yup. outcome data always beats a mechanistic model... :) another thing I suspect is oversimplified is that insulin release is not just triggered by carbs but also protein (and there may be macronutrient-independent factors as well). some analyses paint a surprising picture regarding the insulin release in response to different foods
4 amino acids leucine, isoleucine, alanine and arginine stimulate ß-cell electrical activity to stimulate insulin release. Not by turning into glucose!
Cutting carbs from my diet made huge changes in my body. My blood pressure was finally in the normal range and my fasting blood sugar was lower than 90. It eliminated late night cravings and my skin has cleared up. To each their own.
Exactly. And I don't doubt it's because I over eat carbs and eat too many calories. But I'm 52 and in the best shape of my life. I'm thinner than I was in high school. And it was cutting back carbs and sugar that did it. And for me, if I don't eat vegetables, I started to feel bloated and gain weight. Protein and veggies did the trick for me.
Same here. For about 6 months I started eating oatmeal again, replacing meat and vegetables for lunch, and that simple change saw my weight creep up over 4lbs. At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but decided to reverse that decision, and now I see my weight returning to normal again.
@@thefly373 I respect your experience. Please take into consideration that oatmeal causes insulin spikes similar to candy. Carbs with a low glycemic index like legumes might work better.
@@Coromi1These weren't quick oats, they were organic sprouted oats, and I wasn't even cooking them. Just added hot water and ate them crunchy. High Fibre but also high carb. I'll have to check the GI and GL, and compare them to other carbs like beans and legumes. But bottom line for me... no more oats.
According to keto experts, it takes longer than 4 weeks to become "fat adapted" and has completely switched it's physiological process from glucose as fuel to ketones/fat as fuel. Wonder if a 6 to 12 month study would show a difference or not.
After going to a lower carb diet (eliminating bread, pasta, sugar, most grains, and refined carbs) for a couple of years now, it is easier to eat less because I almost never get hungry or have cravings. As soon as we eat a high carb meal, I get hungry shortly after. Root veggies are the only exception. Eating a wide variety of meats, veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, and dairy is more satiating. It seems easier to eat less food overall and feel much healthier overall.
Great to hear your success. Yes the study he refers to neglects the fact the high carb group couldn’t eat more even if they were really hungry. Of course you will lose weight on a calorie restricted high carb diet. But in the real world they aren’t restricted.
Fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the insulin issue is a red herring. And I found when I did that after I had actually already lost quite a bit of weight and maintained it for years, but still wanted to get rid of a little fat, I would get full at my meals, but I didn’t feel satiated. I still longed for the texture of whole high starch foods such as legumes, rye berries (I know, weird but wonderful) and potatoes. Carb cycling or periodic (not daily) intermittent fasting is more satisfying here. We both win.
You are deluding yourself. Eating bread, rice, and pasta in appropriate quantities is not going to increase your appetite. These foods satisfy your food cravings.
Low carb diet and what you are describing are not the same. Low carb means % of calories which come from carb. You are describing a low glycemic diet. And that is what everyone should do. It's not carb, protein, fat mix. It's the quality of each: Low GI, lean, and omega 3 rich fats will likely prove to be the foundation for long life style and sustainable diet. The ratios will depend on the individual's own needs. And so will total daily caloric intake. Although my suspicion is that people who consume minimum necessary calories will live longer. And that's because the body is forced to be and stay efficient and healthy. It's going to dump unhealthy cells that aren't carrying their weight to the crapper, literally, leaving the healthiest cells going -- kind of a microscopic view of survival of the fittest.
Happy New Year, all. I have many videos written out for the coming month from fasting on cancer to dietary fat on heart disease risk, and more. Looking forward to sharing.
I use to buy cereals labeled "Heart Healthy" by the American Heart Association. I had tried many diets but avoiding processed carbohydrate/sugar was the biggest contributor to my weight loss from over 190 down to less than 130 and stabilized at 133-135. Aside from the Physiology, the Psychology of being self satiated contributes to being healthy.
I’d say it’s the combo of physiological and psychological elements. If the diet is ultimately an satiating, the psychological struggle will likely get to burdensome. It’s finding that right mix by experimenting with some firmness, and a lot of rational compassion. But so many people, especially women, go into the diet game from deep self-hatred that they don’t have the body ambulated in the media. They so want that approval, but every slip makes them feel that they are farther and farther away from any kind of contentment.
Oh, my gosh, I also want to add that I read that in the households where processed breakfast cereals are kept in containers on the counter, the inhabitants tend to weigh something like 7 to 11 pounds more than the average. I opted for a long time for Fiber one cereal, but I found that even with that, the desire to overeat it was great, and not worth having it around. As far as I’m concerned, the commercial cereal trade is a huge scam. For the nutrition you get, the cost per serving is simply too expensive. I find it pretty easy to cook five servings of something like steel cut oats, or even whole oats groats and reheat them each day. The resistant starch increases, and the cost is much lower than paying for the processing and the packaging.
As someone who suffered from a deadly eating disorder and has restored weight, these types of videos are SURPRISINGLY helpful. I like to think through the logical reasons as to why the body does what it does and these types of scientific-based videos are fascinating. Plus, they make me feel better about the experience I went through, especially now knowing the science. Thank you!
@scoobydadog246 there is plenty of scientific literature to back that up. Literal mountain of evidence. If you are too lazy to lookup and read then I can't help you. When administered into the body, insulin can increase hunger and cause weight gain. This is because insulin can cause hypoglycemia, which can lead to hunger and eating.
@@scoobydadog246 insulin stimulates hunger directly. The mechanism is through a feedback loop by lowering blood sugar which then stimulates appetite. There is a mountain of data on this.
I have experimented with my diet for the past decade trying out different things. Keeping protein and calories the same, a low fat high carb diet makes me feel hungry all the time, yet high fat low carb satiates me very well and I get much less brain fog. If I were to stay on a low fat diet I really don't think I could sustain it for long without falling off the wagon. I find myself craving rather than hungry. Low carb seems to suit me quite well although I would encourage anyone to experiment and give both a solid 3 month trial before writing them off.
I still think this needs to be more granular. Not all carbs are the same. Of course calories in vs out is the main factor, but I'd like to see junk carb vs good carbs studies
Strong case for the calorie deficit model, I'm a believer, and I have heard several low carb presenters mention that you must still watch your calories. The one caveat, and its a big one for me, is how insulin affects your hunger and satiety hormones. If I eat a steak, I FEEL full and I can stop eating. If I eat the same number of calories in bread, rice, etc... I can't stop eating and I never feel full...which is why I can easily spend over $100 at the sushi restaurant. Or I can eat four 4-pack reese's peanut butter cups in a row and still want more.
You need to eat whole grain rice not white rice. And whole grain bread. The more I read about the low carb stuff the more I get the impression that the main issue is the extremely bad quality of carbs that Americans eat especially (not sure you are American but they seem to be the main advocates of low carb). Whole grain will take longer to digest, make you full and tastes a lot better. Especially whole grain rice. Once you tasted it you won't go back to white rice. But it takes longer to cook.
I wonder the most about what happened after the studies? Yes they lost similar weighths but did high insuling diet gain the weights back? Comparison to others?
My understanding at 3:28 is these subjects were put on a diet, before they were put on a diet. We might expect they may have more to lose in the first diet, and diminishing rewards in the second diet. It's possible that order of events matters here. The study seems a bit small, short, and incomplete.
TLDR - insulin by itself does NOT directly tie to fat loss/gains, but rather it is still CICO that counts. However, if you do lower carbs, then you will have lower insulin levels, which will allow you to do better fasting and this CICO. Whatever works for you, and for most people, the lower carbs (insulin) has a higher probability of a better weight.
I never heard of this 'myth'. I only heard of insulin rollercoaster, the tendency for fast carbs to drive cravings and thus lead to irresistible excess calorie diet.
I appreciate you taking the time to make these videos! It's nice to see what insights you have that are contrary to what I've heard other people say. Always nice to get as much information as possible!!!
It is easier to stay on a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet than a calorie-restricted higher carb diet. There's a behavioral aspect not captued by the studies. Fat is satisfying, carbs create hunger making it harder to stick to the low calorie diet.
These people are just brainwashing people for money. I saw an ad for chocolate companies in one of his videos, and he was trying to make sugar look good. Also, these people are vegans. I am not against anybody being carnivore/vegan/omniv/ keto or whatever, but do not use information to derail people from the truth for one's own gains. Wasn't it Dr. Gil Carvalho , also a PHD who is not an MD who seldom speaks of flaws in trials and people just highlight what they want to, so his cahoot is doing the same thing here. One's health is in one's own hand. I am amazed how such minuscular info could have everybody wowing!
Actually both sides are correct, insulin is super important for a person that is metabolically sick, while a healthy individual might lose weigth similarly. If on keto/low 50-60gr carbs I can afford to eat 500cal more!!! That is 500, not a spelling mistake. Also you cant just switch from high carb to keto and expect the body to cope with the situation...
You nailed it. These studies prove only one thing: when you don't eat enough, you lose weight (at least for a short period of time, after what the body resist to the fat loss and every people trying to lose weight know that). But the subjects can’t be fat adapted in only 4 weeks after 4 weeks of high carbs.
Petition that all your videos should be made with an english accent. But in a more serious note, i don't think fat loss is the end all be all of health, if that was the case then all skinny people would be healthy and all fat people would be sick, and that's not the point, we can have insulin resistant skinny people and fat people that are in good enough health. Would love to see some more inflammation markers on the 2 diets and the variability between the subjects response to the diet. Beta hydroxy butyrate ( and simply butyrate ) seem to be anti inflammatory, so if you have the good microbiome for fiber you get healthier or if you have the good microbiome for ketosis/fat absorption. I just looked at the study and there are a few interesting things : 1. Insulin is 7.92 compared to 6.27 high carbs vs high fat, so lower insulin is better for health span from what i know 2.trygliceride 104 vs 85 (Would of loved to see ldl/hdl) 3. I don't wanna be THAT guy who nitpicks, but polyunsaturated fats is 32g on the kd vs 20g , both are bad but i'm betting that most of the increase will come from omega 6s. We know that omega 3s are very important and the balance is vital for good health, i don't mind the high consumption but i'm sure it would look like 28g omega 6 to 4g omega 3s. So that would cause inflammation and less weight loss. 4. I kept searching but i didn't find exactly their diet. We know choline is very important for fat mobilization and carnitine too, carnivore groups with most red meat/liver/eggs have the best fat loss , i bet again ( since i'm a betting man it seems ) that that's the bottleneck for fat utilization. Not that many studies are well designed in regards to micronutrients, not all fat is the same not all carbs. I do agree that insulin is not everything but ketosis has some advantages, i lost weight through sport and exercise but my brain was never happy, but in a 3day only butter+meat diet my brain was extremely calm and focused, but that might be party because of dysbiosis.
Wouldn't an easy way to test this be to have two groups on the same hypocaloric ketogenic diet with one given exogenous insulin? Then we would know whether or not insulin itself has bearing on weight loss.
My personal experience - as a medical layman - was that on a multi year keto OMAD diet I was loosing fat at a decent rate. Then I had a gout problem that slowly went away; during this time, with only slightly less activity and the same diet I gained 15 kilos. I attribute this to - assumed, not measured - high cholesterol and thus insulin levels.
Do you think the literature supports that if a person was moderately insulin resistant and trying to clean up a fatty liver, a low insulin diet would be better? Maybe keto, fasting, or restricting carbs to one meal?
As I understood Fung - he states "calories in calories out" is true. So that is not in dispute. I think the bottom line behind insuline resistance and so on is health and better adherence to calorie restriction, it is claimed, that the body uses body fat as fuel source (easier), so it is easier to consume less calories. Another claim is, that it does not work longtime - to work against willpower - with calorie counting. -- Very interesting is, that there is no difference in fat loss - I thought it miight differ a little bit and I thought I have seen studies on that, but it might be to better adherence. I need to look further into it. But as I am not imprisoned in a lab, low carb might be benificial. Thank you! - I see limitations of the study [2]- the first phase was high carb and the seccond KT - The long confinement in the clinik might have an impact on movent, the body might have adaptet to caloric restriction and the fat loss was lower in the seccond phase - it might have been benifical, If they changed the order for half of the group. Also is the claim of KT bubble - that it takes time to get fat adapted. In the picture you can see, that the body fat declined in week 2-4 more than in week 1-2. But I am no expert - so my interpretation might be totaly wrong.
I want to share this experience, I am on a journey to losing my excess body fat, so I have been trying intermittent fasting, prolonged fasting, calorie deficits and varying diets, I have found that the weeks where I had the most reduction of my overall body fat is when I do the prolonged fasts, 1 to 3 days, I lose a little but consistently when I have weeks with only intermittent fasts and I have also noticed that even if I include high carb foods, as long as I don’t over eat or maintain the calorie deficit I still lose weight, same with physical activity, weeks where I am mostly sedentary, my fat loss diminishes, days where I walk all week or do weights or HIIT my fat loss accelerates. Very interesting.
I thought the insulin story as told by Jason Fung and others was related to the level of basal insulin as measured after an overnight fast . We all know that insulin level goes up in reaction after eating a meal and that kind of measurement isn't what's being pointed at by Dr Fung or other Drs. So, they're saying that the basal insulin after years of stimulation will gradually go up and the level of a patient's basal insulin is indicative of the state of their metabolic state. Besides, sugar isn't the only factor causing obesity. It usually goes hand in hand with bad oil or so called omega 6 seed oil which is found in abundance in junk food. That would explain the rise in obesity from 1970's forward as the proliferation of Macdonalds and Burger kings and other restaurants would explain the proliferation of food with high sugar content (from Macdonald buns ) and the seed oil content from the fried chips or fried burgers etc ... If as a researcher, you could address that issue as a complex issue consisting of several factors instead of trying to talk about it in simpletons like obesity is just about sugar or just about oil, maybe the problem might be solved faster instead of beating around the bush and turning a blind eye to the obvious !!!
The carbohydrate - insulin model comes from David Ludwig. A professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. His specialty is nutrition. Needless to say, Ludwig isn't just some smartypants TH-camr who makes a living with clickbait or soyface thumbnails. Neither is Jason Fung. They are both doctors riding on the very edge of science.
Id like to see a study on self control on and off a keto diet. I think youre right in saying insulin isnt the only factor. I believe hunger signalling and addiction play a role too. Its a lot harder for me to overeat on a keto/carnivore diet, and my appetite is much better controlled.
I might have interpreted this wrong? The low carb/keto vs the insulin inclusive eating group both ingested the same cal amounts & lost the same amount. But in the last study where there's keto vs mixed vs fasting the keto lost more weight even though it wasn't fat. Does this mean they simply lost more water weight due to less insulin and potentially muscle mass?
The primal weakness of these studies is short period for specific diet high carb or high fat. In case of high fat low carb diet person needs at least 11 days (when enteres ketogenic diet first time in life) to adapt and change expression of specific genes. 2. When one resitrics calories without affecting proportions of macroconstituents one does lower carbohydrates as well. So this model actually still shows that reduction of carbohydrates (in absolute terms - grams per day) leads to fat loss. 3. Second study in the list does not show results from period of high carbohydrate eating. These men were overweight (no data) but suprisingly ultra healthy (insulin level 8 uIU at high carb). Such level after turning into ketogenic diet will not bring expected results, because insulin is in the such range where fat cells respond well on caloric reduction regardless of diet. The balance point for fat cells (for influx and eflux of fatty acids) in humans (in vivo) has been established to 12-14 uIU. That means that in both periods these men were in state of great outflow of fatty acids from fat tissue. But this does not happen so well in people with insulin resistance. I personally had 22 uIU of fasting insulin and couldn't loose weight on low fat 800 kalories diet .... Interesting studies but they don't undermine insulin as major player in insulin resistant people.
Bro, if you are at a high body weight you already are having a higher metabolism than thinner people. So when you lose weight ur maintenance adjusts and lowers slowly it doesn't happen overnight If it did then tomorrow my metabolism burns 4k calories and by yesterday it was 1000
I'm genuinely curious the affects psychologically on someone eating a calorie restricted SAD vs a LCHF model. I found alternate day fasting with only slight food modifications effective. I think the biggest conversation that is lacking is the brain aspect of Obesity and why the hormonal response from highly processed food has caused the obesity epidemic. The best way to lose weight is to make it easier for the brain's desire for food to align with a healthy body, I'm not sure what that answer is though.
There are more reasons to cut your insulin levels than weight loss. In fact, I think weight loss is one of the least important reasons to reduce insulin stimulation. I say that as a diabetic with a fasting insulin level of 16-19. I followed the evil advice of the Diabetes Lobby for so many years, I'm doubtful I'll ever recover from habitually elevated blood glucose. There's days, eating less than 5% carbs, my fasting glucose is 190, without nightly insulin injections. If I use insulin to get my morning blood sugar down to around 120 and then don't eat carbs during the day I don't need any insulin. I recently fasted for 7 days and lost ZERO OUNCES. I still don't believe that!
Wow so it seems to me Carlories in and Carlories out Is a much More important factor in fatloss than Insulin levels. So than Main Claims of Dr. Fung semms to be wrong
First principles dictate calories in minus calories out equals weight loss, weight gain, or equilibrium assuming all calories are equally assimilable. What the study doesn’t show is how utterly miserable the high carb, high insulin diet makes the participants feel (think “hangry”). The resulting “carb addiction” and the eating behaviors that are inspired outside of a laboratory “prison” is why the high carb/high insulin model rarely works for weight loss.
I don't really get hungry when I keep busy. For me idle time is more detrimental than macro composition. It's easy to snack when you are watching tv. It's not easy to snack when you're elbows deep in an engine compartment.
My TDEE is approximately 2200 calories per day. When I tried to eat 1600-1800 calories per day with a mixed diet, I gained 1% body fat in 2 weeks, even though I had 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of fat-free mass. However, when I consumed over 3000 calories per day with carb backloading (no carbs in the morning and afternoon, only in the evening), I lost 3% body fat in a month. I am so tired of counting calories.
Thank you for this solid information. I watch lots of videos on these topics and had never heard of acylation stimulating hormone before! I suspect acylation stimulating hormone has something to do with why I only seem to be able to lose weight if I get fat% really low.
So how does one lose weight (diet) without crippling their BMR through calorie restriction? I've been using a low carb diet for about 4 months now, and have had success losing weight and lowering my A1C, however I'm at somewhat of a plateau with the weight loss. At this point, I want to become more balanced in my diet to restore carb tolerance, but am a little confused as to what my diet should look like at this point... I'm under the impression that a sustained regimen of calorie restriction would lead to a serious slowing of my BMR. Do I eat a normal amount of calories (~2,000) on most days, but perhaps throw in a couple fasting days during the week?
It takes some time to adjust to the low-carb and get keto production going - was there any washout period between the high and low carb? Would be great if the study had tried it both ways first.
What happened to the idea that the body prioritizes the burning of carbs, and then when it runs out it starts buring fat. And that as long as there are carbs to burn, no fat is burned. Is that not true?
Well, if we look at the GLP-1 studies, we see people losing a ton of weight with any combo of carbs/protein/fat because in all cases where they lose substantial weight, they restricted (drumroll).... calories. It confirms what Physionics says, it's a preference thing. If you find it easier to keep weight off on keto, awesome. If others do it Mediterranean style, kudos. You do you. No carb, fat, or protein villification required.
Just wondering if the participants demonstrated any insulin resistance or were they all insulin sensitive? Same question for any other metabolic problems such as Type 2 diabetes. I’m not convinced that people react the same to changes in diet if metabolic “correction” is required before attending to, what I believe the body would consider a lesser problem, fat loss. Not sure I’m presenting this in an understandable way, but in my own case, I didn’t start to lose fat quickly until my insulin sensitivity improved and my fasting glucose was consistently below 99. Perhaps this was adjusted for in the studies?
Seems like it's time for new massive lab controlled clinical studies and a totally new body of accurate medical literature based on accurate knowledge of the human body and how it is affected by the world we live in. I think that would lead to better health for everyone with less medical intervention or at least more meaningful medical intervention, but, the knowledge gained would make routine medical advice, counsel, and, treatment more effective at keeping everyone in a healthier condition to not only be productive so as to contribute to society, but, to personally enjoy life as everyone should be able to. Otherwise at the current rate of medical knowledge and progress, I don't think you will solve anything anytime in the near future, so as to make any meaningful changes for anyone now living.
The only thing I am worried about is calorie equalization. This seems very artificial to me. On a high fat diet I will eat at max 1500-2000 calories and be satiated to the max. On a high carb diet I can eat 3000 calories without even blinking and still have cravings. I believe putting too many calories into high fat diets may skew results.
You're missing the whole point of the ketogenic diet. In that study they had the same calories, which is the wrong way to conduct the study. If you eat all carbohydrates, you're going to be hungrier. So in that study they capped their calories at a set level, preventing them from eating more, however, guaranteed, those people were hungry and felt like they wanted to eat more, and outside of the controlled condition they would have. Also, when eating a ketogenic diet, the participants would be satiated all the time, and not wanting to eat more; so forcing them to eat the same calories as the high carb group was force-feeding them in the study far beyond what they would naturally eat. The study is incorrect because it limited the carb eaters from eating more, and forced the meat eaters to eat more than they wanted. The ketogenic diet is about manipulating the body's hormones to control satiety signaling from the gut to the brain, which they completely by-passed to show the results they wanted to show.
well, my N=1 experiment tells me what works - very low carbohydrates AND calorie restriction, from time restricted eating to occasional extended fasts. Also, I would want to know if the enforced diet included processed seed oils.
It would be interesting to see the difference in fat loss between time-restricted eating (aka "intermittent fasting") and regular 3 meals a day with snacks provided the same average daily caloric intake.
Doesn't the second study quoted, where calories remained the same but macronutrient changed for 4 week periods, demonstrate that Calories-In Calories-Out is wrong? Because you would expect that with all other variables being so closely controlled, that weight loss should have been the same. But the point of inflection, when transitioning between a carb to fat diet clearly demonstrates a change. Is it just additional water loss? But if that's the case, then the point of inflection should have been in the other direction - same fat loss, because of the caloric deficit, but also additional water loss because of the low carb diet. It's also possible that 4 weeks is NOT long enough, although clearly a longer study would be far too expensive. But you have to question how long it takes to transition to a low carb diet. It's doubtful that 4 weeks would do it.
hmmmm...possible that intake (food) is processed differently (e.g. some are more salt sensitive) for different body types, genetics, llifestyle, other factors? political party?
I hear you, but I don't even think the government recommends the Standard American Diet, high in refined sugar and other processed food, and low in vegetables and fruit.
Yating a whole food plant-based diet absolutely works in the real world. This is why vegans aren't having these problems, especially the long time and lifelong vegans, especially when they eat a well-planned Whole Food plant-based diet ;)
@@VeganLinked Not sure what your talking about, because vegans absolutely do have problems. I know both vegans and vegetarians, and they are generally not healthy (sister, brother and 2 colleagues at work). Also, as you age, veganism requires more supplements to compensate for less satiating and nutrient density, because later in life we have a decreasing ability to utilize absorbed protein. Even omnivores have trouble consuming enough protein after the age of 50, and it's dramatically worse for vegans.
@@thefly373 dude, science matters, not your opinion and miniscule observation and clearly the science is in favor of a "well planned vegan diet" and supports it being "healthy and appropriate for every stage of life" and "protective against chronic disease and all cause mortality" while eating animals "increases risk for chronic disease and all cause mortality". Furthermore, I have interviewed hundreds of vegans, mostly longtime and I'm about to start releasing a lot of lifelong vegans. I'm 50 and know lifelong vegans my age and older and they're in better health than me and I'm in excellent health, esp. compared to my nonvegan counterparts and my previous vegan self. I have evidence on my channel you have nothing but empty words, I have science on my side, you have nothing but empty words. Sure, everyone may lose intrinsic factor for example as they age and benefit from B12 supplementation, but that's just more reason to be vegan. Just like the majority of B12 going to animal agriculture. Sure, a vegan can be unhealthy because 1.) veganism is a philosophy not a diet 2.) it's probably easier to not know how to eat a well planned vegan diet than it is to just magically know how when someone has never been vegan before 3.) most people do unhealthy things that make them unhealthy, even vegans, but this has NOTHING to do with veganism. Just like their health has nothing to do with veganism. The healthiest way of eating is the most vegan but that doesn't mean most vegans will know how to do this, not right away. That's where my work comes in ;) And the work of most vegans. Which is why I know so many healthy vegans and so many unhealthy nonvegans. Over 98 percent of the vegans I know are healthy AF yet over 80 percent of the nonvegans I know are not healthy AF at all.
@@VeganLinked I know enough about both vegetarianism and veganism. Veganism is just a more extreme, with religious zealots like Dr. Greger (specializes in cherry picking studies). Bottom line, it's great for animals but NOT a healthy diet for humans.
Greg Doucette keeps saying “it’s cookbook calories in vs cookbook calories out”. For non-diabetics insulin seems to coincide/correlate with health factors that correlate with fat levels. Personally I function better on a diet that doesn’t jack up my glucose/insulin levels. If that coincidentally means I’m a lean beef Chamu, I’ll take it.
5:00 This just goes to show that weightloss as a term is meaningless , the people on the Ketogenic diet most likely lost water weight and had depleted glycogen in their muscles and liver, thus weighing less.
I thought the issue was that high Insulin levels prompted more calorie cravings and that is why you dont lose weight, because of the increased calories.
Finally a pop-science dude who explains this so that even I can understand. I always had a problem with the so-called TH-cam Keto guru's keeping saying that insulin is the only thing that matters. Yet, none of them ever answered why you can still cain weight while on keto if you eat a lot. This was the first time I heard about ASP, but it sure as hell clarified a lot. And I'm saying this as someone who is on a keto diet but who knows from experience that it's not a weight loss magic bullet as such. It just makes it much easier due the hunger suppression.
ok I'll just eat pure processed sugar and insulin stimulating foods and remain at a caloric deficit bc the only point this video seems to illustrate is that insulin or insulin resistance doesn't matter
Were the study subjects insulin resistant or insulin sensitive? Those who are insulin resistant with profoundly elevated fasting insulin are playing on a very different set of rules than those who are insulin sensitive. Low-carb seems to work much better for insulin resistant patients while those who are insulin sensitive can find success on almost any calorie deficit strategy they want.
I know this is an N of one, but despite what the studies say; I have weighed 100-105 lbs at 5'5", and about that for all of my adult life until age 62. I guess I'd call my diet high carb. I did eat meat, but not regularly, and fish a few times a week. A lot of rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, some veggies and fruit, cheese; and butter. I didn't eat sweets every day, but I did enjoy cookies or some sweet treat when I wanted. I guess I just didn't assume excess calories, because I did not gain weight. My point is that obviously I was secreting ample insulin all these years, and it did lead to weight gain; I even would lose weight during times of stress or heavy exercise, which I would gain back b/c it would get too low. I assume there must be others like me, although I see less these days, but obviously insulin alone can't be blamed for weight gain. I also ate as much or more than others as far as I could tell, i.e I was not hungry or restricting my intake.
Interesting but, the information about the studies is not enough... How many where the subgets, age, sex, health conditions ( namelly about insulin resistance) etc...
I suspect the main reason insulin is so connected to obesity is that it makes you hungry almost all the time. So a study where they lock people up and starve them to prove that CICO reigns supreme seems to miss the point when it comes to real life. I didn't learn this by reading studies but by being one. I started a ketogenic diet and lost 50 pounds, so I stayed on. When I "cheat" and have some carbs, the main effect is that I'm ravenously hungry a couple of hours later. It's possible but extremely difficult to lose weight and sustain it under those conditions. Hunger is the key to the whole thing, and that's likely why insulin is a problem.
Thing is everything is always much more complex than we think. A lab will make ppl different from rl too. Stress levels will be different etc. The other body is eternally complex. And that's beautiful imo
If a particular macronutrient does not stimulate the satiety center of the brain and instead stimulates the rewards center, then there will be more tendency to overeat and hence overload on the calories. Enter the hyperpalatable foods .....
For me, fasting is much more about higher insulin sensitivity and prevention of overeating. And that's much more bearable with low-carb OMAD diet, than 5 regular (but rather small and unsatisfying) meals a day.
I actually think that weight loss is possable on a carb diet that reduces calories and a low carb diet. No argument there. However by only focusing on weight loss you miss the while point. The point is that those who can not loose weight on a calorie restricted higher carb diet are usually suffering from metabolic syndrome. A low carb diet can fix this. Beyond this point could the discrepancy not be due to the fact that it takes 4 weeks to become fat adapted and these studies were not long enough? Or perhaps it is due to how long it takes the person to heal their metabolic syndrome which may take months on a low carbohydrate diet?
Your channel is very interesting. Being myself insuline resistant but without having diabetes (I have hyperinsulemia), I can testify that saturated fats increase the resistance. My blood sugar is perfect but when I eat a meal with too much fat, I literally faint one hour after my meal because my insulin is so high. I'm sorry if my explanation isn't very clear, I'm not an English speaker. But I wanted to testify that saturated fats really triggers insulin resistance because I see all over TH-cam people saying the opposite. A low blood sugar doesn't mean your insuline sensitivity is great. I already was on a keto diet (for 6 monts) and I know it can be amazingly beneficial in a short term BUT it worsen insuline resistance.
I'm confused by this video. The only way I can get it to make sense is that carbs are high in calories. I lost 3 stone in three months on a very low carb diet. I suspect I was in Ketosis. Now, I can have carb blowouts but follow them with keto ish weeks. My weight is si good.
Great video & metabolomic analysis. I guess the issue is that in real life, most people can't keep to a constant caloric deficit (unlike in the studies where you are forced to eat a specific amt of calories long term) without feeling constant hunger with increased ghrelin and other hunger hormones. With the higher spikes in insulin for simple high carb diets, experiments show that these sudden elevations produce increased hunger, heightened perceived pleasantness of sweet taste, and increased food intake. The other issue insulin resistance..... those ppl will secrete more insulin for the same higher carb meal, ...... So I guess that is why keto works for folks who are on it. For me personally, the only thing that has ever worked for great weight loss is IF or complete fasting. I am not into high fat diets or super low carb diets (especially when you cut out all the fiber-filled healthy carbs)....they are both neither healthy or sustainable for me long term. Being a foodie though, I can't go into much of a caloric deficit either long term so traditional caloric deficit diets don't work for me.
@@johncouch9062 Yes true....,absolutely no soda (not even diet soda), lower carbs, medium protein, moderate fats, lots of whole foods, and it still needs to be in a caloric deficit which is a lot easier on omad or 2mad than eating 3 meals a day on a traditional caloric deficit
I think you have got it exactly correct. A diet controlled study can count the exact amount of calorie each participant requires. I have tried calorie counting diets in the past weight watchers and unislim scarsdale diet. And many more most involved counting points or calories. I am now trying keto carnivore. But even on that my weight is not budgin. I lost about 15 pounds initially. It seems my thermostat is stuck. I have done 2 meals per day or one meal. In the past I did a 4 day fast. The problem is life gets in the way. Someone is always wanting to go and eat and you get invited out and there is nothing only sweetie things and stodgy stuff. I need to get a 5 day fast to get the thermostat to move again.
Is there an advantage to ketogenic diets when someone has impaired insulin production/ insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes. You can sort of bypass the faulty system. I guess that would be one for another video entirely. Just thinking aloud. This was really interesting and definitely something I’ve experienced with my own weight loss in the past. It seems that all diets work equally well for me as long as I restrict calories.
I'm glad he included the fasting thing. Whatever the metabolic mechanism, it confirmed to me that OMAD works. I do wonder how the fat loss takes place on a high carb diet. If one is continually filling the tank, when does the body see the need to burn the fat? I guess the same could be said for the fat diet.
One mistake made by many studies when focusing on very low carb diets is that they don't measure ketosis. Putting people in ketosis and not in ketosis in the same control group is not smart. I can see why the studies that don't measure ketosis determine that calories are the main factor -- probably because most of the participants were not in ketosis. When measuring ketosis and separating people that are in ketosis, I'm sure the results will change. The studies should require measurements of ketones and when someone falls out of ketosis, they need to throw away the "low carb" data or put the person in a different group.
The most important part of the insulin-fat hypothesis, is that after insulin moves glucose out of the blood stream and into fat cells, the person will end up consuming more calories because that glucose is no longer available for use by Muscle and other tissues that need it. Of course these studies showed no difference between low carb vs low fat diets. That's because the study participants were *artificially* forced consume the same number of calories. The only thing that proves is the laws of thermodynamics are still true. It says nothing about the insulin-fat hypothesis.
I enjoy your content and like the biochemistry explanation you provide. Something caught my attention in your video and although I try researching it - I’m not coming getting any results. Maybe the transcript caught what you tried to say wrong. You mention a Isolation Stimulating Protein that get triggers when you eat fat - which acts a little but like insulin. Can you expand on that or give me links to information. I study Naturopathic Médecine and I don’t remember coming accros this term in my biochemistry classes
There is a fundamental problem with this study. Without some sufficient period between the low carb and high carb phase, how do you know that the former did not have affect on the latter. There have been several other similar studies since, with the authors coming to the same conclusions, but critics coming to the opposite conclusions with equally reasonable logic. If I'm not mistaken, when you do allow for some number of weeks between the opposing diets on the same sample, the results are different. I'm not saying that insulin is everything, but I don't think this "destroys" the idea that insulin affects fat loss.
I think it’s kind of true. I normally do keto and fast for 20-22 hrs a day, but I was in Japan for 2 weeks last month (no gym or exercises which I did everyday normally) and since I was traveling with a bunch of friends, it was very anti social to have stuck with my usual diet, so I just ate whatever and whenever the others did. I was eating a lot of rice and carbs as that’s what most of the Japanese meals were and I found myself being constantly hungry and even felt faint sometimes, which never ever happened when I was doing keto. But to my surprise, after the 2 weeks, my body weight and body fat stayed the same but I actually gained a little muscles, according to my Tanita scale. I think it was due to the Japanese food I was eating were mostly healthy organic stuffs, mostly fish, without highly processed rubbish, sugar or seed oil. I guess sometimes, it’s not what one eats that counts, it’s also the actual quality and compositions of the food. 😅
Maybe you where more relaxed and therefore having less cortisol..i persume that you where walking al lot while traveling and sightseeing..Factors that are important to consider also.. Because working out can cause cortisol to increase..Having fun..relaxing not stressing about your body and bills can do wonders for the body...
Great presentation. I'm curious if you have any studies related to berberine and insulin resistance connected also to fat loss when one uses berberine. Thanks for your informative materials!
I Still Believe That Excercise Is The Key, We Were Made To Keep Moving, Hunter Gatherers, There Are Foods That Stimulate Healthy Mitochondria Though, I'm Working On Recipes Now With Some Success
After the immune system destroys insulin-producing cells (Type 1 Diabetic), weight loss ensues until insulin is administered. Type 1 diabetics gain back weight rapidly when injecting insulin, and typically surpass their previous highest body weight.
Insulin shows up in the presence of carb consumption. There are conflicting studies on whether high insulin stimulates ghrelin. The more grehlin you produce, the hungrier you will be. If insulin increases ghrelin, you will be hungrier. Therefore, calories and calories out, demands of metabolism- needs- are strictly going to affect body fat loss, and restricting carbs could be a hack. It's hard to fight your hormonal system telling you to eat more. You are sated better eating lower carbs, and therefore higher protein and fat, if you produce less ghrelin. This is old news. I am extremely talented at stating the obvious.
I don't know how much the followers of the keto diet try to disprove that the weight loss is the same on a diet high in carbohydrates for the same amount of calories, but I know that they claim that the roller coaster of glucose in their blood and thus their body energy is a problem. They claim that it's impossible not to eat too many calories because when you eat carbohydrates you can't stop eating so you take in too many calories. Whereas on carnivore or keto, you don't have that problem because hunger control is easy.
👌 Very interesting and well presented information. Personally I think fasting for 3 - 5 days is very therapeutic psychologically. I think the brain clears up - perhaps autophagy is responsible .. 🤔❓️
Ketones do this, whether endogenous or exogenous. So you can fast, which has many benefits but may be difficult, or just take ketones for some of those benefits.
![Experts are wrong about Calories. [Science Explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wKEP_Z6u-L0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Experts are wrong about Calories. [Science Explained]](/img/tr.png)
yup. outcome data always beats a mechanistic model... :) another thing I suspect is oversimplified is that insulin release is not just triggered by carbs but also protein (and there may be macronutrient-independent factors as well). some analyses paint a surprising picture regarding the insulin release in response to different foods
Ye olde glycemic index.
What analysis ?
4 amino acids leucine, isoleucine, alanine and arginine stimulate ß-cell electrical activity to stimulate insulin release. Not by turning into glucose!
Cutting carbs from my diet made huge changes in my body. My blood pressure was finally in the normal range and my fasting blood sugar was lower than 90. It eliminated late night cravings and my skin has cleared up. To each their own.
Exactly. And I don't doubt it's because I over eat carbs and eat too many calories. But I'm 52 and in the best shape of my life. I'm thinner than I was in high school. And it was cutting back carbs and sugar that did it. And for me, if I don't eat vegetables, I started to feel bloated and gain weight. Protein and veggies did the trick for me.
Same here. For about 6 months I started eating oatmeal again, replacing meat and vegetables for lunch, and that simple change saw my weight creep up over 4lbs. At first I thought it was just a coincidence, but decided to reverse that decision, and now I see my weight returning to normal again.
@@thefly373 I respect your experience. Please take into consideration that oatmeal causes insulin spikes similar to candy. Carbs with a low glycemic index like legumes might work better.
@@Coromi1These weren't quick oats, they were organic sprouted oats, and I wasn't even cooking them. Just added hot water and ate them crunchy. High Fibre but also high carb. I'll have to check the GI and GL, and compare them to other carbs like beans and legumes. But bottom line for me... no more oats.
@@thefly373 I didn't expect that :-). Sounds really not like a high glycemic index.
According to keto experts, it takes longer than 4 weeks to become "fat adapted" and has completely switched it's physiological process from glucose as fuel to ketones/fat as fuel. Wonder if a 6 to 12 month study would show a difference or not.
After going to a lower carb diet (eliminating bread, pasta, sugar, most grains, and refined carbs) for a couple of years now, it is easier to eat less because I almost never get hungry or have cravings. As soon as we eat a high carb meal, I get hungry shortly after. Root veggies are the only exception. Eating a wide variety of meats, veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, and dairy is more satiating. It seems easier to eat less food overall and feel much healthier overall.
Great to hear your success. Yes the study he refers to neglects the fact the high carb group couldn’t eat more even if they were really hungry. Of course you will lose weight on a calorie restricted high carb diet. But in the real world they aren’t restricted.
Fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the insulin issue is a red herring. And I found when I did that after I had actually already lost quite a bit of weight and maintained it for years, but still wanted to get rid of a little fat, I would get full at my meals, but I didn’t feel satiated. I still longed for the texture of whole high starch foods such as legumes, rye berries (I know, weird but wonderful) and potatoes. Carb cycling or periodic (not daily) intermittent fasting is more satisfying here. We both win.
You are deluding yourself. Eating bread, rice, and pasta in appropriate quantities is not going to increase your appetite. These foods satisfy your food cravings.
Low carb diet and what you are describing are not the same. Low carb means % of calories which come from carb. You are describing a low glycemic diet. And that is what everyone should do. It's not carb, protein, fat mix. It's the quality of each: Low GI, lean, and omega 3 rich fats will likely prove to be the foundation for long life style and sustainable diet.
The ratios will depend on the individual's own needs. And so will total daily caloric intake. Although my suspicion is that people who consume minimum necessary calories will live longer. And that's because the body is forced to be and stay efficient and healthy. It's going to dump unhealthy cells that aren't carrying their weight to the crapper, literally, leaving the healthiest cells going -- kind of a microscopic view of survival of the fittest.
@@joeboxter3635 Healthy fit people do not need to worry about eating high glycemic load meals.
Happy New Year, all.
I have many videos written out for the coming month from fasting on cancer to dietary fat on heart disease risk, and more. Looking forward to sharing.
Happy new year Nicolas with great health and luck for you and your love ones!🤗
HNY 🎉i wonder what ur opinion is on Ray peat’s theory
I'd need to read more into Ray Peat, but I've read some and I tend to not agree.
@@Physionic yeah Georgi Dinkov and Jay Feldman are big proponent of his theories they’ve got interesting theories about sugar but thnx for ur answer 🙏
Hello Komrade! In ROSSIYA 🇷🇺 the first eight days of every new year are non-working holidays !
I use to buy cereals labeled "Heart Healthy" by the American Heart Association. I had tried many diets but avoiding processed carbohydrate/sugar was the biggest contributor to my weight loss from over 190 down to less than 130 and stabilized at 133-135.
Aside from the Physiology, the Psychology of being self satiated contributes to being healthy.
The psychology is even more important, I'd argue, Bernard. Great point. And, excellent work.
Супермен мертв
I’d say it’s the combo of physiological and psychological elements. If the diet is ultimately an satiating, the psychological struggle will likely get to burdensome. It’s finding that right mix by experimenting with some firmness, and a lot of rational compassion. But so many people, especially women, go into the diet game from deep self-hatred that they don’t have the body ambulated in the media. They so want that approval, but every slip makes them feel that they are farther and farther away from any kind of contentment.
Oh, my gosh, I also want to add that I read that in the households where processed breakfast cereals are kept in containers on the counter, the inhabitants tend to weigh something like 7 to 11 pounds more than the average. I opted for a long time for Fiber one cereal, but I found that even with that, the desire to overeat it was great, and not worth having it around. As far as I’m concerned, the commercial cereal trade is a huge scam. For the nutrition you get, the cost per serving is simply too expensive. I find it pretty easy to cook five servings of something like steel cut oats, or even whole oats groats and reheat them each day. The resistant starch increases, and the cost is much lower than paying for the processing and the packaging.
The American Heart Association probably funded that expensive study mentioned earlier.
As someone who suffered from a deadly eating disorder and has restored weight, these types of videos are SURPRISINGLY helpful. I like to think through the logical reasons as to why the body does what it does and these types of scientific-based videos are fascinating. Plus, they make me feel better about the experience I went through, especially now knowing the science. Thank you!
I'm really happy to hear it, Shayna - thank you for sharing.
Эй, женщина. Пожалуйста, не говори никакой лжи!
@@Physionic Yes, the ketogenic diet has been known to be a body weight _normalization_ factor - not just weight loss.
Insulin also stimulates appetite which can make maintaining a calorie deficit difficult.
I don't know about that. Evidence?
@scoobydadog246 there is plenty of scientific literature to back that up. Literal mountain of evidence. If you are too lazy to lookup and read then I can't help you.
When administered into the body, insulin can increase hunger and cause weight gain. This is because insulin can cause hypoglycemia, which can lead to hunger and eating.
@@scoobydadog246 insulin stimulates hunger directly. The mechanism is through a feedback loop by lowering blood sugar which then stimulates appetite. There is a mountain of data on this.
I have experimented with my diet for the past decade trying out different things. Keeping protein and calories the same, a low fat high carb diet makes me feel hungry all the time, yet high fat low carb satiates me very well and I get much less brain fog. If I were to stay on a low fat diet I really don't think I could sustain it for long without falling off the wagon. I find myself craving rather than hungry. Low carb seems to suit me quite well although I would encourage anyone to experiment and give both a solid 3 month trial before writing them off.
I still think this needs to be more granular. Not all carbs are the same. Of course calories in vs out is the main factor, but I'd like to see junk carb vs good carbs studies
It would be interesting to look at carbs vs fats and the impacts on hormone metabolism (creation?).
I think the difference is that 'junk" carbs come combined with other things, and almost always fat, which makes them higher calorie.
Strong case for the calorie deficit model, I'm a believer, and I have heard several low carb presenters mention that you must still watch your calories. The one caveat, and its a big one for me, is how insulin affects your hunger and satiety hormones. If I eat a steak, I FEEL full and I can stop eating. If I eat the same number of calories in bread, rice, etc... I can't stop eating and I never feel full...which is why I can easily spend over $100 at the sushi restaurant. Or I can eat four 4-pack reese's peanut butter cups in a row and still want more.
You need to eat whole grain rice not white rice. And whole grain bread. The more I read about the low carb stuff the more I get the impression that the main issue is the extremely bad quality of carbs that Americans eat especially (not sure you are American but they seem to be the main advocates of low carb). Whole grain will take longer to digest, make you full and tastes a lot better. Especially whole grain rice. Once you tasted it you won't go back to white rice. But it takes longer to cook.
I wonder the most about what happened after the studies? Yes they lost similar weighths but did high insuling diet gain the weights back? Comparison to others?
My understanding at 3:28 is these subjects were put on a diet, before they were put on a diet. We might expect they may have more to lose in the first diet, and diminishing rewards in the second diet. It's possible that order of events matters here. The study seems a bit small, short, and incomplete.
TLDR - insulin by itself does NOT directly tie to fat loss/gains, but rather it is still CICO that counts. However, if you do lower carbs, then you will have lower insulin levels, which will allow you to do better fasting and this CICO. Whatever works for you, and for most people, the lower carbs (insulin) has a higher probability of a better weight.
I never heard of this 'myth'. I only heard of insulin rollercoaster, the tendency for fast carbs to drive cravings and thus lead to irresistible excess calorie diet.
I appreciate you taking the time to make these videos! It's nice to see what insights you have that are contrary to what I've heard other people say. Always nice to get as much information as possible!!!
Thank you, Emily.
Hey ,ever heard of insluine😮 sensitivity and ketoadaptation .
Going from high carb to low carb in only 1 month might not be ideal !?
It is easier to stay on a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet than a calorie-restricted higher carb diet. There's a behavioral aspect not captued by the studies. Fat is satisfying, carbs create hunger making it harder to stick to the low calorie diet.
These people are just brainwashing people for money. I saw an ad for chocolate companies in one of his videos, and he was trying to make sugar look good. Also, these people are vegans. I am not against anybody being carnivore/vegan/omniv/ keto or whatever, but do not use information to derail people from the truth for one's own gains.
Wasn't it Dr. Gil Carvalho , also a PHD who is not an MD who seldom speaks of flaws in trials and people just highlight what they want to, so his cahoot is doing the same thing here. One's health is in one's own hand. I am amazed how such minuscular info could have everybody wowing!
Actually both sides are correct, insulin is super important for a person that is metabolically sick, while a healthy individual might lose weigth similarly. If on keto/low 50-60gr carbs I can afford to eat 500cal more!!! That is 500, not a spelling mistake. Also you cant just switch from high carb to keto and expect the body to cope with the situation...
You nailed it. These studies prove only one thing: when you don't eat enough, you lose weight (at least for a short period of time, after what the body resist to the fat loss and every people trying to lose weight know that). But the subjects can’t be fat adapted in only 4 weeks after 4 weeks of high carbs.
Petition that all your videos should be made with an english accent.
But in a more serious note, i don't think fat loss is the end all be all of health, if that was the case then all skinny people would be healthy and all fat people would be sick, and that's not the point, we can have insulin resistant skinny people and fat people that are in good enough health.
Would love to see some more inflammation markers on the 2 diets and the variability between the subjects response to the diet. Beta hydroxy butyrate ( and simply butyrate ) seem to be anti inflammatory, so if you have the good microbiome for fiber you get healthier or if you have the good microbiome for ketosis/fat absorption.
I just looked at the study and there are a few interesting things :
1. Insulin is 7.92 compared to 6.27 high carbs vs high fat, so lower insulin is better for health span from what i know
2.trygliceride 104 vs 85 (Would of loved to see ldl/hdl)
3. I don't wanna be THAT guy who nitpicks, but polyunsaturated fats is 32g on the kd vs 20g , both are bad but i'm betting that most of the increase will come from omega 6s. We know that omega 3s are very important and the balance is vital for good health, i don't mind the high consumption but i'm sure it would look like 28g omega 6 to 4g omega 3s. So that would cause inflammation and less weight loss.
4. I kept searching but i didn't find exactly their diet. We know choline is very important for fat mobilization and carnitine too, carnivore groups with most red meat/liver/eggs have the best fat loss , i bet again ( since i'm a betting man it seems ) that that's the bottleneck for fat utilization.
Not that many studies are well designed in regards to micronutrients, not all fat is the same not all carbs. I do agree that insulin is not everything but ketosis has some advantages, i lost weight through sport and exercise but my brain was never happy, but in a 3day only butter+meat diet my brain was extremely calm and focused, but that might be party because of dysbiosis.
Wouldn't an easy way to test this be to have two groups on the same hypocaloric ketogenic diet with one given exogenous insulin? Then we would know whether or not insulin itself has bearing on weight loss.
My personal experience - as a medical layman - was that on a multi year keto OMAD diet I was loosing fat at a decent rate. Then I had a gout problem that slowly went away; during this time, with only slightly less activity and the same diet I gained 15 kilos. I attribute this to - assumed, not measured - high cholesterol and thus insulin levels.
Do you think the literature supports that if a person was moderately insulin resistant and trying to clean up a fatty liver, a low insulin diet would be better? Maybe keto, fasting, or restricting carbs to one meal?
I absolutely love this question, Carl. Why? Because I have a detailed video answering this EXACT question releasing in the next few weeks. :)
As I understood Fung - he states "calories in calories out" is true. So that is not in dispute. I think the bottom line behind insuline resistance and so on is health and better adherence to calorie restriction, it is claimed, that the body uses body fat as fuel source (easier), so it is easier to consume less calories. Another claim is, that it does not work longtime - to work against willpower - with calorie counting. -- Very interesting is, that there is no difference in fat loss - I thought it miight differ a little bit and I thought I have seen studies on that, but it might be to better adherence. I need to look further into it. But as I am not imprisoned in a lab, low carb might be benificial. Thank you! -
I see limitations of the study [2]- the first phase was high carb and the seccond KT - The long confinement in the clinik might have an impact on movent, the body might have adaptet to caloric restriction and the fat loss was lower in the seccond phase - it might have been benifical, If they changed the order for half of the group. Also is the claim of KT bubble - that it takes time to get fat adapted. In the picture you can see, that the body fat declined in week 2-4 more than in week 1-2. But I am no expert - so my interpretation might be totaly wrong.
I want to share this experience, I am on a journey to losing my excess body fat, so I have been trying intermittent fasting, prolonged fasting, calorie deficits and varying diets, I have found that the weeks where I had the most reduction of my overall body fat is when I do the prolonged fasts, 1 to 3 days, I lose a little but consistently when I have weeks with only intermittent fasts and I have also noticed that even if I include high carb foods, as long as I don’t over eat or maintain the calorie deficit I still lose weight, same with physical activity, weeks where I am mostly sedentary, my fat loss diminishes, days where I walk all week or do weights or HIIT my fat loss accelerates. Very interesting.
I thought the insulin story as told by Jason Fung and others was related to the level of basal insulin as measured after an overnight fast . We all know that insulin level goes up in reaction after eating a meal and that kind of measurement isn't what's being pointed at by Dr Fung or other Drs. So, they're saying that the basal insulin after years of stimulation will gradually go up and the level of a patient's basal insulin is indicative of the state of their metabolic state. Besides, sugar isn't the only factor causing obesity. It usually goes hand in hand with bad oil or so called omega 6 seed oil which is found in abundance in junk food. That would explain the rise in obesity from 1970's forward as the proliferation of Macdonalds and Burger kings and other restaurants would explain the proliferation of food with high sugar content (from Macdonald buns ) and the seed oil content from the fried chips or fried burgers etc ... If as a researcher, you could address that issue as a complex issue consisting of several factors instead of trying to talk about it in simpletons like obesity is just about sugar or just about oil, maybe the problem might be solved faster instead of beating around the bush and turning a blind eye to the obvious !!!
The carbohydrate - insulin model comes from David Ludwig. A professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. His specialty is nutrition. Needless to say, Ludwig isn't just some smartypants TH-camr who makes a living with clickbait or soyface thumbnails. Neither is Jason Fung. They are both doctors riding on the very edge of science.
Id like to see a study on self control on and off a keto diet. I think youre right in saying insulin isnt the only factor. I believe hunger signalling and addiction play a role too. Its a lot harder for me to overeat on a keto/carnivore diet, and my appetite is much better controlled.
I might have interpreted this wrong? The low carb/keto vs the insulin inclusive eating group both ingested the same cal amounts & lost the same amount. But in the last study where there's keto vs mixed vs fasting the keto lost more weight even though it wasn't fat. Does this mean they simply lost more water weight due to less insulin and potentially muscle mass?
You nailed it, Jess. Nice work. And, to answer more specifically - it was water.
Thankyou, I love your videos even tho I only just found then!
The primal weakness of these studies is short period for specific diet high carb or high fat. In case of high fat low carb diet person needs at least 11 days (when enteres ketogenic diet first time in life) to adapt and change expression of specific genes. 2. When one resitrics calories without affecting proportions of macroconstituents one does lower carbohydrates as well. So this model actually still shows that reduction of carbohydrates (in absolute terms - grams per day) leads to fat loss. 3. Second study in the list does not show results from period of high carbohydrate eating. These men were overweight (no data) but suprisingly ultra healthy (insulin level 8 uIU at high carb). Such level after turning into ketogenic diet will not bring expected results, because insulin is in the such range where fat cells respond well on caloric reduction regardless of diet. The balance point for fat cells (for influx and eflux of fatty acids) in humans (in vivo) has been established to 12-14 uIU. That means that in both periods these men were in state of great outflow of fatty acids from fat tissue. But this does not happen so well in people with insulin resistance. I personally had 22 uIU of fasting insulin and couldn't loose weight on low fat 800 kalories diet .... Interesting studies but they don't undermine insulin as major player in insulin resistant people.
6:33 What for stimulating protein?
Did the cal def. Lower metabolism? And what was the control in the 8 week study?
Bro, if you are at a high body weight you already are having a higher metabolism than thinner people. So when you lose weight ur maintenance adjusts and lowers slowly it doesn't happen overnight
If it did then tomorrow my metabolism burns 4k calories and by yesterday it was 1000
I'm genuinely curious the affects psychologically on someone eating a calorie restricted SAD vs a LCHF model. I found alternate day fasting with only slight food modifications effective. I think the biggest conversation that is lacking is the brain aspect of Obesity and why the hormonal response from highly processed food has caused the obesity epidemic. The best way to lose weight is to make it easier for the brain's desire for food to align with a healthy body, I'm not sure what that answer is though.
I'm glad you tackle these studies. I see the Insulin Myth being pushed everywhere
There are more reasons to cut your insulin levels than weight loss.
In fact, I think weight loss is one of the least important reasons to reduce insulin stimulation.
I say that as a diabetic with a fasting insulin level of 16-19.
I followed the evil advice of the Diabetes Lobby for so many years, I'm doubtful I'll ever recover from habitually elevated blood glucose. There's days, eating less than 5% carbs, my fasting glucose is 190, without nightly insulin injections.
If I use insulin to get my morning blood sugar down to around 120 and then don't eat carbs during the day I don't need any insulin.
I recently fasted for 7 days and lost ZERO OUNCES.
I still don't believe that!
@@terrifictomm Yes, elevated insulin itself has it's own health risks
@@jamesalles139how do you define elevated?
@@tinyjungle_ greater than normal :)
We can't measure it though
Wow so it seems to me Carlories in and Carlories out Is a much More important factor in fatloss than Insulin levels.
So than Main Claims of Dr. Fung semms to be wrong
First principles dictate calories in minus calories out equals weight loss, weight gain, or equilibrium assuming all calories are equally assimilable. What the study doesn’t show is how utterly miserable the high carb, high insulin diet makes the participants feel (think “hangry”). The resulting “carb addiction” and the eating behaviors that are inspired outside of a laboratory “prison” is why the high carb/high insulin model rarely works for weight loss.
I don't really get hungry when I keep busy. For me idle time is more detrimental than macro composition. It's easy to snack when you are watching tv. It's not easy to snack when you're elbows deep in an engine compartment.
I have question .. if you are insulin resistant .. would a keto diet be more effective in targeting the resistance to make you more insulin sensitive?
Are there compelling health reasons to keep insulin levels low though dietary means outside of the weight loss debate?
My TDEE is approximately 2200 calories per day. When I tried to eat 1600-1800 calories per day with a mixed diet, I gained 1% body fat in 2 weeks, even though I had 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of fat-free mass. However, when I consumed over 3000 calories per day with carb backloading (no carbs in the morning and afternoon, only in the evening), I lost 3% body fat in a month. I am so tired of counting calories.
Thank you for this solid information. I watch lots of videos on these topics and had never heard of acylation stimulating hormone before! I suspect acylation stimulating hormone has something to do with why I only seem to be able to lose weight if I get fat% really low.
So how does one lose weight (diet) without crippling their BMR through calorie restriction? I've been using a low carb diet for about 4 months now, and have had success losing weight and lowering my A1C, however I'm at somewhat of a plateau with the weight loss. At this point, I want to become more balanced in my diet to restore carb tolerance, but am a little confused as to what my diet should look like at this point... I'm under the impression that a sustained regimen of calorie restriction would lead to a serious slowing of my BMR. Do I eat a normal amount of calories (~2,000) on most days, but perhaps throw in a couple fasting days during the week?
It takes some time to adjust to the low-carb and get keto production going - was there any washout period between the high and low carb? Would be great if the study had tried it both ways first.
What happened to the idea that the body prioritizes the burning of carbs, and then when it runs out it starts buring fat. And that as long as there are carbs to burn, no fat is burned. Is that not true?
I wish someone would answer this. Because this is what I've always heard. I swear you can read completely opposing studies from reputable sources.
Well, if we look at the GLP-1 studies, we see people losing a ton of weight with any combo of carbs/protein/fat because in all cases where they lose substantial weight, they restricted (drumroll).... calories. It confirms what Physionics says, it's a preference thing. If you find it easier to keep weight off on keto, awesome. If others do it Mediterranean style, kudos. You do you. No carb, fat, or protein villification required.
Could it be that the keto and non-keto had equal results because four weeks is too short to become fat adapted?
Might healthy and insulin compromised (prediabetic) people have different outcomes?
How metabolically healthy (esp in regards to insulin resistance) were the participants though?
Same results seen in healthy and metabolically unhealthy individuals.
@@Physionic Thanks. Healthy I'd expect, but in moderate to severe insulin resistance the results are more surprising.
Just wondering if the participants demonstrated any insulin resistance or were they all insulin sensitive? Same question for any other metabolic problems such as Type 2 diabetes. I’m not convinced that people react the same to changes in diet if metabolic “correction” is required before attending to, what I believe the body would consider a lesser problem, fat loss. Not sure I’m presenting this in an understandable way, but in my own case, I didn’t start to lose fat quickly until my insulin sensitivity improved and my fasting glucose was consistently below 99. Perhaps this was adjusted for in the studies?
Seems like it's time for new massive lab controlled clinical studies and a totally new body of accurate medical literature based on accurate knowledge of the human body and how it is affected by the world we live in. I think that would lead to better health for everyone with less medical intervention or at least more meaningful medical intervention, but, the knowledge gained would make routine medical advice, counsel, and, treatment more effective at keeping everyone in a healthier condition to not only be productive so as to contribute to society, but, to personally enjoy life as everyone should be able to. Otherwise at the current rate of medical knowledge and progress, I don't think you will solve anything anytime in the near future, so as to make any meaningful changes for anyone now living.
I need understood this..I always got very lean on a high carb diet
The only thing I am worried about is calorie equalization. This seems very artificial to me. On a high fat diet I will eat at max 1500-2000 calories and be satiated to the max. On a high carb diet I can eat 3000 calories without even blinking and still have cravings. I believe putting too many calories into high fat diets may skew results.
You're missing the whole point of the ketogenic diet. In that study they had the same calories, which is the wrong way to conduct the study. If you eat all carbohydrates, you're going to be hungrier. So in that study they capped their calories at a set level, preventing them from eating more, however, guaranteed, those people were hungry and felt like they wanted to eat more, and outside of the controlled condition they would have. Also, when eating a ketogenic diet, the participants would be satiated all the time, and not wanting to eat more; so forcing them to eat the same calories as the high carb group was force-feeding them in the study far beyond what they would naturally eat. The study is incorrect because it limited the carb eaters from eating more, and forced the meat eaters to eat more than they wanted. The ketogenic diet is about manipulating the body's hormones to control satiety signaling from the gut to the brain, which they completely by-passed to show the results they wanted to show.
well, my N=1 experiment tells me what works - very low carbohydrates AND calorie restriction, from time restricted eating to occasional extended fasts.
Also, I would want to know if the enforced diet included processed seed oils.
Also were the subjects fat-adapted prior to the study?
It would be interesting to see the difference in fat loss between time-restricted eating (aka "intermittent fasting") and regular 3 meals a day with snacks provided the same average daily caloric intake.
Doesn't the second study quoted, where calories remained the same but macronutrient changed for 4 week periods, demonstrate that Calories-In Calories-Out is wrong? Because you would expect that with all other variables being so closely controlled, that weight loss should have been the same. But the point of inflection, when transitioning between a carb to fat diet clearly demonstrates a change. Is it just additional water loss? But if that's the case, then the point of inflection should have been in the other direction - same fat loss, because of the caloric deficit, but also additional water loss because of the low carb diet.
It's also possible that 4 weeks is NOT long enough, although clearly a longer study would be far too expensive. But you have to question how long it takes to transition to a low carb diet. It's doubtful that 4 weeks would do it.
hmmmm...possible that intake (food) is processed differently (e.g. some are more salt sensitive) for different body types, genetics, llifestyle, other factors? political party?
I think we should all follow the Standard American Diet. The government wouldn't lie to us would they?
I hear you, but I don't even think the government recommends the Standard American Diet, high in refined sugar and other processed food, and low in vegetables and fruit.
Yep low carb diets only work in the real world. In the lab they are no better than other diets. Satiety must be the key.
Yating a whole food plant-based diet absolutely works in the real world. This is why vegans aren't having these problems, especially the long time and lifelong vegans, especially when they eat a well-planned Whole Food plant-based diet ;)
@@VeganLinked Not sure what your talking about, because vegans absolutely do have problems. I know both vegans and vegetarians, and they are generally not healthy (sister, brother and 2 colleagues at work). Also, as you age, veganism requires more supplements to compensate for less satiating and nutrient density, because later in life we have a decreasing ability to utilize absorbed protein. Even omnivores have trouble consuming enough protein after the age of 50, and it's dramatically worse for vegans.
@@thefly373 dude, science matters, not your opinion and miniscule observation and clearly the science is in favor of a "well planned vegan diet" and supports it being "healthy and appropriate for every stage of life" and "protective against chronic disease and all cause mortality" while eating animals "increases risk for chronic disease and all cause mortality". Furthermore, I have interviewed hundreds of vegans, mostly longtime and I'm about to start releasing a lot of lifelong vegans. I'm 50 and know lifelong vegans my age and older and they're in better health than me and I'm in excellent health, esp. compared to my nonvegan counterparts and my previous vegan self. I have evidence on my channel you have nothing but empty words, I have science on my side, you have nothing but empty words. Sure, everyone may lose intrinsic factor for example as they age and benefit from B12 supplementation, but that's just more reason to be vegan. Just like the majority of B12 going to animal agriculture. Sure, a vegan can be unhealthy because 1.) veganism is a philosophy not a diet 2.) it's probably easier to not know how to eat a well planned vegan diet than it is to just magically know how when someone has never been vegan before 3.) most people do unhealthy things that make them unhealthy, even vegans, but this has NOTHING to do with veganism. Just like their health has nothing to do with veganism. The healthiest way of eating is the most vegan but that doesn't mean most vegans will know how to do this, not right away. That's where my work comes in ;) And the work of most vegans. Which is why I know so many healthy vegans and so many unhealthy nonvegans. Over 98 percent of the vegans I know are healthy AF yet over 80 percent of the nonvegans I know are not healthy AF at all.
@@thefly373 also, you clearly don't know anything about veganism if you clump it with vegetarianism.
@@VeganLinked I know enough about both vegetarianism and veganism. Veganism is just a more extreme, with religious zealots like Dr. Greger (specializes in cherry picking studies). Bottom line, it's great for animals but NOT a healthy diet for humans.
Is the fact that I'm thin , could it be attribute to thalassemia minor
Could you please tell where you from? Verhoeven sounds like a Dutch or a Flemish name.
Greg Doucette keeps saying “it’s cookbook calories in vs cookbook calories out”.
For non-diabetics insulin seems to coincide/correlate with health factors that correlate with fat levels. Personally I function better on a diet that doesn’t jack up my glucose/insulin levels. If that coincidentally means I’m a lean beef Chamu, I’ll take it.
5:00 This just goes to show that weightloss as a term is meaningless , the people on the Ketogenic diet most likely lost water weight and had depleted glycogen in their muscles and liver, thus weighing less.
I thought the issue was that high Insulin levels prompted more calorie cravings and that is why you dont lose weight, because of the increased calories.
Is Gary Tabúes still promoting his insulin model or has he modified his theory in any way?
I wonder if there's any study comparing a high calorie low carb diet and a high calorie high carb diet.
That would be the ultimate test, I think.
Finally a pop-science dude who explains this so that even I can understand. I always had a problem with the so-called TH-cam Keto guru's keeping saying that insulin is the only thing that matters. Yet, none of them ever answered why you can still cain weight while on keto if you eat a lot.
This was the first time I heard about ASP, but it sure as hell clarified a lot.
And I'm saying this as someone who is on a keto diet but who knows from experience that it's not a weight loss magic bullet as such. It just makes it much easier due the hunger suppression.
Physionic is not pop science
Do the studies say at which points in the day the participants ate?
ok I'll just eat pure processed sugar and insulin stimulating foods and remain at a caloric deficit bc the only point this video seems to illustrate is that insulin or insulin resistance doesn't matter
Insulin is the hormone responsible for storing fat.. its also the hormone that shuttles it out
You did not address satiety, which in my experience and that of many others, is the primary driver for wait gain or loss.
"Be mindful that this content is not all encompassing on the subject at hand and is self-limited for brevity to reach a wider audience."
Were the study subjects insulin resistant or insulin sensitive? Those who are insulin resistant with profoundly elevated fasting insulin are playing on a very different set of rules than those who are insulin sensitive. Low-carb seems to work much better for insulin resistant patients while those who are insulin sensitive can find success on almost any calorie deficit strategy they want.
Big up ! love the videos 🔥
Thank you, Bibi.
I know this is an N of one, but despite what the studies say; I have weighed 100-105 lbs at 5'5", and about that for all of my adult life until age 62. I guess I'd call my diet high carb. I did eat meat, but not regularly, and fish a few times a week. A lot of rice, pasta, potatoes, bread, some veggies and fruit, cheese; and butter. I didn't eat sweets every day, but I did enjoy cookies or some sweet treat when I wanted. I guess I just didn't assume excess calories, because I did not gain weight. My point is that obviously I was secreting ample insulin all these years, and it did lead to weight gain; I even would lose weight during times of stress or heavy exercise, which I would gain back b/c it would get too low. I assume there must be others like me, although I see less these days, but obviously insulin alone can't be blamed for weight gain. I also ate as much or more than others as far as I could tell, i.e I was not hungry or restricting my intake.
You do incredible comic relief 👍
Interesting but, the information about the studies is not enough...
How many where the subgets, age, sex, health conditions ( namelly about insulin resistance) etc...
I guess you don’t by into the thermic effect of protein?
I suspect the main reason insulin is so connected to obesity is that it makes you hungry almost all the time. So a study where they lock people up and starve them to prove that CICO reigns supreme seems to miss the point when it comes to real life. I didn't learn this by reading studies but by being one. I started a ketogenic diet and lost 50 pounds, so I stayed on. When I "cheat" and have some carbs, the main effect is that I'm ravenously hungry a couple of hours later. It's possible but extremely difficult to lose weight and sustain it under those conditions. Hunger is the key to the whole thing, and that's likely why insulin is a problem.
Thing is everything is always much more complex than we think. A lab will make ppl different from rl too. Stress levels will be different etc. The other body is eternally complex. And that's beautiful imo
If a particular macronutrient does not stimulate the satiety center of the brain and instead stimulates the rewards center, then there will be more tendency to overeat and hence overload on the calories. Enter the hyperpalatable foods .....
Simple question, are continous, chronic and constant high insulin levels a blocker for fat loss ?
Not sure your are breaking any myth...
You're not supposed eating all the time. And if you're insulin resistant, a fat diet will worsen it.
@@ThierryPianoSolo le rapport ??
@@davidafonso5948 Essaie de réfléchir et tu devrais réussir à voir le rapport.
@@ThierryPianoSolo ouais t'es meilleur en anglais qu'en pertinence apparemment.
For me, fasting is much more about higher insulin sensitivity and prevention of overeating. And that's much more bearable with low-carb OMAD diet, than 5 regular (but rather small and unsatisfying) meals a day.
I actually think that weight loss is possable on a carb diet that reduces calories and a low carb diet. No argument there. However by only focusing on weight loss you miss the while point.
The point is that those who can not loose weight on a calorie restricted higher carb diet are usually suffering from metabolic syndrome. A low carb diet can fix this.
Beyond this point could the discrepancy not be due to the fact that it takes 4 weeks to become fat adapted and these studies were not long enough?
Or perhaps it is due to how long it takes the person to heal their metabolic syndrome which may take months on a low carbohydrate diet?
Those people who don't lose weight aren't tracking their energy intake and output correctly.
Your channel is very interesting. Being myself insuline resistant but without having diabetes (I have hyperinsulemia), I can testify that saturated fats increase the resistance. My blood sugar is perfect but when I eat a meal with too much fat, I literally faint one hour after my meal because my insulin is so high. I'm sorry if my explanation isn't very clear, I'm not an English speaker. But I wanted to testify that saturated fats really triggers insulin resistance because I see all over TH-cam people saying the opposite. A low blood sugar doesn't mean your insuline sensitivity is great.
I already was on a keto diet (for 6 monts) and I know it can be amazingly beneficial in a short term BUT it worsen insuline resistance.
I'm confused by this video. The only way I can get it to make sense is that carbs are high in calories. I lost 3 stone in three months on a very low carb diet. I suspect I was in Ketosis. Now, I can have carb blowouts but follow them with keto ish weeks. My weight is si good.
Great video & metabolomic analysis. I guess the issue is that in real life, most people can't keep to a constant caloric deficit (unlike in the studies where you are forced to eat a specific amt of calories long term) without feeling constant hunger with increased ghrelin and other hunger hormones. With the higher spikes in insulin for simple high carb diets, experiments show that these sudden elevations produce increased hunger, heightened perceived pleasantness of sweet taste, and increased food intake. The other issue insulin resistance..... those ppl will secrete more insulin for the same higher carb meal, ...... So I guess that is why keto works for folks who are on it.
For me personally, the only thing that has ever worked for great weight loss is IF or complete fasting. I am not into high fat diets or super low carb diets (especially when you cut out all the fiber-filled healthy carbs)....they are both neither healthy or sustainable for me long term. Being a foodie though, I can't go into much of a caloric deficit either long term so traditional caloric deficit diets don't work for me.
I can tell you that as someone who often eats once a day and often skips meals for two days, it won't help you at all if you love Dr. Pepper. :)
@@johncouch9062 try to drink Chechen VODKA ))
@@johncouch9062 Yes true....,absolutely no soda (not even diet soda), lower carbs, medium protein, moderate fats, lots of whole foods, and it still needs to be in a caloric deficit which is a lot easier on omad or 2mad than eating 3 meals a day on a traditional caloric deficit
I think you have got it exactly correct. A diet controlled study can count the exact amount of calorie each participant requires.
I have tried calorie counting diets in the past weight watchers and unislim scarsdale diet. And many more most involved counting points or calories.
I am now trying keto carnivore. But even on that my weight is not budgin. I lost about 15 pounds initially.
It seems my thermostat is stuck.
I have done 2 meals per day or one meal. In the past I did a 4 day fast.
The problem is life gets in the way. Someone is always wanting to go and eat and you get invited out and there is nothing only sweetie things and stodgy stuff.
I need to get a 5 day fast to get the thermostat to move again.
Is there an advantage to ketogenic diets when someone has impaired insulin production/ insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes. You can sort of bypass the faulty system. I guess that would be one for another video entirely. Just thinking aloud. This was really interesting and definitely something I’ve experienced with my own weight loss in the past. It seems that all diets work equally well for me as long as I restrict calories.
I'm glad he included the fasting thing. Whatever the metabolic mechanism, it confirmed to me that OMAD works.
I do wonder how the fat loss takes place on a high carb diet. If one is continually filling the tank, when does the body see the need to burn the fat? I guess the same could be said for the fat diet.
@ConnieB17True - But I think of high carbs as topping up the tank. Maybe I misunderstand the diet. I could see high carbs one day out of 10.
One mistake made by many studies when focusing on very low carb diets is that they don't measure ketosis. Putting people in ketosis and not in ketosis in the same control group is not smart. I can see why the studies that don't measure ketosis determine that calories are the main factor -- probably because most of the participants were not in ketosis. When measuring ketosis and separating people that are in ketosis, I'm sure the results will change. The studies should require measurements of ketones and when someone falls out of ketosis, they need to throw away the "low carb" data or put the person in a different group.
The most important part of the insulin-fat hypothesis, is that after insulin moves glucose out of the blood stream and into fat cells, the person will end up consuming more calories because that glucose is no longer available for use by Muscle and other tissues that need it. Of course these studies showed no difference between low carb vs low fat diets. That's because the study participants were *artificially* forced consume the same number of calories. The only thing that proves is the laws of thermodynamics are still true. It says nothing about the insulin-fat hypothesis.
I enjoy your content and like the biochemistry explanation you provide. Something caught my attention in your video and although I try researching it - I’m not coming getting any results. Maybe the transcript caught what you tried to say wrong. You mention a Isolation Stimulating Protein that get triggers when you eat fat - which acts a little but like insulin. Can you expand on that or give me links to information. I study Naturopathic Médecine and I don’t remember coming accros this term in my biochemistry classes
Sure, Julie. It’s called ASP. If you search the channel for it, you’ll find a few old videos breaking down what it is.
The answer is Perma bulk and portion control with some cardio!
There is a fundamental problem with this study. Without some sufficient period between the low carb and high carb phase, how do you know that the former did not have affect on the latter. There have been several other similar studies since, with the authors coming to the same conclusions, but critics coming to the opposite conclusions with equally reasonable logic. If I'm not mistaken, when you do allow for some number of weeks between the opposing diets on the same sample, the results are different. I'm not saying that insulin is everything, but I don't think this "destroys" the idea that insulin affects fat loss.
I think it’s kind of true. I normally do keto and fast for 20-22 hrs a day, but I was in Japan for 2 weeks last month (no gym or exercises which I did everyday normally) and since I was traveling with a bunch of friends, it was very anti social to have stuck with my usual diet, so I just ate whatever and whenever the others did. I was eating a lot of rice and carbs as that’s what most of the Japanese meals were and I found myself being constantly hungry and even felt faint sometimes, which never ever happened when I was doing keto. But to my surprise, after the 2 weeks, my body weight and body fat stayed the same but I actually gained a little muscles, according to my Tanita scale. I think it was due to the Japanese food I was eating were mostly healthy organic stuffs, mostly fish, without highly processed rubbish, sugar or seed oil. I guess sometimes, it’s not what one eats that counts, it’s also the actual quality and compositions of the food. 😅
There is a period of time after stopping keto where your body has to readjust to variations in blood sugar. It's not bad for you, but it can feel bad.
Maybe you where more relaxed and therefore having less cortisol..i persume that you where walking al lot while traveling and sightseeing..Factors that are important to consider also.. Because working out can cause cortisol to increase..Having fun..relaxing not stressing about your body and bills can do wonders for the body...
There is vinegar added to Japanese rice which helps reduce insulin spikes.
carbs are better for muscle thats why you had a gain
Great presentation. I'm curious if you have any studies related to berberine and insulin resistance connected also to fat loss when one uses berberine. Thanks for your informative materials!
So Thankful For True Scientists Like You Nick, I'm On Your Fans List, Great Work As Always, Happy New Year Superman :)
I Still Believe That Excercise Is The Key, We Were Made To Keep Moving, Hunter Gatherers, There Are Foods That Stimulate Healthy Mitochondria Though, I'm Working On Recipes Now With Some Success
After the immune system destroys insulin-producing cells (Type 1 Diabetic), weight loss ensues until insulin is administered. Type 1 diabetics gain back weight rapidly when injecting insulin, and typically surpass their previous highest body weight.
3:42: the british accent is wonderfull!!
Insulin shows up in the presence of carb consumption. There are conflicting studies on whether high insulin stimulates ghrelin. The more grehlin you produce, the hungrier you will be.
If insulin increases ghrelin, you will be hungrier. Therefore, calories and calories out, demands of metabolism- needs- are strictly going to affect body fat loss, and restricting carbs could be a hack.
It's hard to fight your hormonal system telling you to eat more. You are sated better eating lower carbs, and therefore higher protein and fat, if you produce less ghrelin.
This is old news. I am extremely talented at stating the obvious.
They should have half people start keto first instead carb first. Because fat loss has plateau effect.
I don't know how much the followers of the keto diet try to disprove that the weight loss is the same on a diet high in carbohydrates for the same amount of calories, but I know that they claim that the roller coaster of glucose in their blood and thus their body energy is a problem. They claim that it's impossible not to eat too many calories because when you eat carbohydrates you can't stop eating so you take in too many calories. Whereas on carnivore or keto, you don't have that problem because hunger control is easy.
Counting calories...how...is carrot the same amount when is raw,stewed,boyled ore fried.?...
The calories are the same outside of the body, but the access to those calories may shift a bit based on its processing, Jaan.
@@Physionic How I can r
How Can I really then count calories ...!!!
👌 Very interesting and well presented information.
Personally I think fasting for 3 - 5 days is very therapeutic psychologically. I think the brain clears up - perhaps autophagy is responsible .. 🤔❓️
Ketones do this, whether endogenous or exogenous. So you can fast, which has many benefits but may be difficult, or just take ketones for some of those benefits.