because someone thinks low carb works for them doesn't mean high carb wouldn't be better. People think all kinds of dysfunctional things are working for them. But the totality of evidence makes it clear that the ideal way on every level is a whole food plant-based diet of legumes, greens, grains, fruits, veggies, mushrooms, nuts, seeds, herbs and spices and a variety of each. There's no need to eat animals or even really worry about any sort of tracking whether it be caloric, macros, you just eat real food and feel f****** great!
@@VeganLinked Ah, I should have seen in advance that it would be this type of discussion. I'm glad you know what's best for everyone. 👍
@@pwykersotz glad you understand n of 1 then
@@pwykersotz surely you don't think you're body is so unique that you depend on consuming body parts, organs and secretions when I completely don't. Do you think you're a completely different creature just because of your n of 1 (assuming you eat animals and think this is good for you). People think something is working for them even if it's something that has been shown to be detrimental. And this is just because people get stuck in habituated movement and are scared of change even if it's for the best.
Oh my god. When they started to talk about fake sugar being the problem.
The video became a net negative because of their trash opinion. :/
Too many "experts " - not enough science . 🙄
( I find 72hr fasting beneficial 👌 )
Our laws say, The burden of proof is in the accusation's from those who give those accusations and are to be proved beyond the shadow of doubt. If not, then it becomes hearsay or a lie. The bible says, "Trust No man". This guy's videos are based on what he has read, however much, and then he gives his opinions on his ideas as well as his people he has on his videos. I read where iit is stated that the best eating habits are like our grandparents ways. My grandfather had emphysema and phlebitis all his life. He lived through 2 heart attacks and the third on killed him, but he lived a rip old age and his father was 92 and an acholic all his life. My father came from a family of eight and my last aunt died in February this year. They all ate natural meats, veggies, and fruits. My mom smoked at a young age and had heart surgery and had to give up smoking but still lived to be 82. It wasn't genetics because it was on both sides of my family. I still eat as they did and am 74 as of this year and have had 2 common colds in 36 years.
Nutrition advice? Dr. Layne Norton! Don't waste your time with all the other BS!
"all calories are equal" is a myth from nutrition pov. they are equal only in a sense "they produce same amount of heat if you burn them in a lab", but who cares about that? people aren't burning calories in a lab, peopre are eating them. and from eating them pov calories are very different even ignoring stuff like sugar spikes, i.e. from pure energy pov, on several accounts:
1) it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, what matters is how many calorues you absrob. calories pooped out will not make you fat. any scientist sholud know that ffs. and some foods leave more calories unabsorbed.
2) some foods(with equal amount of calories compared to others) increase metabolic rate i.e. make you burn more calories at rest. i.e. you consume same amount of calories, but they make you spend more calories, losing weight
3) some foods(with equal amount of calories compared to others) make you want to eat more later. it will increase you calories consumption in the end, i.e.you can argue that it's the case of more calories, not same amount of calories. but in this meal it's same amount of calories. i.e. you eat same amount of calories now, but wrong choice of calories source make you obese(because you'll eat more calories later, but in this meal there are good calories and bad calories, i.e. calories are not equal)
all of which means it's pointless to compare just calorie counts of different food, because different foods will have different effect on your weight gain with same amount of calories listed. which means that calories are not equal in how they'll affect your weight
While I personally agree with all your caveats on this, I think you miss the point. A calorie IS a calorie for the purpose of the raw math. And most people (including this dietician) who say it isn't are confusing the issue. A better way to say it is "Calories from some sources lack proper nutrients and may impact behavior as your body tries to compensate." But no one says that. And essentially, that means no one is listening to each other, because purists on both sides argue past each other.
@@pwykersotz lol, you completely miss the poing. nobody cares about raw math. people don't do raw math, people choose what to eat based on calorie labels on food. those labels are completely pointless because with one food you will be gaining weight and woth other food you will be losing weight with same number of calories on the label. because labels contain meaningless raw math, not the real impact on human body
and regarding your response to myth 9: the argument is ridiculous. non-diet soda is worse than diet soda, but how is it relevant? did she said you should drink non-diet soda instead? she didn't. obviously she meant you should drink something better, like water. where is your comparison of diet soda vs water? you didn't show one, but i can tell you, water will be better. first, almost all artificial sweateners are linked to some issues. second, any aritifical sweatener will have effect on teaching your body that sweat sense in the mouth doesn't lead to glucose spike in the blood later, and your body will not be ready handling that glucose spike when you really eat sugar
Calories are heat, we can’t eat heat.
You missed the point.
@@Physionic your point being?
Caloric heat is a direct measure of ATP (cellular energy), so while we don't eat heat, we eat nutrients that allow us to produce heat (through ATP).
so one can of soda per week is benign. what about one pack of cigarettes per week? hitting your knee with a hammer once per week? surely you'll not die from mild knee-hittting
Those aren't the same thing. How about breathing car exhaust from walking around your neighborhood? That's a closer comparison. Some people will hit 100 while still doing that. Others might see complications. Things like soda are dose dependent. Of course, if you can't stop, that's also a problem.
@@pwykersotz dose dependend doesn't mean there's a safe dose. for added sugar there isn't
@@SergePavlovskyThat is an irresponsible assertion. You have a safe amount of radiation you can be exposed to on daily basis. You have a certain amount of cyanide you can eat. Everything is dose dependent. If your point is that it is healthier overall to have zero added sugars, I agree with you. But you'd be hard pressed to identify which of two people had five grams of added sugars for their entire life, and which had twenty grams of added sugars daily for their entire life.
@@pwykersotz this is illiterate assertion. not everything has non-zero safe dose, are you banned on wikipedia? safe amount of added sugar is zero.
basically you are arguing that russian roulette is safe with large cilinder. in reality large cilinder reduces risk, but not eliminates
@@SergePavlovskyAh. Personal insults and rigid replies with extreme hyperbole. Gotcha.
To not advise against a low carb diet makes me question your intellectual authority on health or diet.cocaine is also an effective weight loss strategy to make a point.
Seems like a non-nuanced way of looking at nutrition to me.
I irrationally despise looking at the sides of people's faces while they are looking at another camera. Such a lame and overused video fad. Thankful that this channel does not do that.
She didn't say you can't lose weight on a low carb diet. She said it's not sustainable. Those are two different things. Thousands of people swearing by losing weight on a low carb diet is not the same as thousands of people sustaining that weight loss. And since most diets are successful in that people lose weight but 4/5 are not successful in that they don't keep it off, the difference should be noted.
All kind of bullshit here. The lady said the same calorie in cookies has a different effect on our body (sugar spike etc) when compared to banana in the same calorie. This is a fact.
For God's sake! Must you do that STUPID quotation mark thing with your fingers all the time? Monkey see, monkey do, so you do it because everybody else is doing it, so it seems!
Someone feels strongly about quotation marks, it seems.
Metabolism seems to be linked to circadian rhythm. I googled "circadian rhythm and weight loss"; this was one of the articles returned: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23512957/