This is the video people don't want to hear, but NEED to hear. There isn't anything wrong with having a healthy lifestyle via nutritional habits and an active lifestyle. It has become so bad that when you have regular food that people should be eating, you'll hear the classic "oh, you're eating healthy again, huh?" It needs to stop. Eating healthy isn't meant to be negative.
generally, no one bats an eye at healthy eating habits. the only thing i can think of with a negative connotation is salads, which i agree with---lettuce is worthless.
@@KevinArantes i understand that lettuce can be enjoyable, but it has almost no nutritional value. i'm not saying it's bad or anything, just that it's a literal waste of space.
@@UnlimitedRadioButNoSoap I think it is a nice filler since most people have a problem with over-eating. Sure, there might always be an even more optimal choice but regarding the calories it has a decent amount of fiber and protein tbh. And water, which it mostly is, isn't bad either :D
Ya fr, people be judging you for eating natural foods (the same foods our ancestors HAD to eat for thousands of years). I don’t like most desserts such as donuts and cake since it makes me feel sick, yet when I decline when offered people act like I’m a lunatic or have an eating disorder.
I definitely want to see what their physical activity looked like both before and after this study and amongst both groups. Maybe the higher nutrient group started getting up more, walking more, walking faster, etc. I feel like it’s more so lifetime changes like that accounting for the bigger amount of weight loss. But we’ll probably never know since we weren’t there lol
Yep, this is a factor that definitely is hard to measure. Even acute changes to physical activity, like walking an extra block, can be significant. Or if the composition in the LN group led to more lethargy, that can lead to a dip in the activities the subjects normally did before without truly knowing it.
I'm surprised there is discussion on protein between the two groups or activity. Those two items would greatly impact the results. Honestly, just focus on macros (carbs/fats/protein) and try to consume high quality sources (whole & easily digestible foods), it's far easier than tracking all the micro nutrients. Biggest mistake people make when losing weight (besides quitting) is lowering their physical activity as their energy levels depress due to the caloric deficit. The grind is real after a couple weeks but any powerlifter/body builder has had to adapt to the energy loss.
The IIFYM movement led to less healthy eating in a lot of cases. Keeping a balance and thinking about food choices will make dieting easier and be healthier in the long run. Great video!
... and the 'only eat healthy food'-crowd led to overweight individuals making extreme dietary changes which unsurprisingly failed, not only leaving them overweight but also more demoralized about their ability to manage their weight.
I have been leading healthy diet lifestyle for quite some time. I just wanted to say I can relate the comments talking about how others tend to fixate if you're eating healthy. Even if it isn't particularly negative, it's like people you know will stop and stare, fixate and gawk when they realise you're eating healthier than normal, and it's statements I've constantly run into, like "life ain't worth living without tasty food for me" or they'll make absolutely sure to question why you aren't eating junk food and even pressure by things like "oh he just wants to watch his figure." Many times it honestly feel like people like this fixate more on what you're eating than you are
I bet physical activity and satiety were the biggest of the listed factors making the high nutrition quality group lose more weight. Healthy food makes me more energetic and willing to exercise and walk instead of drive. If I eat clean, I am full and satisfied very close to maintenance, and a reasonable deficit isn't leaving me starving and cravey.
I'm wagering this as well, especially for the satiety portion. Self-reported data doesn't clearly reflect this but I wouldn't be surprised if some participants, who are told to eat 25% fewer calories, would be a bit off, be it intentionally or unintentionally, on their reporting.
I just explored your Channel a week ago and kinda bingewatched various vids of you. the consistency of your "get your protein" over the past years is quite admirable
My 45 years of eating and watching its effects I agree that a calorie is a calorie. I also know that I feel so much better eating real food then the twinkies and high sugar foods. Also the group having the healthier diet might have felt better... making them more inclined to move a bit more or further clean up their diets? Thans for the video!
Not to mention highly proccesed carbs don't signal your leptin receptors as much, making it very easy to cheat, these foods are litterally engineered to make you eat more.
U also have to keep in mind the thermic effect of food. The more protein for example increases the bodies need to use more energy to process said protein which would in turn burn more calories
A calorie is like the energy contained in the source, not necessarily that your body will use it or store it. The body will respond differently to different sources
@@jerppazz4525 you're assuming our body can equally and fully access all calories contained in any given food, a lot gets excreted (but highly processed foods are less likely to have this happen as they absorb earlier in the digestive tract)
One important thing to note here, a calorie is a calorie after having been absorbed and made useful for energy extraction by the body. To do this requires 0-5% of the total energy of a gram of fat, 5-10% of the total energy of a gram of carbs, and 20-30% of the total energy of a gram of protein. So not only does protein fill you up more, your body also can't use nearly as much of its energy as it can from fats and carbs. So the higher your protein the better. Put two people on the same calorie diet intake, one is eating 50 grams of protein, the other 200, the net intake will result in 200 less calories actually usable by the person on the 200 gram of protein / day diet. So literally by just eating more protein, in this example, the second person would lose about 0.4 lbs of extra fat per week. AND be fuller. Protein is seriously powerful on a diet. AND it's also been shown to help prevent muscle loss on a diet (although this is more relevant for very lean individuals).
@@Jannajx5 Yeah, I think that's in part because it's not a massive difference in a single day. People don't get really excited over a 100-200 calorie difference per day. It's not exaggerated enough. Hopefully people do pick up on it because it's so powerful over time, lots of time of course, that you could literally diet pivoting from maintenance to maintenance, but massively upping protein, and be in a net deficit that way.
Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure those percentages are off. Are you factoring in the the conversion to ATP and where did you find them if I may ask for a link? Or are you talking about the part that is not absorbed? Like insoluble fiber ? Also 4 calories for each carb is rounded -that I'm completely sure as I have done experiments on it - so it may affect. Protein is indeed very needed by the human body. many books on the processes amino acids contribute to (when I say books it's more like an entire library filled with books on the topic). That said if you do not train, extra protein in maintenance will not do much. Extra protein after a certain point also will likely do nothing but improve feelings of satiety.
@@georgesarreas5509 Not sure what you mean by the conversion to ATP. To my knowledge, the only calorie losing transition in the human body from digestion is through the thermic effect, we lose calories as heat via whatever biological mechanisms are necessary to breakdown food into usable energy. Protein takes a lot more energy to be usable. As for the reference, here you go: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873760/#:~:text=The%20reported%20TEF%20for%20protein,%E2%80%9310%25)%20(3).
The one major problem i have with study beyond what was mentioned is that there are several variables at play instead of isolating a single macronutrient type such as unsat vs sat fats. There ultimately no telling if this study which nutrient set up is ideal with this study because it's too broad.
That's a good point Ken. When you introduce multiple variables, it can muddy the waters in the data, at least for identifying the main variable that lead to the greatest change in outcomes.
@Andrei Georgescu Yep, reminds me of that "study" where some scientist was eating as much junk food as he wants without tracking it for 30 days, to prove he would gain weight. And it had millions of views."Science"
I would also like to see a video on how not all proteins are equal. It really comes down to the amino acid profile. You did a few for Whey protein powder and one for vegan protein powder (rice vs pea vs soy) a few years ago. I think a “whole food” one will be great. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
This is very easily seen in practicality if you live a health lifestyle. Calorie surplus or deficit determines how big or small you are, but your macros determine what body type you are. Sure you can eat tacos and ice cream all day and as long as you’re in a deficit you will lose weight, but the high amount of carbs and fat will leady to a higher fat content making you look more flabby and saggy (skinny-fat people, I’m looking at u). It also shows through things like acne break outs, oily skin, lack of energy, nutrient deficiencies, irritable bowels, lack of strength etc etc. A well balanced diet/macros is for health, and calories are for size, you need both if you would like to be fit
Protein starvation is a thing. If you eat ONLY lean protein, you can still starve to death, because your body can not store protein as fat. So technically for weight loss, the calories from pure protein shouldnt count towards weight loss/gain. Secondly, insulin is responsible for deciding if your body burns the calories you are using from your fat or from what you ate. If you have low blood sugar / low insulin, you burn fat, if you have high blood sugar / high insulin you burn what you ate. The key is to eat high protein, low carb, and carbs that are low glycemic, and try to eat them at the start of the day, and keep your insulin low, for as long as you can every day, and use the protein to keep hunger away. You'll keep your muscle, and burn the fat, without cardio.
Came back home from a trip to NYC and holy shit I have been eating lots of sugar and candy. My energy is so much worse than before I went which affects my training and consistency greatly, so maybe a calorie isn't just a calorie... eating lots of sugar and processed foods makes you tired, which affects training and you will get fat! Good video!
@@imalpha4471 yep it's partly true since some healthy food can help boost your metabolism aka burning calories faster. Also with a diet consisting mostly unhealthy fats and sugar most people will feel more tired & sluggish. Which ofc is not ideal for exercising is it possible to lose weight with a shitty diet - yep ofc if you are in a deficit. is it good/substainable for most people - nope.. since eating mostly fast food and sugars will make most people just crave more and more of it. Which is the opposite of what you need when losing weight when you should gradually eat slightly less and less. Also bad from a muscle building pov since you probably wont hit your macros.
@Johan Larsson Doesn't negate thermodynamics. The problem lies with people who intentionally interpret the message wrong when the operational definition for "A calorie is a calorie" is relating to thermodynamics.
@@Angrydudu So many people have the wrong idea of metabolism. It does not corelate to the amount of energy expended. Just the speed by which energy is efficiently absorbed.
I think that when someone need to lose weight must first of all understand the importance of calories, cause they don't know how damn important they are for weight control. Too many think that just by eating some foods and avoiding some other will make you lose fat, so they end up eating charged up salads with 2000 calories thinking they'll lose fat cause they're eating "healthy". Counting calories and healthy diet, they must be always together
I thought this would be about calorie absorption and food processing. Like how you would likely absorb less calories from an apple versus a calorically equivalent amount of apple juice.
Apple juice undoubtedly has more calories per whatever weight equivalent. Hardly the same thing as an apple anyway. Remember that calories themselves are abstract units of potential energy. So, 10 calories from an apple is the same as 10 calories from apple juice from a practical standpoint. Though I would say you would only need one gulp of apple juice to achieve that. Apples are also high in fiber and therefore more filling. It's easy to down 2 or 3 glasses of apple juice. It's very hard to sit there and eat apple after apple and accumulate calories that way. Wouldn't spike blood glucose levels as much as apple juice either.
@@redcenturion88 While all of that is true, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to how many calories you absorb. I'm saying that if you take an amount of apple juice with the same number of calories as an apple (whatever that weight is), you will likely absorb less of the calories from the apple than the apple juice.
@@redcenturion88 He's right tho, the whole apple, skin included will be much better than the equivalent, not in weight but calories, of apple juice. In a nutshell, on one hand you consume fructose, carbs, water and fibers, on the other hand it's basically fructose and water. The whole apple will take longer to be digested, burning more calorie and a chunk of it will be ... released, while the apple juice will have almost all sugar absorbed in the body and will become "fat" fast. All in all avoid fruit juice anayway, it used to have this "healthy ring" to it but pure fructose is almost as bad as random sugar. ( bad english, lack of vocabulary :< )
If you're properly subtracting fiber content from the equation, then consuming the same amount of calories in apple juice as apples would result in approximately number of calories being absorbed. Your body is extremely efficient at extracting macronutrients from food and liquids, and the difference would be negligible. You would, however, burn more calories digesting the apple than the apple juice, which could be a noticeable difference, but that's not a reference to calorie absorption, that would be a measure of net calories received from the apple minus the total expenditure to process the apple.
@@nichtsistkostenlos6565 There are a number of studies that put the protein digestibility of certain plant foods like beans or peanuts ranging from 50% to 90%. Some plants have poor digestibility, and since protein contains a fair amount of calories, not digesting some of it should mean less calories. Likewise, I remember hearing about studies that things like steel cut oats have lower digestibility than rolled oats. Admittedly, I need to look up that study to be sure. Lastly, nuts are notorious for their poor digestibility. The point is, whether or not our bodies are efficient at extracting nutrients from food depends on the food and the person. Our bodies have their limit, and some foods are tough to assimilate.
1 thing that matters if you wanna lose weight and 3 things that matter if you wanna lose weight but also wanna be jacked AF. Lose weight- 1 eat less calories Lose weight and be JACKED- 1EAT LESS CALORIES 2EAT ENOUGH PROTEIN 3SPREAD YOUR PROTEIN INTAKE IN AT LEAST 4 MEALS A DAY. Thats it!
I had a pretty significant eating disorder for quite a while where I’d basically only intake peanut butter, chocolate milk, mayonnaise, and other candies. I guarantee you it doesn’t matter WHERE the calorie comes from. You can still lose weight. The only difference is if you get skinny fat or not with lacking amounts of protein and strength training.
Certain diets, eg low carb/keto still follow the CICO rule, but because insulin levels drop they reduce hunger (increased leptin effect) = reduced calories in, AND increase metabolic rate (gluconeogesis turned on, fat burning turned on, increased mitochondrial efficiency) = increased calories out.
Don't forget, unhealthy foods which are high in fats are usually very calorie dense and so its much easier to go overboard with your intake, people don't realise how easy it is to rack up calories.
Thank you! Can you do a video about BMR adaptation to calorie deficit? What I hear a lot from people I know is that they claim not to lose weight even though they claim to be in a calorie deficit. They say their bodies start to use less and less energy on a deficit, and for that reason they can't lose weight. I wonder if that holds any truth.
Yeah what helped for me was upping the deficit by 100 calories every 2 weeks then once I reached target weight going back to my normal calorie intake slowly by going up 100 calories every 2 weeks. If you don't adjust your calories consumed as you diet you will plateau eventually. And if you don't move slowly back to normal caloires by reintroducing calories slowly your going to rebound very quickly. I was 105kg 2 years ago what I did was I took a 500 calorie deficit and did what I mentioned above for 3 months. Then it took me around 2 months to get back to a normal BMR by upping calories slowly . I repeated cycle until I got to 79kg. Before then I used to crash diet like crazy and I tried all sorts of random idiotic diets that never went anywhere.
I recently read Gene Eating by Giles Yeo. It was great for understanding genetic factors contributing to weight loss and explaining the differences in calories (including factors such as bioavailability. Would recommend
There was a study done with two groups of weightlifters who each ate one cupcake per day. Group A ate one made with saturated fat, and group B ate one with polyunsaturated fat. Both groups gained muscle and fat, but group B (polyunsaturated) saw a better muscle-to-fat ratio. Them not having a third group eating a cupcake made with monounsaturated fat was dissatisfying...
I had no idea what kind of junk I was eating my whole life. I got terribly fat and worst thing is I wasn't noticing it until I went to doctor for a checkup and my results were terrible. That's when I decided to start living healthy. Bad thing is I am pretty lazy and hate to research about food and I just couldn't count calories all the time so I decided to invest in meal plan from Next Level Diet. Best thing I got myself in this life. I lost so much fat and got so much more energy when I started eating healthy.
No, because certain calorie sources contain more favorable micronutrient profiles, fiber to feed healthful gut bacteria, fermentation, flavonoids, antioxidants etc that will lead to overall different results in the end.
How does it lead to a different result in the end? Instead of calories let's talk money. You are paid 1000$ in 100$ bills. I am paid 1000$ in 50$ bills. Who is richer?
@@Bullshlaha Completely different situation. Money is money, calories come along with different properties. If you put poor quality calories into your system such as candy, do you honestly believe you’ll have the same end result as if you had broccoli or rice for example? I’m speaking long term here too. I’m aware of some often cited case of someone losing weight on candy, which I doubt the guy is continuing his same candy consumption present day. Bottom line is that health and wellness is complex and simplifying things to “all calories are equal” won’t lead to great long term results.
@@bigpicturegains If I am eating 1000 calories of broccoli, then yes, I would expect the same weight loss/gain results as if I would put 1000 calories worth of candy.
@@Bullshlaha You are ignoring the long term consequences of eating poor quality calories vs higher quality ones. You can eat crap for a little while but don’t expect it to carry you into the future very well.
@@bigpicturegains My dies is obviously not consisting of 100% calories only from either candy or broccoli. I'd even claim it is impossible to have only a single source of any nutrient. But in the terms of weight loss the source is irrelevant.
This comment is going against the grain, but I would like to hear opinions. In the book The Obesity Code, Jason Fung (MD) talks about that the calories in calories out idea doesn't actually work. Our energy intake and expenditure are not independent, but very much so dependent. Our bodies metabolism will adjust with the calories we eat, accordingly. He cites many studies in the book (I can leave in an edit later) about people not losing weight purely on calories, but on the composition of their diets (macro %). The biggest culprit for weight gain is insulin caused by high carb diets. He states people will lose weight in the beginning, but that will stabilize over a long term period where the body adjusts its metabolism to reduce energy expenditure. Mentioned by him, studies that show weight loss from low calories are short term (ex: this video's study is 12 weeks long). Better research are ones that are long term over years. Some limitations about this comment and info in the comment since I have not finished reading the book yet: I do not know if carbohydrates means highly processed carbs vs pure sugar vs fruit & honey. I do not believe the author looks at the perspective of someone who participates in bodybuilding. Another culprit is see from chapter headings is cortisol, but I haven't reached that portion yet.
I would absolutely love to know about everything on PEDs and steroids. Possible side effects, pros and cons and usage method for first timers. It would mean a lot to me if you could make a video about this
It depends on insulin. The hormone, that restore fat. If you eat carbohydrates, they will raise your bloodsugar more and faster. That will spike your fatstoringhormon insulin. By eating fat and moderate amounts of protein, they will not be stored. But they will burn as an energy.
There is a much more obvious limitation - I counted five variables between the two groups, so which one or ones accounted for the difference between the two? On the face of it, polyunsaturated fats and plant protein, which were higher respresented in the higher weight loss group, might have been the reason that the group was more successful, but on the other hand, they might have been holding the group back, and the group may have lost more weight WITHOUT them. How did this paper get approved, with more than one variable in the groups?
I think the biggest error was not submitting calories burned through extra activity but the 5lb difference in 12 weeks is on average 200 calories burned everyday for the 84 days which is probably not sufficient enough reason. I think a calorie is a calorie but where we begin to see a difference are indirect changes like insulin sensitivity which play a large role in energy storage (fat storage).
Asking is a calorie a calorie is like saying are all miles equal, are all pounds the same, is an inch an inch. a calorie is just a unit that measures energy.
errr what about caloric availability? a monosaccharide calory (e.g. glucose) can be absorded right away into the body. a polysaccharide calory (e.g. starch) cannot. why not? because it has to be degraded to glucose first (again, due to the second law of thermodynamics), nothing is perfectly efficient, hence some energy is wasted during the process, reducing the net income of calories by a significant margin. this loss is (to the best of my knowledge) not considered when reading the lable of a package. so as far as i know, calories are indeed not carolies. instead its a signifant difference. Its also the reason why 800kcal of potatoes will sate you quite well and 800 kcal of chocolate will only sate you for an hour or so until you get hungry again. @picturefit, do you have any input on this issue? would be great:)
Ive been in a cal deficit since march 4th. Goal is to lose 120 pounds by the end of it. So far ive lost 10. I havent changed my diet at all, but have started logging everything i eat and counting calories. I have only had fast food twice in this time period and did pick healthier, easy to cal count items. Its neat that as long as you cal count, you can hit your goals. It makes it alot easier to follow, then when youre down weight and better at following the restrictions, you add more rules on. Aka, work on eating healthier, add on exercise, etc. Thats my goal at least. Im waiting till i hit my first plateau then im adding in regular light exercise to boost weight loss, then the next one ill add it in more intensly, then the next one ill boost nutrition. Gonna be good, i can feel it ^_^
One thing that might of influenced their weight loss is the amount of calories the body used to break down food. E.g if u eat 100 calories of protein the body uses 30% of those calories to break it down compared to 10% with carbs and 2-3 with fat
Several different variables that may affect weight loss. Micronutrients may help with metabolic functions, such as cobalamin for amino acids or biotin for fatty acids. Fats require the least amount of energy to metabolize, and protein requires the most energy. Water may have no calories, but it requires energy to process, especially when cold. Weight loss is an extremely complicated matter. It wouldn't surprise me if when we work out matters either. From my personal observation, working out after a big meal helps to lessen weight gain, but this is not set in science.
The correct way to put this is that "labels are not equal". If a label says 100 calories and another says 100 calories, that doesn't mean your body will benefit of 100 calories from those foods.
Aren't there also studies showing that the gut biome can also indicate a healthy weight? So one could assume that after 12 weeks an increase in fiber may have changed the gut biome which may have had an impact on weight loss with the high fiber group as well.
Calories in vs calories out is a bad approach because of everything he mentioned in the video about nutrients, but also insulin resistance. If you have insulin resistance from eating a lot of sugar, bread, carbs in general, your body won’t break off and use fat easily. The moment you dramatically drop carbs, you fast for part of the day, and get into ketosis, your body is now using your stored fat for energy and you’re not piling more on top and gaining weight.
If you are severely overweight: yes, absolutely, a calorie is a calorie. Stuffing smaller amounts of junk into your pie hole is a win. Once you get your weight down to the point where getting on the treadmill (never mind turning it on) doesn't exhaust you, you can/should start worrying more about the nutritional value of you calories. (source: I went from 305 down to 202 in a year.)
Is this study not limited by too many variables? Since we are still studying what "healthy" means, it would interesting to see some more studies focusing on only one of these variables at the time. Potentially this was all the lower fructose levels or higher fiber or protein carrying significant weight in these exact circumstances. It's beneficial to know specifically what works, as an "overall healthy diet" can mean many different things and nothing here is pointing to one being particularly higher in nutrients than the other.
The weightloss factor is very misleading! Averaging out the total weightloss from both groups would only make sense if everyone was the same weight and height. Also when restricting calories in a percentage you are forgetting that people have different maintenance calories due to activity levels and if someone is more active and restricts their calories by 25% they will be in a higher calorie deficit than someone who is inactive and also restricting calories by 25%. Instead of restricting the calories in a percentage they should've had a set caloric deficit like 500 kcal for example .
It wouldn't have mattered, the high nutrients group would still have lost more wait. To explain shortly, it's because the healty diet creates a higher caloric deficit than the one calculated , because: 1) fibers, which the high nutrients group would have gotten since they ate plants, when in the intestines, in the presence of water ,form a tridimensional web( a gel) this web traps some of the nutrients, like sugars, some short peptides and cholesterol. The nutrients trapped in there can't be adsorbed by your body and will just be pooped out ( aka. some of the calculated "calories in " can't actually get in) 2) the high nutrients diet had way more proteins, which means that, regardless of activity, this group would have built more muscle,which would have increased their basal metabolism (aka the "calories out" would increased overtime)
Does that apply to weight gain? If you keep a small calorie surplus by eating unhealthy foods will you gain more fat in comparison to eating healthy foods?
Higher fat/protein food helps you feel fuller for longer, and they don't mess with your blood sugar. In that way, a calorie is not a calorie. If you ate the same calories, but one diet is high fat/protein, and the other is high carb, you'll feel worse and hungrier on high carb. It's harder to stick to diet goals when you are fighting cravings.
Sugar was never made to consume occasionally, it's sole purpose is to make you graze all day long. Remember, whatever you eat breaks down and flow through the infinite network of arteries in your body carrying blood. Keeping that blood as peaceful as possible is healthy. Grazing only leads to disaster. The artery walls have a life span. Calories is just a unit of energy, what you ate goes through a process, that matters. Never seen anyone getting fat eating brocoli
Calories are calories. However, if you eat quality calories like whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, and fish, you will feel better, energetic, and full, making you eat less. Also, the micronutrients play a key role too. You can absolutely lose weight or gain healthy mass eating garbage foods but you will have a harder time feeling full, you will feel terrible and your diet will feel more like a diet. Try eating 6 whole apples. You tell me what happens. Try drinking 6 cups of fruit juice (not recommended). You tell me what happens. You will feel stuffed after eating all the apples. By the way not all Polyunsaturated fats are healthy. Cheap vegetable oil and light olive oil are really bad for you. Omega 6 is very inflammatory and cheap vegetable oils are highly processed and so processed that they can be used to lubricate machinery. Extra virgin Olive oils, coconut oils, avocado oils, ghee, canola oils, peanut, tree nut oils, cod or salmon, sunflower, and safflower oils which are organic or at least cold or expeller pressed are the best. Your omega 3 to 6 ratio should be at least 1:1
Could it be that HN helps the body function faster or for longer and in your average day your body is able to work more and thus burn more? For example both HN and LN took about 1500cal/day im assuming, but the ones with HN had their bodies working better during the day and so this would give the body the energy and strength to burn more fat. Your body looks for fuel all the time regardless of how much you demand of it. Its not an on and off switch. If your body burns around 2000 cal/day it will keep burning 2000 even if you eat 1500. Your body doesnt say i only need 1500 and so im going to save myself from burning the extra 500. The issue is that sometimes your body doesnt have the strength to burn those extra calories. The digestive system is like an engine, you put a little bit of energy in and get a lot of energy out by burning mass and turning it into energy. If you have say 1kg of fuel at 30% and you give that engine enough energy to burn 100g of that fuel. The engine will burn 100g+30g from the 30% efficiency. If your engine has fuel that has 80% efficiency then giving it enough energy to burn 100g will result in a 100g+80g burnt fuel because of efficiency. Likewise, your digestive system is the fuel engine of your body and the more efficient the energy sources you eat the less fat you will end up with because your body is burning more fat. Calories are not equal and the way we count calories is not adequate enough. We take almost 0 account of calorie efficiency when we stick numbers to apples and oil. The way we know calories now is just their total potential and not their efficient potential. Energy into the body does 3 things, its either turned into heat or used or stored. The higher the efficiency the more it is used and the less it is stored. And the more it is used the more it burns the stored mass (fat). We need studies that show how efficient calories are in the body and hopefully also why this calorie is more efficient then the other.
I speak for myself but there is a huge difference when I eat junk vs healthy, even if same amount of calories. When younger I could get away with it but after abusing it for years my body has rebeled it seems.
I lost lots of weight just being more active. Then lost even more by just eating less not really counting was 260 now I’m 190 I’m 6”2 so I’m really close to my goal.
Hey I need help am new to the gym i take about 2-3 days to recover from sore does doing cardio to reduce fat in this period will effect me negativity?thnx
Yes. All calories are equal. In the sense that if you maintain a caloric deficit, it is against the laws of nature for you to put on weight. A system cannot be given less energy than it used, and then store said energy as a reserve (fat/ adipose tissue). Anything else is a pure lie.
It's wrong, that can actually happen, certain hormonal imbalances, for example overproduction of the hormon cortisol ( or glucocorticoids in general and drugs derived from these compounds)over a long period of time can make the human body dismantle it's own bones, muscles and collagen to synthesise fatty acids, which will then be stored as fat, that regardless of what or how much the individual eats.
Calories are key for weight loss and weight gain.
Macro and micronutrients are key for body composition and overall health.
spot on
This is the video people don't want to hear, but NEED to hear.
There isn't anything wrong with having a healthy lifestyle via nutritional habits and an active lifestyle.
It has become so bad that when you have regular food that people should be eating, you'll hear the classic "oh, you're eating healthy again, huh?"
It needs to stop. Eating healthy isn't meant to be negative.
generally, no one bats an eye at healthy eating habits. the only thing i can think of with a negative connotation is salads, which i agree with---lettuce is worthless.
@@UnlimitedRadioButNoSoap Lettuce is awesome, what are u talking about? D:
@@KevinArantes i understand that lettuce can be enjoyable, but it has almost no nutritional value. i'm not saying it's bad or anything, just that it's a literal waste of space.
@@UnlimitedRadioButNoSoap I think it is a nice filler since most people have a problem with over-eating. Sure, there might always be an even more optimal choice but regarding the calories it has a decent amount of fiber and protein tbh. And water, which it mostly is, isn't bad either :D
Ya fr, people be judging you for eating natural foods (the same foods our ancestors HAD to eat for thousands of years). I don’t like most desserts such as donuts and cake since it makes me feel sick, yet when I decline when offered people act like I’m a lunatic or have an eating disorder.
I definitely want to see what their physical activity looked like both before and after this study and amongst both groups. Maybe the higher nutrient group started getting up more, walking more, walking faster, etc. I feel like it’s more so lifetime changes like that accounting for the bigger amount of weight loss. But we’ll probably never know since we weren’t there lol
Yep, this is a factor that definitely is hard to measure. Even acute changes to physical activity, like walking an extra block, can be significant. Or if the composition in the LN group led to more lethargy, that can lead to a dip in the activities the subjects normally did before without truly knowing it.
@PictureFit I know that eating healthier diet fights depression
Thus doing better in activities
I'm surprised there is discussion on protein between the two groups or activity. Those two items would greatly impact the results. Honestly, just focus on macros (carbs/fats/protein) and try to consume high quality sources (whole & easily digestible foods), it's far easier than tracking all the micro nutrients. Biggest mistake people make when losing weight (besides quitting) is lowering their physical activity as their energy levels depress due to the caloric deficit. The grind is real after a couple weeks but any powerlifter/body builder has had to adapt to the energy loss.
@@apeekintime most people aren’t powerlifters or bodybuilders though..
The IIFYM movement led to less healthy eating in a lot of cases. Keeping a balance and thinking about food choices will make dieting easier and be healthier in the long run. Great video!
This.
He’s back
What's IIFYM please?
@@ianakotey If it fits your macros- Type of flexible dieting that helps people lose weight without being restrictive
... and the 'only eat healthy food'-crowd led to overweight individuals making extreme dietary changes which unsurprisingly failed, not only leaving them overweight but also more demoralized about their ability to manage their weight.
Dam bro that V ratio is coming up nicely!!!
I have been leading healthy diet lifestyle for quite some time. I just wanted to say I can relate the comments talking about how others tend to fixate if you're eating healthy.
Even if it isn't particularly negative, it's like people you know will stop and stare, fixate and gawk when they realise you're eating healthier than normal, and it's statements I've constantly run into, like "life ain't worth living without tasty food for me" or they'll make absolutely sure to question why you aren't eating junk food and even pressure by things like "oh he just wants to watch his figure."
Many times it honestly feel like people like this fixate more on what you're eating than you are
I bet physical activity and satiety were the biggest of the listed factors making the high nutrition quality group lose more weight. Healthy food makes me more energetic and willing to exercise and walk instead of drive. If I eat clean, I am full and satisfied very close to maintenance, and a reasonable deficit isn't leaving me starving and cravey.
I'm wagering this as well, especially for the satiety portion. Self-reported data doesn't clearly reflect this but I wouldn't be surprised if some participants, who are told to eat 25% fewer calories, would be a bit off, be it intentionally or unintentionally, on their reporting.
I just explored your Channel a week ago and kinda bingewatched various vids of you. the consistency of your "get your protein" over the past years is quite admirable
Your speech is sooo wonderful! Thanks for the video mate
Thank you!
My 45 years of eating and watching its effects I agree that a calorie is a calorie. I also know that I feel so much better eating real food then the twinkies and high sugar foods.
Also the group having the healthier diet might have felt better... making them more inclined to move a bit more or further clean up their diets?
Thans for the video!
Not to mention highly proccesed carbs don't signal your leptin receptors as much, making it very easy to cheat, these foods are litterally engineered to make you eat more.
It probably also made their exercise/activity/sleep higher quality which resulted in more weight loss, everything is connected and adds up
U also have to keep in mind the thermic effect of food. The more protein for example increases the bodies need to use more energy to process said protein which would in turn burn more calories
This video is right, but there's different foods with different nutrients in them.
Love the voice of npc like on 2:08, subtle change but made me chuckle and watch the entire video.
Hah thanks!
A calorie is like the energy contained in the source, not necessarily that your body will use it or store it. The body will respond differently to different sources
I remember a pbs thing burning a marshmallow and a burning a nut and the nut burned slower and that was the evidence that it better for you idk
your body will store it if it doesnt need the energy, that simple.
@@jerppazz4525 you're assuming our body can equally and fully access all calories contained in any given food, a lot gets excreted (but highly processed foods are less likely to have this happen as they absorb earlier in the digestive tract)
@@DorianWilson a lot do not get excreted. Imagine surviving in the early days and your body not evolving to absorb the nutrients its getting.
@@jerppazz4525 sapped crouton belt
One important thing to note here, a calorie is a calorie after having been absorbed and made useful for energy extraction by the body.
To do this requires 0-5% of the total energy of a gram of fat, 5-10% of the total energy of a gram of carbs, and 20-30% of the total energy of a gram of protein.
So not only does protein fill you up more, your body also can't use nearly as much of its energy as it can from fats and carbs.
So the higher your protein the better. Put two people on the same calorie diet intake, one is eating 50 grams of protein, the other 200, the net intake will result in 200 less calories actually usable by the person on the 200 gram of protein / day diet.
So literally by just eating more protein, in this example, the second person would lose about 0.4 lbs of extra fat per week. AND be fuller.
Protein is seriously powerful on a diet.
AND it's also been shown to help prevent muscle loss on a diet (although this is more relevant for very lean individuals).
Great analogy, this definitely doesnt get talked about enough
@@Jannajx5 Yeah, I think that's in part because it's not a massive difference in a single day. People don't get really excited over a 100-200 calorie difference per day. It's not exaggerated enough.
Hopefully people do pick up on it because it's so powerful over time, lots of time of course, that you could literally diet pivoting from maintenance to maintenance, but massively upping protein, and be in a net deficit that way.
@@KineticSymphony yeah
Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure those percentages are off. Are you factoring in the the conversion to ATP and where did you find them if I may ask for a link? Or are you talking about the part that is not absorbed? Like insoluble fiber ?
Also 4 calories for each carb is rounded -that I'm completely sure as I have done experiments on it - so it may affect. Protein is indeed very needed by the human body. many books on the processes amino acids contribute to (when I say books it's more like an entire library filled with books on the topic).
That said if you do not train, extra protein in maintenance will not do much. Extra protein after a certain point also will likely do nothing but improve feelings of satiety.
@@georgesarreas5509 Not sure what you mean by the conversion to ATP. To my knowledge, the only calorie losing transition in the human body from digestion is through the thermic effect, we lose calories as heat via whatever biological mechanisms are necessary to breakdown food into usable energy. Protein takes a lot more energy to be usable.
As for the reference, here you go:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873760/#:~:text=The%20reported%20TEF%20for%20protein,%E2%80%9310%25)%20(3).
The one major problem i have with study beyond what was mentioned is that there are several variables at play instead of isolating a single macronutrient type such as unsat vs sat fats. There ultimately no telling if this study which nutrient set up is ideal with this study because it's too broad.
That's a good point Ken. When you introduce multiple variables, it can muddy the waters in the data, at least for identifying the main variable that lead to the greatest change in outcomes.
@Andrei Georgescu Yep, reminds me of that "study" where some scientist was eating as much junk food as he wants without tracking it for 30 days, to prove he would gain weight. And it had millions of views."Science"
Glad to see PictureFit back in action.
I would also like to see a video on how not all proteins are equal. It really comes down to the amino acid profile. You did a few for Whey protein powder and one for vegan protein powder (rice vs pea vs soy) a few years ago. I think a “whole food” one will be great.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Yeah I always hear like if u get 30g of protein out of chicken breast, it’s way better than 30g protein of peanut butter for instance
I think he already did a video on that
@@Roeinesmati It is essentially the same.
@@beelzebub3920 link please. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@jccjccjoanne you were right, i couldn't find the video, probably watched a video made by someone that uses a similar style
"But Mr PictureFAT" I was laughing so hard at that voice acting, my dude xD Also a very good and informative video
Love how this channel actually posts legit info in this format, unlike others like Bestie who hypocritically post so much misinformation
Great video
1:21 is that.....is that COACH GREG ?????
This is very easily seen in practicality if you live a health lifestyle. Calorie surplus or deficit determines how big or small you are, but your macros determine what body type you are. Sure you can eat tacos and ice cream all day and as long as you’re in a deficit you will lose weight, but the high amount of carbs and fat will leady to a higher fat content making you look more flabby and saggy (skinny-fat people, I’m looking at u). It also shows through things like acne break outs, oily skin, lack of energy, nutrient deficiencies, irritable bowels, lack of strength etc etc. A well balanced diet/macros is for health, and calories are for size, you need both if you would like to be fit
Protein starvation is a thing. If you eat ONLY lean protein, you can still starve to death, because your body can not store protein as fat. So technically for weight loss, the calories from pure protein shouldnt count towards weight loss/gain. Secondly, insulin is responsible for deciding if your body burns the calories you are using from your fat or from what you ate. If you have low blood sugar / low insulin, you burn fat, if you have high blood sugar / high insulin you burn what you ate. The key is to eat high protein, low carb, and carbs that are low glycemic, and try to eat them at the start of the day, and keep your insulin low, for as long as you can every day, and use the protein to keep hunger away. You'll keep your muscle, and burn the fat, without cardio.
Very happy your back posting regularly
Once I got control of my insulin spikes (through Keto), my world changed for the better. Not to mention metabolism/set points/etc.
Came back home from a trip to NYC and holy shit I have been eating lots of sugar and candy. My energy is so much worse than before I went which affects my training and consistency greatly, so maybe a calorie isn't just a calorie... eating lots of sugar and processed foods makes you tired, which affects training and you will get fat! Good video!
It's a potential point of contention but if it also leads to greater weight loss itself, then that's important.
So glad you talked about this! A calorie is a calorie BUT where the calorie is from still definitely does matter and has an impact on weight loss.
Nope
@@imalpha4471 yep it's partly true since some healthy food can help boost your metabolism aka burning calories faster. Also with a diet consisting mostly unhealthy fats and sugar most people will feel more tired & sluggish. Which ofc is not ideal for exercising
is it possible to lose weight with a shitty diet - yep ofc if you are in a deficit.
is it good/substainable for most people - nope.. since eating mostly fast food and sugars will make most people just crave more and more of it. Which is the opposite of what you need when losing weight when you should gradually eat slightly less and less. Also bad from a muscle building pov since you probably wont hit your macros.
Yes I watched the video as well
@Johan Larsson
Doesn't negate thermodynamics. The problem lies with people who intentionally interpret the message wrong when the operational definition for "A calorie is a calorie" is relating to thermodynamics.
@@Angrydudu So many people have the wrong idea of metabolism. It does not corelate to the amount of energy expended. Just the speed by which energy is efficiently absorbed.
I think that when someone need to lose weight must first of all understand the importance of calories, cause they don't know how damn important they are for weight control. Too many think that just by eating some foods and avoiding some other will make you lose fat, so they end up eating charged up salads with 2000 calories thinking they'll lose fat cause they're eating "healthy". Counting calories and healthy diet, they must be always together
I thought this would be about calorie absorption and food processing. Like how you would likely absorb less calories from an apple versus a calorically equivalent amount of apple juice.
Apple juice undoubtedly has more calories per whatever weight equivalent. Hardly the same thing as an apple anyway. Remember that calories themselves are abstract units of potential energy. So, 10 calories from an apple is the same as 10 calories from apple juice from a practical standpoint. Though I would say you would only need one gulp of apple juice to achieve that. Apples are also high in fiber and therefore more filling. It's easy to down 2 or 3 glasses of apple juice. It's very hard to sit there and eat apple after apple and accumulate calories that way. Wouldn't spike blood glucose levels as much as apple juice either.
@@redcenturion88 While all of that is true, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to how many calories you absorb. I'm saying that if you take an amount of apple juice with the same number of calories as an apple (whatever that weight is), you will likely absorb less of the calories from the apple than the apple juice.
@@redcenturion88 He's right tho, the whole apple, skin included will be much better than the equivalent, not in weight but calories, of apple juice. In a nutshell, on one hand you consume fructose, carbs, water and fibers, on the other hand it's basically fructose and water. The whole apple will take longer to be digested, burning more calorie and a chunk of it will be ... released, while the apple juice will have almost all sugar absorbed in the body and will become "fat" fast.
All in all avoid fruit juice anayway, it used to have this "healthy ring" to it but pure fructose is almost as bad as random sugar.
( bad english, lack of vocabulary :< )
If you're properly subtracting fiber content from the equation, then consuming the same amount of calories in apple juice as apples would result in approximately number of calories being absorbed. Your body is extremely efficient at extracting macronutrients from food and liquids, and the difference would be negligible. You would, however, burn more calories digesting the apple than the apple juice, which could be a noticeable difference, but that's not a reference to calorie absorption, that would be a measure of net calories received from the apple minus the total expenditure to process the apple.
@@nichtsistkostenlos6565 There are a number of studies that put the protein digestibility of certain plant foods like beans or peanuts ranging from 50% to 90%. Some plants have poor digestibility, and since protein contains a fair amount of calories, not digesting some of it should mean less calories.
Likewise, I remember hearing about studies that things like steel cut oats have lower digestibility than rolled oats. Admittedly, I need to look up that study to be sure.
Lastly, nuts are notorious for their poor digestibility. The point is, whether or not our bodies are efficient at extracting nutrients from food depends on the food and the person. Our bodies have their limit, and some foods are tough to assimilate.
Gosh I love this channel so much. Great info as usual
1 thing that matters if you wanna lose weight and 3 things that matter if you wanna lose weight but also wanna be jacked AF.
Lose weight- 1 eat less calories
Lose weight and be JACKED-
1EAT LESS CALORIES
2EAT ENOUGH PROTEIN
3SPREAD YOUR PROTEIN INTAKE IN AT LEAST 4 MEALS A DAY.
Thats it!
I had a pretty significant eating disorder for quite a while where I’d basically only intake peanut butter, chocolate milk, mayonnaise, and other candies. I guarantee you it doesn’t matter WHERE the calorie comes from. You can still lose weight. The only difference is if you get skinny fat or not with lacking amounts of protein and strength training.
Certain diets, eg low carb/keto still follow the CICO rule, but because insulin levels drop they reduce hunger (increased leptin effect) = reduced calories in, AND increase metabolic rate (gluconeogesis turned on, fat burning turned on, increased mitochondrial efficiency) = increased calories out.
Don't forget, unhealthy foods which are high in fats are usually very calorie dense and so its much easier to go overboard with your intake, people don't realise how easy it is to rack up calories.
Hi PictureFit, can you do a video on Brown Sugar vs White Sugar? Thanks, love your content!
Love a good picture fit video
Be interesting to get coach gregs thoughts on this
there will be none. just the fact that the study was done on self reports by the subjects makes this a worthless paper.
And coach greg is a buffoon
This is gonna help for the cut so much thank you
Thank you! Can you do a video about BMR adaptation to calorie deficit? What I hear a lot from people I know is that they claim not to lose weight even though they claim to be in a calorie deficit. They say their bodies start to use less and less energy on a deficit, and for that reason they can't lose weight. I wonder if that holds any truth.
Yeah what helped for me was upping the deficit by 100 calories every 2 weeks then once I reached target weight going back to my normal calorie intake slowly by going up 100 calories every 2 weeks. If you don't adjust your calories consumed as you diet you will plateau eventually. And if you don't move slowly back to normal caloires by reintroducing calories slowly your going to rebound very quickly.
I was 105kg 2 years ago what I did was I took a 500 calorie deficit and did what I mentioned above for 3 months. Then it took me around 2 months to get back to a normal BMR by upping calories slowly . I repeated cycle until I got to 79kg. Before then I used to crash diet like crazy and I tried all sorts of random idiotic diets that never went anywhere.
This is true. Some people have it worse than others due to highly adaptable metabolism.
I recently read Gene Eating by Giles Yeo. It was great for understanding genetic factors contributing to weight loss and explaining the differences in calories (including factors such as bioavailability. Would recommend
There was a study done with two groups of weightlifters who each ate one cupcake per day. Group A ate one made with saturated fat, and group B ate one with polyunsaturated fat. Both groups gained muscle and fat, but group B (polyunsaturated) saw a better muscle-to-fat ratio.
Them not having a third group eating a cupcake made with monounsaturated fat was dissatisfying...
your comment is a joke right?
I don't agree. Polyunsaturated fats are by the worst for you of the three.
I had no idea what kind of junk I was eating my whole life. I got terribly fat and worst thing is I wasn't noticing it until I went to doctor for a checkup and my results were terrible. That's when I decided to start living healthy. Bad thing is I am pretty lazy and hate to research about food and I just couldn't count calories all the time so I decided to invest in meal plan from Next Level Diet. Best thing I got myself in this life. I lost so much fat and got so much more energy when I started eating healthy.
Try fasting!
It worked great for me
Yes, diet can really help get on track
No, because certain calorie sources contain more favorable micronutrient profiles, fiber to feed healthful gut bacteria, fermentation, flavonoids, antioxidants etc that will lead to overall different results in the end.
How does it lead to a different result in the end? Instead of calories let's talk money. You are paid 1000$ in 100$ bills. I am paid 1000$ in 50$ bills. Who is richer?
@@Bullshlaha
Completely different situation.
Money is money, calories come along with different properties. If you put poor quality calories into your system such as candy, do you honestly believe you’ll have the same end result as if you had broccoli or rice for example?
I’m speaking long term here too. I’m aware of some often cited case of someone losing weight on candy, which I doubt the guy is continuing his same candy consumption present day.
Bottom line is that health and wellness is complex and simplifying things to “all calories are equal” won’t lead to great long term results.
@@bigpicturegains If I am eating 1000 calories of broccoli, then yes, I would expect the same weight loss/gain results as if I would put 1000 calories worth of candy.
@@Bullshlaha
You are ignoring the long term consequences of eating poor quality calories vs higher quality ones.
You can eat crap for a little while but don’t expect it to carry you into the future very well.
@@bigpicturegains My dies is obviously not consisting of 100% calories only from either candy or broccoli. I'd even claim it is impossible to have only a single source of any nutrient. But in the terms of weight loss the source is irrelevant.
This comment is going against the grain, but I would like to hear opinions.
In the book The Obesity Code, Jason Fung (MD) talks about that the calories in calories out idea doesn't actually work. Our energy intake and expenditure are not independent, but very much so dependent. Our bodies metabolism will adjust with the calories we eat, accordingly. He cites many studies in the book (I can leave in an edit later) about people not losing weight purely on calories, but on the composition of their diets (macro %). The biggest culprit for weight gain is insulin caused by high carb diets. He states people will lose weight in the beginning, but that will stabilize over a long term period where the body adjusts its metabolism to reduce energy expenditure. Mentioned by him, studies that show weight loss from low calories are short term (ex: this video's study is 12 weeks long). Better research are ones that are long term over years.
Some limitations about this comment and info in the comment since I have not finished reading the book yet:
I do not know if carbohydrates means highly processed carbs vs pure sugar vs fruit & honey.
I do not believe the author looks at the perspective of someone who participates in bodybuilding.
Another culprit is see from chapter headings is cortisol, but I haven't reached that portion yet.
Dont forget moltodextrin - its a sugar that is almost 0 calorie. Often sold as a sweetener but worst for you than plain sugar.
I would absolutely love to know about everything on PEDs and steroids. Possible side effects, pros and cons and usage method for first timers. It would mean a lot to me if you could make a video about this
It depends on insulin. The hormone, that restore fat. If you eat carbohydrates, they will raise your bloodsugar more and faster. That will spike your fatstoringhormon insulin. By eating fat and moderate amounts of protein, they will not be stored. But they will burn as an energy.
There is a much more obvious limitation - I counted five variables between the two groups, so which one or ones accounted for the difference between the two? On the face of it, polyunsaturated fats and plant protein, which were higher respresented in the higher weight loss group, might have been the reason that the group was more successful, but on the other hand, they might have been holding the group back, and the group may have lost more weight WITHOUT them. How did this paper get approved, with more than one variable in the groups?
I always watch your videos while drinking my after workout protein shake, makes it taste even better
I think the biggest error was not submitting calories burned through extra activity but the 5lb difference in 12 weeks is on average 200 calories burned everyday for the 84 days which is probably not sufficient enough reason. I think a calorie is a calorie but where we begin to see a difference are indirect changes like insulin sensitivity which play a large role in energy storage (fat storage).
Love this channel
Asking is a calorie a calorie is like saying are all miles equal, are all pounds the same, is an inch an inch. a calorie is just a unit that measures energy.
Coach greg gonna love this one even more than last time 😂
errr what about caloric availability? a monosaccharide calory (e.g. glucose) can be absorded right away into the body. a polysaccharide calory (e.g. starch) cannot. why not? because it has to be degraded to glucose first (again, due to the second law of thermodynamics), nothing is perfectly efficient, hence some energy is wasted during the process, reducing the net income of calories by a significant margin. this loss is (to the best of my knowledge) not considered when reading the lable of a package. so as far as i know, calories are indeed not carolies. instead its a signifant difference.
Its also the reason why 800kcal of potatoes will sate you quite well and 800 kcal of chocolate will only sate you for an hour or so until you get hungry again. @picturefit, do you have any input on this issue? would be great:)
Ive been in a cal deficit since march 4th. Goal is to lose 120 pounds by the end of it. So far ive lost 10. I havent changed my diet at all, but have started logging everything i eat and counting calories. I have only had fast food twice in this time period and did pick healthier, easy to cal count items. Its neat that as long as you cal count, you can hit your goals. It makes it alot easier to follow, then when youre down weight and better at following the restrictions, you add more rules on. Aka, work on eating healthier, add on exercise, etc. Thats my goal at least. Im waiting till i hit my first plateau then im adding in regular light exercise to boost weight loss, then the next one ill add it in more intensly, then the next one ill boost nutrition. Gonna be good, i can feel it ^_^
hows it going?
One thing that might of influenced their weight loss is the amount of calories the body used to break down food. E.g if u eat 100 calories of protein the body uses 30% of those calories to break it down compared to 10% with carbs and 2-3 with fat
Several different variables that may affect weight loss. Micronutrients may help with metabolic functions, such as cobalamin for amino acids or biotin for fatty acids. Fats require the least amount of energy to metabolize, and protein requires the most energy. Water may have no calories, but it requires energy to process, especially when cold. Weight loss is an extremely complicated matter. It wouldn't surprise me if when we work out matters either. From my personal observation, working out after a big meal helps to lessen weight gain, but this is not set in science.
Meh, they're called "micro"-nutrients for a reason. Get your macros and call it a day.
The correct way to put this is that "labels are not equal". If a label says 100 calories and another says 100 calories, that doesn't mean your body will benefit of 100 calories from those foods.
Aren't there also studies showing that the gut biome can also indicate a healthy weight? So one could assume that after 12 weeks an increase in fiber may have changed the gut biome which may have had an impact on weight loss with the high fiber group as well.
Calories and Laws of thermodynamics. Greg is that you ?
Finally something to back up my unpopular claims that quality matters.
Calories in vs calories out is a bad approach because of everything he mentioned in the video about nutrients, but also insulin resistance. If you have insulin resistance from eating a lot of sugar, bread, carbs in general, your body won’t break off and use fat easily. The moment you dramatically drop carbs, you fast for part of the day, and get into ketosis, your body is now using your stored fat for energy and you’re not piling more on top and gaining weight.
If you are severely overweight: yes, absolutely, a calorie is a calorie. Stuffing smaller amounts of junk into your pie hole is a win. Once you get your weight down to the point where getting on the treadmill (never mind turning it on) doesn't exhaust you, you can/should start worrying more about the nutritional value of you calories. (source: I went from 305 down to 202 in a year.)
I always look forward to a new video.
Basically it’s like putting gas into your car. Will you use premium gas or regular??
Is this study not limited by too many variables? Since we are still studying what "healthy" means, it would interesting to see some more studies focusing on only one of these variables at the time. Potentially this was all the lower fructose levels or higher fiber or protein carrying significant weight in these exact circumstances. It's beneficial to know specifically what works, as an "overall healthy diet" can mean many different things and nothing here is pointing to one being particularly higher in nutrients than the other.
The weightloss factor is very misleading! Averaging out the total weightloss from both groups would only make sense if everyone was the same weight and height. Also when restricting calories in a percentage you are forgetting that people have different maintenance calories due to activity levels and if someone is more active and restricts their calories by 25% they will be in a higher calorie deficit than someone who is inactive and also restricting calories by 25%. Instead of restricting the calories in a percentage they should've had a set caloric deficit like 500 kcal for example .
It wouldn't have mattered, the high nutrients group would still have lost more wait. To explain shortly, it's because the healty diet creates a higher caloric deficit than the one calculated , because:
1) fibers, which the high nutrients group would have gotten since they ate plants, when in the intestines, in the presence of water ,form a tridimensional web( a gel) this web traps some of the nutrients, like sugars, some short peptides and cholesterol.
The nutrients trapped in there can't be adsorbed by your body and will just be pooped out ( aka. some of the calculated "calories in " can't actually get in)
2) the high nutrients diet had way more proteins, which means that, regardless of activity, this group would have built more muscle,which would have increased their basal metabolism (aka the "calories out" would increased overtime)
Bruh…. Lol calories in vs calories out for weight loss. That’s it.
im eating now a Swedish chips olw vinegar with Monster energy ultra , im very happy
i feel much better when i eat at maintenance or a slight deficit and get more fresh vegetables and fruit in my diet.
Love you dude
Well it’s not the calories but what macros come with, high protein and fiber can help slightly maybe speed up metabolism but may vary
Does that apply to weight gain? If you keep a small calorie surplus by eating unhealthy foods will you gain more fat in comparison to eating healthy foods?
Heyyyy! Just turned 40 and I'm here.😊
Are there any studies like this about gaining weight instead of losing it?
Higher fat/protein food helps you feel fuller for longer, and they don't mess with your blood sugar. In that way, a calorie is not a calorie. If you ate the same calories, but one diet is high fat/protein, and the other is high carb, you'll feel worse and hungrier on high carb. It's harder to stick to diet goals when you are fighting cravings.
Sugar was never made to consume occasionally, it's sole purpose is to make you graze all day long. Remember, whatever you eat breaks down and flow through the infinite network of arteries in your body carrying blood. Keeping that blood as peaceful as possible is healthy. Grazing only leads to disaster. The artery walls have a life span.
Calories is just a unit of energy, what you ate goes through a process, that matters. Never seen anyone getting fat eating brocoli
god i love picturefit
What about keto diet? Is it possible to lose weight in a calorie surplus that way?
7:20 Give him a powdered donut and sent away 😂😂😂
Calories are calories. However, if you eat quality calories like whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meat, and fish, you will feel better, energetic, and full, making you eat less. Also, the micronutrients play a key role too. You can absolutely lose weight or gain healthy mass eating garbage foods but you will have a harder time feeling full, you will feel terrible and your diet will feel more like a diet. Try eating 6 whole apples. You tell me what happens. Try drinking 6 cups of fruit juice (not recommended). You tell me what happens. You will feel stuffed after eating all the apples. By the way not all Polyunsaturated fats are healthy. Cheap vegetable oil and light olive oil are really bad for you. Omega 6 is very inflammatory and cheap vegetable oils are highly processed and so processed that they can be used to lubricate machinery. Extra virgin Olive oils, coconut oils, avocado oils, ghee, canola oils, peanut, tree nut oils, cod or salmon, sunflower, and safflower oils which are organic or at least cold or expeller pressed are the best. Your omega 3 to 6 ratio should be at least 1:1
Also it's great for long term to not eat foods that may lead to chances of disease. And keep the arthritis as clean as they can stay.
Very nice script for this one ^^
I've been slacking on my calorie counting and I feel call out by this video XD
Good. Get back on it soldier.
Could it be that HN helps the body function faster or for longer and in your average day your body is able to work more and thus burn more?
For example both HN and LN took about 1500cal/day im assuming, but the ones with HN had their bodies working better during the day and so this would give the body the energy and strength to burn more fat.
Your body looks for fuel all the time regardless of how much you demand of it. Its not an on and off switch.
If your body burns around 2000 cal/day it will keep burning 2000 even if you eat 1500. Your body doesnt say i only need 1500 and so im going to save myself from burning the extra 500.
The issue is that sometimes your body doesnt have the strength to burn those extra calories.
The digestive system is like an engine, you put a little bit of energy in and get a lot of energy out by burning mass and turning it into energy.
If you have say 1kg of fuel at 30% and you give that engine enough energy to burn 100g of that fuel. The engine will burn 100g+30g from the 30% efficiency.
If your engine has fuel that has 80% efficiency then giving it enough energy to burn 100g will result in a 100g+80g burnt fuel because of efficiency.
Likewise, your digestive system is the fuel engine of your body and the more efficient the energy sources you eat the less fat you will end up with because your body is burning more fat.
Calories are not equal and the way we count calories is not adequate enough. We take almost 0 account of calorie efficiency when we stick numbers to apples and oil.
The way we know calories now is just their total potential and not their efficient potential.
Energy into the body does 3 things, its either turned into heat or used or stored.
The higher the efficiency the more it is used and the less it is stored.
And the more it is used the more it burns the stored mass (fat).
We need studies that show how efficient calories are in the body and hopefully also why this calorie is more efficient then the other.
While talking about different forms of calories, maybe it would be nice to single in on carbohydrates and the glycemic index
thanks for the informations !
Will you /have you made a video for hard gainers to gain weight? I just can't increase my weight and I'm trying from a year. I'm vegetarian
Can you do a video on simple vs complex carbs effect on the body
I speak for myself but there is a huge difference when I eat junk vs healthy, even if same amount of calories. When younger I could get away with it but after abusing it for years my body has rebeled it seems.
I can’t wait for coach Greg to do a video on Dr Youn about his video he made about CICO
I lost lots of weight just being more active. Then lost even more by just eating less not really counting was 260 now I’m 190 I’m 6”2 so I’m really close to my goal.
What does this mean for gaining weight? Would eating less "healthy" food lead to mote weight gain
Hey I need help am new to the gym i take about 2-3 days to recover from sore does doing cardio to reduce fat in this period will effect me negativity?thnx
A calorie is a unit of energy
Great video
Couldn’t agree more 🔥
Now do a video on how not all protein is the same, how you need much more plant protein to be able to absorb the same amount of animal based protein
Super cool! Super interesting!
Very good video
Yes. All calories are equal. In the sense that if you maintain a caloric deficit, it is against the laws of nature for you to put on weight. A system cannot be given less energy than it used, and then store said energy as a reserve (fat/ adipose tissue). Anything else is a pure lie.
It's wrong, that can actually happen, certain hormonal imbalances, for example overproduction of the hormon cortisol ( or glucocorticoids in general and drugs derived from these compounds)over a long period of time can make the human body dismantle it's own bones, muscles and collagen to synthesise fatty acids, which will then be stored as fat, that regardless of what or how much the individual eats.