When I was a kid in the late 50s and the 60's I remember my parents always talking about how bread and sweets would make a person fat. When the food pyramid came along in the 80's I was thoroughly unimpressed. My husband jumped all over the low fat high carb diet idea and immediately gained 75 lbs. He is my ex now and is, unfortunately, a diabetic.
@@fromthepeanutgallery1084 Here is a quick er solution: granny always said avoid bread and sugar "it'll make you fat, you don't need it", she was exactly right.
@@uploadJ Exactly. No sugar, no processed foods of any kind. Like you say granny (and mom) knew this in the 70's already. End of story. Like I tell others. One can "live" the Ten Commandments, or one can spend a lifetime studying, rebelling, trying to find a better way. And in the end, after seventy years of fighting it, find out it was right, and easier, and less time consuming to just do what it says from the start.
Watching this in 2021 I notice how our governments freaked out when the covid graph went up quickly yet do next to nothing about diabetes and obesity going up.
That's because it is PROFITABLE (for SOMEONE) to keep people ADDICTED and FAT. And, also, perhaps --- it was priming people to be susceptible to a spike protein virus. So, that would be effective for their depopulation agendas as well.
Diabetes and Obesity don't kill you or leave you with morbidity in less than 2 weeks like Covid!, or did you not notice the multi-million global death rate. Sure, while arguments about hereditary traits can be had, both these diseases for a significant part of the population are preventable. How difficult is it to comprehend that the typical adult needs only a set amount of calories, eg under 2500 calories, that's daily, NOT EVERY MEAL. So if the typical 3 meal-a-day eaters are ingesting 5,000 calories or grossly more, that's not a government problem, that's a YOU problem. Diabetes in America can be directly attributed to simple over-eating and usually, junk food and snack binging. Yes, we could easily discuss a healthy eating lifestyle, but Americans are seemingly, comfortably finding more and more ways to die fat and young, rather than old and healthy. Do you really need the government to hold your hand and tell you how to eat, really? Either you want to live a healthy life or like an addict, you will create whatever excuse is necessary not to.
@@Dee-ln1ne The depopulation agenda is failing miserably. Human population growth continues, with births exceeding deaths every year, without fail. Try another "theory."
I used to do 3 to 4 hours cardio / week + 2 to 3 hour wt training / week + eating 4 to 5 X per day high carb, low fat.... fine & dandy until hit my late 30s and began to GAIN fat on the same routine. I was flabby & frustrated & not very fertile...& had become insulin resistant / pre diabetic. Now metabolic exercise, often just 2 hours / week + Lower Carb & Higher healthy fat with lot s veggies & protein has been GREAT for my energy, six pack abs + a few other bio hacks have made me a new man at 50 now and about to become a father after giving up before. :-)
Interesting but N=1 anecdotes don’t mean anything. My own for the record is different I am 60 and have eaten pretty much the same all my life including carbs, fats, meat fish lots of fruit and veg. I have always exercised a lot - still cycling 100 miles on a good day plus lift weights. I am at about 15% body fat good blood work etc …..by the way there are no such things as “ bio hacks”. You cannot hack you biology - it’s way too smart for that ! 😉. You can understand it and apply scientific principles and knowledge
@@marcdaniels9079 Biochemistry is pretty diverse. I don't think it is carbohydrates in general that are disproportionately harmful, but a smaller subset. Toxicology also tells us that all toxins depend on dosage. There is also interplay between the physiology, the biochemistry, and human behavior. So maybe sugar does not cause overeating directly, but it influences biochemistry, which influences behavior, which then causes the observed condition. And I singled out sugar as opposed to, say, oatmeal (which historically was a staple grain of many healthy societies). So, observation might indicate X causes Y, but it takes other fields of research to unlock a mechanism that says X ∴ a ∴ b ∴ c ∴ Y. The existence of steps, a/b/c do not absolve X.
@@dinhnguyen2110 Humans have an evolutionary drive to eat sugar ( and hence like sweet things) for the calories. Same for salt and fat. When these are scarce there is no problem because all the biological mechanisms being used to explain the cause of obesity cannot create fat in a calorie deficit or balance. When there is abundance AND people do not control their food intake then they will gain fat and eventually become obese. So let’s not blame this food or that food - sugar or high fructose corn syrup or whatever. As Arnold famously said: “Put the cookie down”. It’s not rocket science
@@marcdaniels9079 Something changed in the latter half of the 20th century. And "people got dumber and lazier" is actually a dumb and lazy hypothesis in and of itself. And we did not evolve with unlimited refined, white powdery or thick syrupy sugar sources. It's more explanatory, based on historical data, to say that a tipping point can be reached wherein eating enough cookies creates a runaway effect. Today's grocery stores are the equivalent of a recovering alcoholic going to his grocery store to find it is 80% alcohol. Technically it is still the alcoholic's "fault". But get real.
@@dinhnguyen2110 So don’t eat all those cookies then. Alcoholics are still accountable for what they put into their bodies. It’s not about who or what is at fault; fault implies failure and blame. It’s about taking responsibility for what we eat and drink. There have always been highly calorie dense foods available- it’s neither dumb nor lazy to point out that people’s behaviour and habits in how they approach these is more the cause of the problem than their existence.
I agree with kleanslate. Nutrition science became far worse in the 70s and 80s, probably the result of bad actors than it was in the 20s. Love your videos, by the way.
In the 1920s before Insulin was identified and Metformin was isolated from its botantical source.... There was a successful dietary treatment for type 2 diabetes called the Allen Joslin starvation diet..... it is the precursor to Dr Jason Fung's Intermittent Fasting - Ketogenic diet Therapy for reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
There was a cancer treatment called the Gerson Therapy used between 1920-1940 for skin cancer. The treatment worked by flushing the digestive system of toxins out of the colon/GI tract with coffee and then switching the diet to an organic vegan foods... and yes reportedly it worked... its not talked about much today because there is no big money to be earned from it ..
you cannot convince some people that calories in calories out is valid in health OR losing weight. It is obvious not all calories have the same effect on the body. These same people think that fat makes you fat and a low fat low salt diet is the healthiest diet and if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more. Thank you Gary for being one of the pioneers that are the reason I am now super healthy and without fat.
This is a simple overview of the topic, but the best parts of this talk are the historical references to 'common knowledge' at the time, including the Dr. Spock raising children books. Shocking. I thought Atkins discovered hidden knowledge, but now it seems that his contribution was to simplify the formula for consumers and publish it in the face of the AMA. Still deserves a lot of credit.
When I was growing up in Mexico, potatoes, tortillas, bolillos, we’re fattening. So we were told to watch the consumption of these. Beans less so, because of the fiber it turns out. Then 1977 and brother in medical school happened. Need I mention the rest is history? I started losing weight after ten years or more, of trying the standard way. You know exercise, counting calories. I was in a bariatric program. I got a tooth infection, a serious one. Accidentally started fasting (it hurt to eat) and eating low carb…still some of my choices were terrible. Three years on I now do IF and Keto consciously. I have lost over 50 pounds, more like sixty. Healthier than ever.
The whole argument around the .laws of thermodynamics when applied to weight gain, or loss, is deeply flawed - because it ignores biology. Animals, even human animals, are not machines. Nor are we closed systems. In addition to fat storage, or what we think of as exercize, there are many other ways the body can use 'excess' calories - heat generation, energy released via respiration (ketones on the breath is one example), and excretion are three examples. However, those options are controlled to a great extent by the type of calorie consumed. One aspect which Taubes and others, mention is whether and how much insulin is triggered by the foods (or food-like substances) we consume. Anecdotally, a number of people have reported eating high levels of caloric intake comprised mostly of fat, with moderate or relatively moderate protein levels, and have reported that they either gained no weight, or very little. Or, they report gaining a small amount of weight while gaining nothing around their waists, and not visibly becoming 'fatter'. Of course more studies would be a good idea - well designed studies, without bias. In the meantime, we are all either unwitting participants in a vast, uncontrolled experiment... or we can run our own N=1 experiments. It is worth noting that those who seem to do well on a high-carb (sugar and starch) diet, are less and less and less likely to continue to do well eating that way as the decades go by. Remember, even many who appear thin are accumulating fat in and/or around their visceral organs - which can be very dangerous.
Most wild animals are in survival mode by the environmental design and absence of greed Nor do they have farms and superstores to pick up groceries from. Prehistoric hunter gatherer were barely able to get enough food to be able to fat enough to procreate. The real evil thing with humans is the coal gas and oil. That made it so easy to produce plenty of food without dragging your ass all over town all day. The PR firms hired by the fast food joints brain washing humans dont help. Over 80% of Americans are addicted to junk food and sodas. They are the killer foods. The underlying mechanisms of obesity are very complex and at least 4-6 different routes work among people. Men get different obesity than women. It is sure not thernodyamic alone which does play a role. But there are tools that body can use to shed excess of any chemical or energy. So in addition to a glut of calories there has to be breakdown of those tools that body needs to shed the overload. That can happen in at least half a dozen points in the metabolic pathways. It is complex mess. Not for the simpletons to debate about.
I'm not into physics but the flaw I'm hearing is more about the fuel and not the engine. My car runs best on gas, but I could conceivably use other fuels (like peanut oil) to run it. Will my car run just as well with peanut oil or even ethanol as it does with gasoline?
@@sleepsmartsmashstress740 what's the deal with your negative comments and the seeming need to post negative comments about someone who has worked very hard and put together helpful information? and then your comment about having the "hots" for someone is totally out of place. Stop acting like a total jerk.
I think it's the addictive nature of foods. Because when I eat carb foods, I feel satiated and full. So, the fullness and satiety hormones do work! But I keep eating in spite of fullness and satisfaction. And the reason I keep eating is because of the hyper-palatable sweetness. It's like a drug - feelings of "high" override the feelings of "stuffed". So, I stop eating when it severely hurts already - the feeling like my stomach is about to rupture and I can barely breathe and possibly die in a moment. The feeling is so bad that I always think of maybe calling 911 for help. That type of binge happened to me every time I ate a mixture of refined carbs with fats: cheesecakes, pastries, chocolates, cookies, etc. Today I call that type of food an addictive drug. I guess, such eating over long time can lead to insulin resistance, which in turn, will lead to overeating more and more until a person gets diagnosed with either morbid obesity or diabetes 2.
What this guy fails to include is the effects of the introduction of modern industrial created seed oils have had on fat cells. Excess linoleic acid (PUFAs) makes the fat cell LOCALLY insulin sensitive. It affects the Krebs cycle in the mitochondria of the fat cell, creating a decrease in ROS (reactive oxygen species) which makes it so that the fat cell will keep taking in more triglycerides even to the point of rupturing the cell. If one eliminates seed oils from one’s diet, then the percentage of omega 6 to omega 3 will decrease and the fat cells in the body become LOCALLY insulin resistant. Local insulin resistance at the level of the fat cell is good (pathological insulin resistance at the level of the whole body is not good). When the fat cell is locally insulin resistant ( the mitochondria are burning saturated fat and the Krebs cycle is functioning properly), then the fat cell will resist the intake of triglycerides and instead the body will up regulate energy burning (urges to move/exercise) and the person remains slim and close to proper body weight. This guy keeps banging on sugar and carbs.. but they are not the real culprits of diseases like obesity and diabetes. The chronic metabolic dysfunction that occurs because of the incredibly high levels of industrial seed oils is a huge factor. We need to eat more saturated fat (and cholesterol) in our diets.
Agreed!!! Paul Saladino & Chris Knobbe discuss this. Paul Saladino also discusses what you're talking about with Tucker Goodrich and Hyperlipid. On TH-cam
It's simply both, and sometimes in one person is mostly by carbs and in the other is mostly by PUFAs. I am from Poland, here we have mostly sunflower and rapeseed oils, more people still use lard, then I suppose in US. Health aware people use olive oil and coconut oil. But we have loads of carbs in our stores. And I see more and more people eating whole-grain snacks. And we are getting fatter.
The problem is that while I agree that both carbs (especially refined carbs and sugar) and seed oils are co-causes of chronic disease, the science to robustly prove causality hasn't been done, because of the dominance of conventional ideas like the diet heart hypothesis (aka lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease), which are taught as proven fact and assumed by most professional scientists and clinicians to be proven fact, with no need for further study for either the dominant idea or any alternatives. Until we can crack this arrogant and anti-scientific attitude of "the science is settled", then it is going to take a long time and lot of motivated and expensive effort by individuals on the fringe like Gary Taubes to do the hard scientific leg work that needs doing to provide the proof both that the consensus views are wrong, and that the alternative views many of us believe are in fact the correct alternative views.
Abs are made in the kitchen. Change your diet and you can lose weight for the most part. You can't outrun a bad diet. Losing fat is one thing, building muscle is another though. Congrats on your weightloss success.
I worked at an orphanage in Mexico for five years and I observed many times an overweight mother holding a malnourished child, and they do eat an insanely starchy diet of potatoes, pasta, rice, beans, polenta, tortillas, chayotes, elote, maiz, bolillo and bilote I always assumed it was genetic and part of the "lifecycle" of aging. So for example, at the age of four months, a womans cuts her first tooth, at the age of 13 she menstruates, and at the age of 25 a woman will begin packing on some weight. The babies I presumed to be picky eaters who just intermittently suffer diarrhea from e coli, salmonella, giardia lamblia and lumbrisas, (tapeworms)
Anyone ever suspect our mass endocrine problems that cause obesity and diabetes was probably because of pesticides? Pesticide mass usage was around the same time when the obesity-diabetes epidemic started...
that is what it does to the bug/plant - the same so as to destroy the pest/weeds. what do you think are/is the process(es) by which these poisons work?
Blame it on Linoleic Acid which is in all vegetable oils. The linoleic acid makes you gain weight. That is why everyone is getting so fat so easy. Any excess sugar and carbs from flour products just adds fuel to the fire. If you are not fasting and maintaining a high metabolism with exercise, then you are gaining weight.
I find it amazing that educated people have a hard time with the idea that although calories must be taken in ,to be expended constructively, that there are factors of waste and accumulation which alter the expenditure/constructive yield for a given level of intake. Likewise, it's amazing that in the last fifty years, the summary statement about carbs being fattening , is still subject to Doubt.
This is great. I've watched other videos produced by Gary Taubes that discuss refined carbs and how they make a person fat. This lecture expands on this and explains the science behind it.
Weird that there is almost zero mention of insulin resistance in the first 20 mins. If your insulin is too high and you are resistant, you are either gonna pile on pounds or not lose weight.
insulin resistance in one proposal I make is a suicide mission of the body. The body decides to stop eating glucose even with sky high levels in the blood. That is insulin resistance. Think of kids on Sunday morning refusing to come down for breakfast. So it is hard to get past that suicide mission of the body by starving itself to death. How and why bodies decide to go on this hunger strike is what I am drying to dig up.
@@sleepsmartsmashstress740 It's pretty basic science, I am surprised so many people including yourself aren't aware but it's just downregulating insulin receptor channels due to over activation from insulin. It's the same reason why drug users need larger amounts of drugs for the same highs. The body responds to over activation through downregulation of the receptors that utilize or are activated by that specific chemical. The opposite is also true, in that the lack of activation will upregulate that receptor.
The professor’s question at the end about a 4000 calorie increase was interestingly irrelevant. He admits that it would be extremely difficult to get people to overeat fat, but simple to do for carbohydrate. There’s the obesity epidemic right there. What are Americans consuming today that they weren’t in 1965? Massive levels of carbohydrate.
Steve Green high fructose corn syrup did not exist in 1965. The obesity surge started shortly after Coke changed recipe and tried "New Coke". Consumer wanted the Coke they already knew... so, they called it Classic Coke, but did not go back to cane sugar. Still HFCS . Not the whole thing, but a clear example. BTW if you can get it, try a Coke from Mexico. Whole new flavor, that is what it used to taste like
@@meman6964 You are right that high fructose corn syrup is a new addition, but I don’t think it is the real culprit in the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Australia banned the stuff but is right behind the U.S. in heading off the cliff into metabolic disease. They imitated our USDA food pyramid and push ‘Grains for brekkie’.
On past traditional diets I noticed I had no energy, and my activity level and metabolism slowed to offset my body's reaction to being "starved" Clearly my ancestors survived the Irish potato famine, and passed me their genetic ability to gain weight and then hang on to it throughout a famine like a bear hibernating on the power saver setting The Atkins diet didn't seem to trip this switch like a potato based diet might do
+Ashley W. Why the over kill towards another human being? What was the horrible crime she committed to requite telling her she if essential all shit? My lord! and you ought to apologize to her.
@@urbanaj4472 It's called a slow thyroid, you dull unempathetic being. There is such a thing. It happens due to ancestors starving, babies being born underweight and getting fat on very little carbs as an adaption to the past starving.
@1:18:31 This guy says in 30 seconds, what it took Gary an hour to say. If that guy didn't make that statement, I'd have no idea what Gary's message and point was.
In the "calories in, energy expended" model. Would not one have to calculate the number of calories excreted in pee, poop, sweat, and brearh? I mean my poop must have some calories in it ir else worms would not like it so much. And I have a hard time believing that my poop on a keto diet would have the exact same calories (degrees of energy) that my poop would have if I ate only big macs? Am I missing something?
This is a lot of great info. Add leptin and the neural circuit (which I saw in another informative lecture) and it gives us so much more understanding than we’ve ever had in regards to obesity. I am so excited that there could be more potential for the next generation to not suffer through obesity to the same degree as our recent generations. I’ve already lost a parent to obesity related causes and I’m headed that way too.
That finland reference was interesting. North Karelia. They reduced smoking. They didn't mention alcohol consumption. There are lots of factors going on with that one. One is reduced fat maybe, but they reduced bread intake, if you reduce butter/margarine intake. In general. I bet they kept up with fatty fish and preserved/picked things. But this type of modification was broad brush. The carb lovers are always a bit more full/robust looking. Asking the questions or challenging Gary.
He starts off treating obesity as a cause of heart disease and other problems, but correlation isn't causation. Obesity is a symptom of an underlying metabolic disorder. Thomas Seyfried speaks at length on this in the context of cancer in his presentation at the January 2016 metabolic therapeutics conference. Mary Newport does likewise in the context of Alzheimer's at the same conference.
No obesity is not a symptom of an underlying medical condition. It is the result of being in a chronic calorie surplus. Without that surplus none of the mechanisms which are thrown around like confetti to show causation apply. Are you really suggesting that all the obese people in the world have somehow developed an underlying medical condition since the start of the epidemic, or were born with one ?
@@marcdaniels9079 no one is tilting at your strawman windmill. Calories in vs calories out does not pass muster, and in fact has been proven insufficient.
@@elibennett3034 I have not used a straw man and neither is one required to defeat such a fatuous proposition that obesity is caused by an underlying medical condition. Simply asserting that CICO does not pass muster is like a child putting its fingers in its ears and saying la la la. Please explain how people can become obese without being in a chronic calorie surplus. What magic is at play to create increase in fat mass without any energy being used?
@@marcdaniels9079 not sure if you noticed, but there is this video that we are commenting on here, and the guy that speaks in it? He's like really knowledgable and stuff, and you might, you know, what to watch it? Because he does a very good job of explaining it. But I guess I will give it a shot. The human body is not a machine with a gas tank. It is a biological entity with exquisite control of many facets of its operation. Is the same way that the pH of our body is not a product of ions in vs ions out, neither is caloric intake. We have many means of dealing with excess calories in: generating extra heat, excretion, and storage in adipose tissue (I may be forgetting some). When insulin is present in the blood, we can only place extra glucose in fat. When insulin is not present, we can draw from fat. Insulin is produced in response to glucose levels in the blood. When you are eating no or low carbs, your body will run off of ketones made from fat. As this does not raise blood insulin, any momentary lack of ketones is replaced quickly from fat. Any extra ketones are excreted in urine. Therefore in order to gain weight you MUST have insulin present. Insulin is chronically over produced in people with the *medical disorder* called metabolic syndrome, making it nearly impossible to *not* gain weight unless you eliminate carb sources if you have this disorder (which is caused by over-consuming carbs, btw). As a result, if you are getting you calories from fat you will not gain weight and will lose if you under eat. But if you get your calories from carbs, you will gain weight from any excess and only lose weight when you stop eating long enough to completely eliminate insulin from your blood, which is almost impossible if you are eating carbs AND have metabolic syndrome. Now, I have given you a good-faith answer. Please, PLEASE, go and educate yourself so you don't come off like an abrasive troll. My prediction is that you will ignore the substance of my comment and either reply with cringy pith or just ignore it completely and continue to post your garbage elsewhere in these comments. Prove me wrong.
The only thing I can understand is my own experience. I lived in Korea for 2 years. By the end of the first year I must have lost at least 40 pounds. My clothes were falling off of me and I really didn't know why. Because I wasn't trying to lose weight at all. actually when I first got there we were doing a lot of feasting at people's houses eating until we could bust, because the food was so good. I ate what the average Korean person ate because I was living with Korean people. Rice three times a day with the kimchi and vegetables and very little meat. We had Korean snacks, but they didn't have the intensity of flavor as the American snacks. But me and my American friends found a bakery. And then on my own I found a store that sold American food and snacks. Pancake mix and syrup and peanut butter and jelly and candy bars. My second year I gained half of my weight back. After I came back to the United States I gained back the other 20 pounds. Well that's my experience. The Korean diet really works.
alcoholic beverages are often omitted from these inquiries. ever heard the expression, 'choose your poison?' and thinking of such, consider as well the chemicals we consume in the way of artificial this & that, gmos, pesticides, and phamaceuticals. not so healthy, is it?
This is the most powerful presentation on obesity I've ever seen. I have never seen the counter-arguments he starts this presentation with. Fascinating. Every doctor should watch it. At 1 hour 35 minutes an excellent and still unresolved point was made that while obesity can be connected to heart attacks, there are cultures that are thin and have high levels of heart attacks. So there is still this question of saturated fat and heart attacks. It has been proven that Low Carb high fat diets can be connected to higher incidents of heart attacks even though it is associated with lower incidents of obesity, meatabolic syndrome and diabetes. I'm a low carb eater, but I am constantly exploring this question and it is a real question of a high fat diet in spite of what low carb proponents might say about individual indicators.
Obesity is only one route to oxidative stress. Low consumption of antioxidants and high consumption of inflammatory substances like arachadonic acid (mostly found in meat and eggs) is another.
I'm 63, and growing up soda was allowed on rare occasions, such as a family picnic or birthday party. Probably 3 or 4 times a year. Meals were appropriating balanced and eaten as a family. There was no such thing as snacking; "It will spoil your dinner". Thing is; we were not anomalies, most people lived like that and fat people were topics of conversation, owing to their rarity. Today, little children are commonly obese.
Obese twins and lean wins could be coming out of a similar family situation and have similar psychology, eating habits attitudes about food and values about sports and exercise could run in the family to some extent
There have been studies on identical twins who were separated early in life and had different upbringings. In spite of that, there is evidence that their genetics affect their chance of becoming obese.
How can you explain a man and wife that eat the basic same diet and he stays skinny but she becomes morbid obese. Then later he developes a huge desire for candy and sweets and she diets year after year and he is still skinny and she still same obese. She diet extreme low fat first then extreme low carb most recent. Still obese. I am her sister and my mom and siblings all have major problems with obesity. Thank you I enjoyed your talk and hard work.
She is genetically predisposed to insulin resistance, he is not. All the science is out there to explain these simple questions. That's why obesity runs in families. A man and wife (generally) don't share the same genetic code, which is why they can eat the same food and have vastly different outcomes.
Yeah, regarding the discussion/question around 1:19:00, Sam Feltham claims to have done an overfeeding study on himself with two isocaloric diets, one high fat, one high carb, (5000 calories) done for 3 weeks, with a "washout" period in between, AND with the SAME amount of exercise performed during each diet. The result was that he gained considerably more weight (more than twice as much) on the high carb, 5000 calorie diet. Interestingly, even though he did gain weight on the high fat diet, he claims his waist measurement decreased slightly nonetheless. This, I think, is particularly noteworthy.
joe schmo Read this: Some people may worry that eating foods rich in fat, particularly saturated fat, will increase their risk of getting heart disease. A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition says this isn't so. Researchers at Harvard School of Public Health and the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute pulled together all the studies that have been published over the last couple of decades with data for dietary saturated fat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease. This meta-analysis study included data from 21 previous studies involving nearly 350,000 subjects. The focus of this study was to determine if there was sufficient evidence linking saturated fat consumption to heart disease. Their results said "no." Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Those people who ate the greatest amount of saturated fat were no more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke than those who ate the least. Those people who ate bacon, eggs, and steak every day had no more incidence of heart disease than vegetarians who never touched meat, dairy, or eggs. It didn't matter how much saturated fat one ate, the incidence of heart disease was not affected.10 This study was important because it provided definitive proof that saturated fat consumption does not lead to heart disease.Low-fat diets are dangerous. They do not protect against heart disease nor do they prevent obesity. They starve the body of the lipid building blocks needed to achieve and maintain healthy brain function, thus lowering cognitive performance and increasing the risk of Alzheimer's. Including good sources of fat in the diet is a smart way to help protect yourself against Alzheimer's.
+joe schmo >Sam Feltham >Ectomorph with super fast metabolic rate >He actually had a six pack and considerable muscle mass back a years ago, but now he's lost his musculature...all thanks to the primal "smarter" science of exercising for 4 minutes a week. LOL
+Myth Buster A six pack isn't everything. Though I've heard the girls tend to admire them. I think they just like someone who looks normal and proportional, not too skinny, not too muscular, you know, average.
Not really. It's actually easier for the body to burn carbohydrates as fuel, than to turn carbohydrates into fat. Fat itself from your diet is relatively easy to store, as it doesn't require the additional steps by the liver.
@@Magnulus76 The liver stores only fructose. Look out. The body has no use at all for fructose. The body (when we ate naturally) would store fructose from fruit in the Autumn when it grew on trees. Trees only grow fruit once a year to fatten us up for winter. That's when the bears eat all the fruit like berries, they can find. All the animals will do this, and this is what we used to do. Now we have more fruit than we know what to do with, it's on our tables, in the supermarkets all year round. Sugar is fifty percent fructose as well. It's dangerous stuff. It causes fatty liver disease, heart and type 2., Obesity. Not to mention mental ills. We're not supposed to consume this much fructose. We've always eaten fat but sugar has never been part of our natural diet. Just like the seed oils on the supermarket shelves it's been crushed and added to our food in abundance. We don't need it and it's killing us. It's added to everything on the supermarket shelf.
Dr. David Diamond has a video showing an experiment where carbohydrates produce fat in the blood. Where as a high fat diet the blood was clear of fat. Carbs are made into fat by the body.
I agree entirely intermittent fasting works for helping insulin resistance- weight normalising and weight loss. You are not hungry and you feel better all day. I eat OMAD after work Monday to Friday and when I like Sat and Sund.
1:22:00 Hadn't that guy from the College of Medicine ever heard of glucagon? 4000 calories of insulin-stimulating carbs does not equal 4000 calories of glucagon-stimulating lipids, as far as adipocyte accumulation.
18:20 It's a difference of belief systems indeed. It's very easy for comfortable, middle-class people to say they'd give up calories so their children could eat. But I can tell you, as one of those erstwhile emaciated, stunted children, with 4 emaciated, stunted siblings, and an overweight single mother, that indeed, a hell of a lot of mothers will let their children go hungry so they can eat a Snickers bar. And for those children, indeed, McDonald's was a rare thing, I think we may have eaten there three times. Not three times a month, or three times a year, but three times total. We ate a lot of junk, and a lot of what would be considered healthy because it was foraged from local plants and fruit trees or it was fish I caught. But the total calories were low. School lunches, provided free because we were so poor, were a Godsend. So I disagree with you that it's not an "obesogenic" environment because, knowing what I know from being a hungry kid to a hungry teen to a less hungry young adult but still living on a lot less than what is standard for Americans, in America myself, and now a puzzled, overweight, middle-aged adult, yes the environment is "obesogenic". We were surrounded by, growing up, a lot of Pacific Islanders who were poor, but weren't as emaciated and stunted as we were. This was for a few reasons: They ate their traditional foods, which are a better way to obtain calories for the dollar than the stuff Mom threw at us. They valued their children more than children were valued in 1970s American culture. Pacific Islanders have very thrifty genes. And they were either Mormons, an American religions that is unusual in that it looks out for its members who are poor, or integrated in their traditional social structures, complete with local chiefs, who made sure they didn't have to live for a week on flour-and-water pancakes like we did. You had a problem; you went to the chief. Hell even we went to the chief once to get some stolen bikes back and sure enough, we got 'em back. So a lot of what you say about society is a lot of hooey. But I am not watching this for what you think about overweight African mothers, I'm here to hear about what carbohydrates and fats do in the body and how to eat in our modern obesogenic environment to get get fat and sick.
I'm going to add to this to say that not only were the Pacific Islanders I grew up around not skinny except for very rare cases, but they tended toward plumpness as kids and the adults tended to be obese again with very rare exceptions. One feature that was different was, a drink called Malolo. Now, there's presently a fascination with Hawaiian things, and Hawaiian foods and things are becoming popular on the Mainland US now, but somehow no one seems to be too nostalgic over - or even remember the ubiquity of - a sugar syrup that came in 1-gallon plastic jugs with a finger ring for a handle and a colorful label with a picture of the statue of liberty and the name Malolo, Hawaiian for flying fish. It made about as much sense as many product names there. This was drunk in place of water by everyone aged about 5 to 95 among our neighbors. Pure sugar and chemicals, with flavors like Fruit Punch and Grape and I think there was a lemon-lime and an orange, but the Fruit Punch flavor was by far the favorite. Kids went around with artificially-red mouths looking like characters in the old Clutch Cargo cartoon. Ice pops were made with it and smoothies, but mostly it was just drunk, all day every day. Water was considered harsh or yukky or barbarous, or something. We could generally not afford Malolo. We had it once in a while, but we just drank tons of water. Sodas were also very popular; a rare treat for us and a much more common treat for our neighbors, especially when bought in bulk. There was a lot of tooth decay. So it's long been sugar, sugar, sugar. Cheap sugar. Cheap starches. The poor going through their lives on the equivalent of George Orwell's "Tea and two slices" the poor of Wigan were given a few times a day, the tea with sugar of course and the two slices of bread slathered with margarine. Even in his day, dripping was considered a real downgrade from some nice modern hydrogenated fats.
So, if insulin is the problem, why these tribe people were obese in different places? I think it is totally something else, like virus or some added substance which is going to this category "sorry but we couldn't think of this". Maybe obesity is only thing this thing causes and it makes the obese problem long term. The finn-thing (as being one) has a lot of open ends. We ate a lot of salt, also those men had alcohol and smoke problems. As for now we have big problem with diabetes. So, maybe this should really been investigated more. As a curiosity, I just looked at video about how farmers get pigs fat. They know just what to feed to them. It's grains..
Body set point. If it is calories in calories out, tell me how it's possible for a person to maintain a consistent weight, when obviously their caloric intake varies from day to day.
Because fat doesn't appear overnight! It's sort of a warehouse... If you keep balancing it you probably end up with a tidy warehouse. If not you can end on both ends of the spectrum! So If I had been eating crap, I'm going to see the results the week or the month later.... It's not an instantaneous process! I actually did the experiment... And let me tell you, I got fat almost 1 year later. And this depends also on the metabolism of a person. It can happen in a month (slow metabolism) or it can happen in a year (fast metabolism). This is a combination of factors and not just 1 thing. Even if I did eat healthy ALL the time but I didn't exercise... I'm going to gain weight at some point for sure. All this people saying that it isn't all about calories in/out.... Yeah it is!!! It is, basically! You can look and have different approaches but that principle is going to stay there no matter what
Vaxines are destroyers. A mate of mine got polio from the polio vaccine administered at his school fifty years ago. He's had a pronounced limp ever since and an inability to play sport, walk properly and, of course, find a girl to marry. Thanks, vaxines!
Proposal: (re:audience question at 1:20:35) If the Randle cycle is active, ie, fats and sugars ingested simultaneously, then the optimal metabolic rate will never be achieved. and I contend, that a faster metabolic rate will be recognized if one is eating strictly carbs or strictly fats as a macro nutrient. Feedback appreciated
I can't cite the details but I have seen, from Ben Bikman I think, that I sulin rises much higher, and stays higher longer, when both are eaten together. Since insulin is anabolic, it "shouts down" glucagon, the opponent catabolic driver, and fat is accordingly stored.
A faster metabolic rate will be achieved only when high fat is ingested in the absence of carbs. Carbs > insulin ... Slows down the metabolism. Some people have such high genetic metabolic rates that they can have a fast metabolism in spite of eating many carbs. These people age faster too. Its not a blessing.
Except the whole concept of "carb coma" directly disputes the idea that a high carb diet will result in an increased metabolism. This ish ain't rocket science. If you fat-adapt on a ketogenic diet, you open up your fat stores for an unlimited amount oif energy, at all times. When you eat carbs, you blood sugar spikes, and then immediately drops. When it drops, you suffer from a lack of energy. Which is the experience of pretty much every person who ingests a large portion of their diet through simple carbs. There's a REASON for the common saying "I eat Chinese food, and I am hungry an hour later." It's because you get an immediate blood sugar spike as soon as you eat the rice, and the body oversecretes insulin in response to high blood sugar levels. As soon as the blood sugar is driven down by large amounts of inulin, the low blood sugar signals the brain that you are hungry again, and you want to go back for more carbs. On a ketogenic diet, there is no blood sugar spike to fool the brain into thinking you are hungry, which is why appetite is naturally controlled on the diet.
Getting fatter and fatter. Could it be that body in its wisdom is trying to get nutrients from the increasingly devitalized food? So, body is asking for more of quality nutrients and we keep feeding it a crap. That is mostly due to the overuse of Glyphosate pesticide (used heavily in the GMO's) that blocks plant from getting nutrients from the soil, which is devitalized to start with by planting monocultures year after year, and by the use of artificial fertilizers.
+Mi Ri Yes, part of the issue is nutritional density. Another is simply whether the food has organic material in it and how much, you know, like bacteria and stuff. The more processed the food is, the more refined, the less organic material and the less happy the microorganisms living in the human gut are. Furthermore, when the gut bacteria are unhealthy and unbalanced so too the human organism becomes metabolically dysregulated and unhealthy. But Taubes' insulin hypothesis is definitely the place to start looking. That means, looking at what conditions promote hyperinsulinemia.
Yes the Emperor is wearing no clothes - and the Emperor is carrying a great deal of unhealthy amount of fat... everyone is eating too many carbohydrates too many calories.. carbs are economically subsidized but healthy veggies are not subsidized... no to low fat hi carb diets causes people to eat more because fat is needed to trigger hormones for satiety - the metabolism regulates carbs fat proteins --- in many animals a metabolism will increase levels of fat during the summer-fall before the winter To protect an animal from starvation during the winter so in many animals during the winter the metabolism burns fat more than glucose .There are two different types of human fat cells and and these two different types serve two distinct secondary uses: (1) Visceral adipose tissue - which protect vital organs (2) subcutaneous fat - which protects the muscles joints and bones ..fat cells is like the bubble wrap in a parcel package.... its your body's natural air bag/bumper system...One might also say there is a third use of fat cells for sexual reproduction: A young women's breast often a focus of sexual health but we know it is primarily made up of fat cells ...Lastly....It is a well know lab rat experiment that has been duplicated time and time again ---that if a skinny rat's colon flora (bacterium ) is transplanted to a fat rat's colon - you'll make the fat rat skinny. Why?? because the colon flora (bacterium) sends out /controls most of the hormones to the brain that is controlling the metabolism. The colon micro flora which is composed of 500 t0 10,000 different strains of bacteria, fungi,.. nobody's extended this hypothesis for humans yet - so there is a possibility of a Ph D dissertation opportunity there if you can get approval for human trials...The colon flora bacterium/fungi makeup is dynamic = it is most diverse during the first 12 months of life and the least diverse during the last 12 months of life.
1. No not everyone is eating too much carbs and too many calories - silly assertion. By the way have you heard of the Tour de France? In the alps the guys consume 6/7000 calories a day of carbs - they are not overweight or obese and they don’t have diabetes or insulin resistance … ask yourself why 2. Rat studies are famous for not transferring to humans. We are not rats
@@marcdaniels9079 1. Athletes and soldiers fighting in a combat zone can easily burn 4000 to 8000 calories per day - but most people in America lead a less physically active life that burns less than 2000 calories per day but eat too many carbohydrates/sugars/starches in their diet. Fructose being the sugar having the highest glycemic index ...going directly into the blood stream the fastest. 2. The experimental results for dietary caloric restriction/Intermittent fasting has consistent shown the same effect across not just rats and mice and men but other animals as well.
I am but a dim layman compared to Taubes but I'm uncomfortable with his easy acceptance that he conflates fat and fat cells. I mean, we raise insulin, store adipose in adiposites and, in that way, get fat, no? I'm sure I'm the one who's missing something, but what?
It's not as simple as calories in and calories out. Food high in sugar or carbs which turns into sugar within 30 minutes to a hour spike insulin threw the roof which makes fat burning nearly impossible as 85% of people that rely on carbs are insulin resistant they literally cant burn fat or can burn very little. Take fat for example which has very little insulin response vs sugar which has 100% in 30 minutes. You would think well what's the difference if your eating the same amount of calories well it's huge mainly because when foods don't spike insulin threw the celling your body turns to it's fat supply's for energy people who are carb dependent need to cut out all sugar and processed flours, rice anything that turns to sugar as soon as it hits the gut to train there body to eat fat instead of relying on sugar for everything. Here is a huge surprise the human body is not meant to survive on carbs period the body is meant to burn fat and covert into what it needs it also needs a good amount of protein for building blocks. 99% if not more of these studies that point to carbs as being good are funded buy bread and sugar companies. Remember back in the day when cigarettes were prescribed by doctors as healthy well the cigarette companies paid for those studies. The food pyramid is azz backwards except for the sweets part. Just remember carbs become sugar within minutes to a few hours so you basically eating sugar with a bit of a lag time on your blood sugar. I tried every diet out there and only gained weight until I tried Keto which trains your body to rely on fat for energy not sugar and 2 weeks in I lost 9 pounds at a month at 2 months i lost 20 pounds and I was no longer considered a type 2 diabetic at 3 months I no longer had a fatty liver and ;ost 35 pounds why we recommend a diet that's basically pure sugar to a population of diabetics is beyond stupid and kills tens and thousands of Americans each year. 99% of people that follow my plate fail and only get worse well 80% of people that do keto have amazing results. Never trust a study that was funded by anyone that has something to gain hints don't trust anything from the Government as they are paid of just like politicians to get the results they want which is to sell more dangerous products to people.
Except that when you eat 1600 calories a day of a high (saturated) fat, low carb diet, you body will burn body fat to make up the difference, and output 2400+ calories of energy expenditure, giving your super high energy... Whereas on a 1600 calorie high (simple) carbohydrate, low fat diet, your body will preferentially store the carbs as fat, while reducing the energy output and increasing hunger, as it is detecting that it is in fruiting season and has access to lots of dietary sugar, and that it needs to pack on as much fat as possible, to survive through the winter months. Evolutionarily speaking, of course. So, other than completely missing the point, and getting one of your two main points completely wrong..... But hey. Keep repeating those dogmatic catchphrases... :-)
fascinating.. still doesn't stand prove of facts. Population eating High carbs (not refined) mediteranean, indian etc.. diets are related to low BMI. Western (America) high protein high fat diet is related with obesity epidemic. Sugar has a role, carbs as a whole are clearly not the issue
all these arguments about calories, I stopped eating carbs and I got very healthy and lost weight, many other have done it too, if you eat nothing but cokes you likely will die in a day or so, if you eat only fat your body will burn it and turn what it has to into glucose, not sure if it can make proteins from fat but eating high carbs we know is not healthy but it's how people get fat and sick
I don't mind the tangents but when he finally gets done with all the old, proven false theories -- he tells us the new, true stuff in the same fast sing-song so I can barely catch it. I love this guy but he needs to work on his presentation a little bit.
Fasting and intermittent fasting work to fix your body when unwell caused by your diet. Treating everyone the same is plane wrong - you have to find your own diet that works. This guy was unbelievably boring in his delivery. I wasn’t convinced he believed his own research.
I tried a keto diet and I gained weight p, then ate a diet with complex carbs and lower fat and lost weight. I don’t think low carbohydrate works for everyone.
maybe,maybe not,my take on it all is this, if i burn up 2000 cals, and i only eat 1500.where does the other 500 come from?. I MUST LOSE WEIGHT. energy cannot be created or destroyed,if i keep doing this i will get smaller, and it is impossible to gain weight,unless you take in more fuel than you use up. what will the extra weight be made from? food, we cannot make it out of oxygen No way round it.sorry to bring the bad news.
not only will your basal metabolic rate (2000) come down to the 1500 you're taking in; in addition, your fat cells will be crazy hungry for energy so they will store a greater percentage of the 1500 calories as soon as they get access to it, and force other cells to make do with whatever is left over, and thereby further bring down the basal metabolic rate. so you gain weight both in the short and long run
It's not "bad news", it's "ignorant news". The villain here is insulin. Let's rule out the perpetually thin people. They can eat whatever the hell they want and it isn't affecting them obviously. In the case of obese persons, and even in people only 30 lbs or so overweight, they almost always are insulin resistant. That means their baseline insulin (when fasted) is higher than Normal Joe. Since carbs have the highest effect to cause spikes of insulin, if Fat Joe consumes carbs in his "1500" calorie "diet", it's going to spike his insulin very high. As such, it can take up to and over 12 hours or more for his insulin to return to baseline. Guess what that insulin is doing the whole time? Blocking his body from using it's own fat. Not because it's evil. But because that's what it does.. It makes sense. Insulin responds to the ingested glucose now in the blood... so it has it's hands full. The body has no reason, in this state, to release *more* glucose from it's own stores of fat. So when Fat Joe eats 1500 calories, but his body wants to use 2000, what's going to happen? If he's eating carbs in there, spiking his insulin? The body simply drops metabolism to match the 1500 calories because that's all it's getting. But if Fat Joe eats his 1500 calories in a way to minimize insulin response, thereby keeping his insulin low? His body simply pulls 500 calories out of the fat stores and totals up 2000 calories for the day. No problem. So yes, the body *does* balance energy out. But only when it's not suffering from the effects of a damaged hormonal system. Which, in the case of obese people, is insulin resistance due to persistently high glucose over a long period of time. There is a reason Type 2 Diabetes is usually called "Adult *Onset* Diabetes".
There may be a small percentage of people who will get fat without eating more than they expend in energy terms but anyone who eats more than they expend in terms of energy will be fat
Except that some people are genetically predisposed to insulin resistance, or to have slower metabolisms. You are simply repeating outdated dogma. I eat more calories on a ketogenic diet than I did when dieting on a high carb diet, and lose weight. My energy levels are much higher, too. Could it POSSIBLY be that what you eat affects energy output??? Nah... Couldn't possibly be that.
Taubes gets owned at 1:19.00 I actually fell for this quack, tip toeing around thermo dynamic questions, when he knows all his diet offers is a way to control satiety more effectively. Eating more fat has no magical effect on your ability to burn fat. And for the last time, your body can store fat without the presence of insulin. Bioavailability protein such as wheyy is just as Inulin promoting as carbs!! You cannot avoid insulin it's so important for human function. The only common ground I have with taubes is that we shouldn't avoid fat altogether... High sugar diets end in hunger and excess hunger ends in Weight gain!! If you overeat any macro nutrient you will get fatter, taubes should just admit his diet is for controlling appetite.
Connor Roche I would take issue with this..."Eating more fat has no magical effect on your ability to burn fat." For one, it's not magical. Secondly, the evidence shows that if you eat fat, your body preferentially burns fat. If you eat carbs, your body preferentially burns glucose. This is the "intuitive" part of the carbohydrate hypothesis that is outright ignored. Instead, we get hung up on "fat makes you fat" which is an over-simplified message and it's incorrect. In fact, "fat makes you thin" if you eat fat and don't overeat. (and as you've readily acknowledged, it's much easier not to overeat on a high fat diet because it controls appetite much better. Furthermore, we have very good explanations for why this should be). Arguably the biggest mistake in this whole public health/dietary recommendations debacle : trying to deliver a simple message when the dynamics are not at all simple. As Einstein said, "make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." Taubes is (mostly) correct. Spot on. The medical and health establishment is wrong and have egg all over their respective faces. (and that's not vegan!)
Connor Roche What did you fall for, Igmo? Taubes is re-offering a hypothesis that was a sound part of scientific discussions and research in Europe before WWII. So you fell for all that research, too, eh? To reduce the theory to its simplest (just for you and your ilk): A high carb diet causes individuals to become obese because carbs increase insulin, which causes fat cells to store fat. Conversely, lower levels of insulin in the blood stream, resulting from substituting protein for carbs in one's diet, causes fat cells to discharge stored fat and use that to fuel the body's activities. Got it? I used Taubes' theory to drop 30 lbs. and have maintained my weight for five years now. The occasional exercise I do is for strength and endurance, not weight maintenance, since "calories-in-calories out" theory simply can't work. Those fancy exercise machines tell me I can run or bike and burn 150 calories an hour. If the energy balance theory was real, I'd have to ride strenuously for twenty hours to burn off those 3,000 calories I consume on a daily basis, which means I'd get no sleep or do any work.....Next time, think about the reality of the situation before your show your damn near total ignorance.
EarlT357 The facts of the matter is, the country whose main source of energy is carbohydrate are the thinnest. The countries who eat more fat are fatter. Now we're just talking about BMI, fat vs lean. Even if you disregard weight completely. Foods high in fat are usually not the very healthy. With a few nuts etc being the exception. Whereas foods high in carbohydrate are often much healthier.
***** It's been debunked. All Asians turned fat over night. What if I told you it's both facts and correlation. Foods high in carbohydrate tend to be much healthier. Like I said. With the exception of a few nuts. Why would high fat foods be healthier?
+Jaxson Jillix The problem with this statement is that it makes food not just what you see in front of you but also some innate way of treatment or sourcing that cannot be quantified by what is in front of you. Why does a carb from a potato chip differ from a carb from a carb from a carrot? The fiber? Well then what if you removed the fiber from the carrot -- would it still be different? It is this "nature* that needs to be scientifically proven, which is Taubes' point. Having said this, there is already plenty of evidence, even if not scientifically proven, that fructose can cause a metabolic syndrome starting from the liver, and that glucose can cause metabolic syndrome from an overall perspective. Fat might indeed make you fat, but doesn't seem to lead to metabolic syndrome. But the several hundreds of patients treated by Dr. Atkins are all anecdotal, even if accepted as part of the evidence.
This is from “ the hungry brain “ by Stephan Guyenet, PhD. In 1965 researchers used a liquid food dispenser in a hospital setting to feed obese volunteers. The contained all nutrients but was bland . The volunteers were able to eat as much us they wanted. The male volunteer ate 275 calories per day. The female 144 calories per day , losing 23 pounds. More volunteers showed similar results . One lost 200 pounds after 185 days . Tim Spencer quoted “ there were no fat people in a concentration camp “ . Zero. This shows that obese people given only BLAND food will not eat much . ( 144 calories /day) . The food you eat are atoms . If you eat more atoms than you use up …you get fat . All those fat people don’t eat….makes me laugh . I am fat, my mother is fat. It is too much atoms ….eat less. What happens if you eat …Nothing …? For two month ? You still gain weight ? A long podcast about bullshit. Try to eat nothing…that works.
@@TonyMontana-hf3gt yes, and not recommended for day to day. However, you once again explained how fasting works. It reduces insulin resistance. Also, clinical studies are not every day life, are they?
I think your understanding of Stephen Guyenet's obesity study is respectfully, narrow sighted. Your evidencery conclusion drifts from a severely restricted caloric diet that provided all of the necessary nutrients, as was provided to Guyenet's subjects, to POW detainees who were given minimal and insufficient nutrition. Yes, people loose weight if their calories are severely restricted. Whether one will reduce their consumption of bland food due to taste is subjective to the availability of other choices and the degree to which you are hungry or starving. Forced starvation is a completely different category. Exess nutrition introduced to someone who is imaciated will not be retained no matter if it is bland, sweet, or savory. And, in that case, one might literally observe atoms in, atoms out, rather abruptly and painfully to the participating subject. Controlled weight loss is not about subjecting one's self to bland food or painful calorie restriction. It's about reducing the intake of food that causes the pancreas to release insulin which negotiates sucrose into your blood cells. If you are overweight your blood cells are overfilled with sucrose. The excess sugars are stored as fat. You can reduce your carbohydrate calories but, if they are still the main source of your nutritional intake you will feel hungry. If you are reducing your calories due to severe metabolic distress, introducing saturated animal fats and proteins into your diet as well as greatly reducing your carbohydrate intake to 20 grams a day, greatly reduces the feeling of hunger, and calorie reduction happens quite naturally due to satiety. We can get all of the essential nutrients from animal fat and protein that we get from any carbohydrate. Our body is more efficient at using nutrients from animal sources. I don't know that there is one essential carbohydrate that we need from plant based foods or from processed carbohydrates. I think Garry Taubes is correct in his journalism research and his conclusions, but then, he is just a messenger. There is a lot of information available on the internet that previously we didn't have access to which backs up his reporting. IMHO
It's mix of carbs and fat making ppl fat, either one on it's own won't, ther's the truth but if u want best health and wellbeing it's less fat and more vegetables and whole foods- near vegan diet
No! It’s CALORIES that are making ppl fat. Despite the many people jumping on the Calories in Calories out is wrong bandwagon, or the anti carb zealots it just isn’t. It cannot be and I notice more and more comments about micro biology, insulin, NEAT, BMR, Thermic effect of food all of which are extremely well understood and confirm perfectly to CICO, being used to muddy the waters for the confused . You simply cannot gain weight (fat) without being in a calorie surplus and yes it’s physics first then biology. Where do people think the magic calories in carbs and fat are coming from to be metabolised into fat stores in the absence of a calorie surplus.
When I was a kid in the late 50s and the 60's I remember my parents always talking about how bread and sweets would make a person fat.
When the food pyramid came along in the 80's I was thoroughly unimpressed. My husband jumped all over the low fat high carb diet idea and immediately gained 75 lbs.
He is my ex now and is, unfortunately, a diabetic.
I remember that when growing up in Mexico City. Mexico and the US take turns these days in obesity
My granny always said avoid bread and sugar "it'll make you fat, you don't need it", guess she was exactly right.
Well, he can fix it, tell him to watch Dr. Ekberg and Dr.Berg videos on Keto diets and intermittent fasting, much shorter that this 2 hr rant.
@@fromthepeanutgallery1084 Here is a quick er solution: granny always said avoid bread and sugar "it'll make you fat, you don't need it", she was exactly right.
@@uploadJ Exactly. No sugar, no processed foods of any kind. Like you say granny (and mom) knew this in the 70's already. End of story.
Like I tell others. One can "live" the Ten Commandments, or one can spend a lifetime studying, rebelling, trying to find a better way.
And in the end, after seventy years of fighting it, find out it was right, and easier, and less time consuming to just do what it says from the start.
Watching this in 2021 I notice how our governments freaked out when the covid graph went up quickly yet do next to nothing about diabetes and obesity going up.
That's because it is PROFITABLE (for SOMEONE) to keep people ADDICTED and FAT. And, also, perhaps --- it was priming people to be susceptible to a spike protein virus. So, that would be effective for their depopulation agendas as well.
@@Dee-ln1ne / Covid was used to test social engineering. Big government always looking for more authority . 😡
Diabetes and Obesity don't kill you or leave you with morbidity in less than 2 weeks like Covid!, or did you not notice the multi-million global death rate. Sure, while arguments about hereditary traits can be had, both these diseases for a significant part of the population are preventable. How difficult is it to comprehend that the typical adult needs only a set amount of calories, eg under 2500 calories, that's daily, NOT EVERY MEAL. So if the typical 3 meal-a-day eaters are ingesting 5,000 calories or grossly more, that's not a government problem, that's a YOU problem. Diabetes in America can be directly attributed to simple over-eating and usually, junk food and snack binging. Yes, we could easily discuss a healthy eating lifestyle, but Americans are seemingly, comfortably finding more and more ways to die fat and young, rather than old and healthy. Do you really need the government to hold your hand and tell you how to eat, really? Either you want to live a healthy life or like an addict, you will create whatever excuse is necessary not to.
@@Dee-ln1ne The depopulation agenda is failing miserably. Human population growth continues, with births exceeding deaths every year, without fail. Try another "theory."
Partly because it’s sloth and gluttony. It’s religious. There is an element of greed as well.
I used to do 3 to 4 hours cardio / week + 2 to 3 hour wt training / week + eating 4 to 5 X per day high carb, low fat.... fine & dandy until hit my late 30s and began to GAIN fat on the same routine. I was flabby & frustrated & not very fertile...& had become insulin resistant / pre diabetic. Now metabolic exercise, often just 2 hours / week + Lower Carb & Higher healthy fat with lot s veggies & protein has been GREAT for my energy, six pack abs + a few other bio hacks have made me a new man at 50 now and about to become a father after giving up before. :-)
Interesting but N=1 anecdotes don’t mean anything. My own for the record is different I am 60 and have eaten pretty much the same all my life including carbs, fats, meat fish lots of fruit and veg. I have always exercised a lot - still cycling 100 miles on a good day plus lift weights. I am at about 15% body fat good blood work etc …..by the way there are no such things as “ bio hacks”. You cannot hack you biology - it’s way too smart for that ! 😉. You can understand it and apply scientific principles and knowledge
@@marcdaniels9079 Biochemistry is pretty diverse. I don't think it is carbohydrates in general that are disproportionately harmful, but a smaller subset. Toxicology also tells us that all toxins depend on dosage. There is also interplay between the physiology, the biochemistry, and human behavior.
So maybe sugar does not cause overeating directly, but it influences biochemistry, which influences behavior, which then causes the observed condition. And I singled out sugar as opposed to, say, oatmeal (which historically was a staple grain of many healthy societies). So, observation might indicate X causes Y, but it takes other fields of research to unlock a mechanism that says X ∴ a ∴ b ∴ c ∴ Y. The existence of steps, a/b/c do not absolve X.
@@dinhnguyen2110 Humans have an evolutionary drive to eat sugar ( and hence like sweet things) for the calories. Same for salt and fat. When these are scarce there is no problem because all the biological mechanisms being used to explain the cause of obesity cannot create fat in a calorie deficit or balance. When there is abundance AND people do not control their food intake then they will gain fat and eventually become obese. So let’s not blame this food or that food - sugar or high fructose corn syrup or whatever. As Arnold famously said: “Put the cookie down”.
It’s not rocket science
@@marcdaniels9079 Something changed in the latter half of the 20th century. And "people got dumber and lazier" is actually a dumb and lazy hypothesis in and of itself.
And we did not evolve with unlimited refined, white powdery or thick syrupy sugar sources.
It's more explanatory, based on historical data, to say that a tipping point can be reached wherein eating enough cookies creates a runaway effect.
Today's grocery stores are the equivalent of a recovering alcoholic going to his grocery store to find it is 80% alcohol. Technically it is still the alcoholic's "fault". But get real.
@@dinhnguyen2110 So don’t eat all those cookies then.
Alcoholics are still accountable for what they put into their bodies. It’s not about who or what is at fault; fault implies failure and blame. It’s about taking responsibility for what we eat and drink.
There have always been highly calorie dense foods available- it’s neither dumb nor lazy to point out that people’s behaviour and habits in how they approach these is more the cause of the problem than their existence.
~ We eat too much sugar , trans fat and carbohydrates . We wear out our pancreas. Many people over 40 are insulin resistant and do not know . 🍉
"We developed a theory of obesity based on the technological tools we had available in the 1910's, 1920's and then we never changed it."
Ace
Not entirely true. It was dramatically changed in the 1970s based on bad science.
I agree with kleanslate. Nutrition science became far worse in the 70s and 80s, probably the result of bad actors than it was in the 20s. Love your videos, by the way.
@@CJP3626
In the 1920s before Insulin was identified and Metformin was isolated from its botantical source.... There was a successful dietary treatment for type 2 diabetes called the Allen Joslin starvation diet..... it is the precursor to Dr Jason Fung's Intermittent Fasting - Ketogenic diet Therapy for reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
There was a cancer treatment called the Gerson Therapy used between 1920-1940 for skin cancer. The treatment worked by flushing the digestive system of toxins out of the colon/GI tract with coffee and then switching the diet to an organic vegan foods... and yes reportedly it worked... its not talked about much today because there is no big money to be earned from it ..
you cannot convince some people that calories in calories out is valid in health OR losing weight. It is obvious not all calories have the same effect on the body. These same people think that fat makes you fat and a low fat low salt diet is the healthiest diet and if you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more. Thank you Gary for being one of the pioneers that are the reason I am now super healthy and without fat.
Because it isn't. lol
@@siempreseagull2 sorry that is not valid
Taubes is a brilliant man. Glad he tackled this problem. He is saving lives.
Who has ever succeeded with saving a single life ? In the end all are lost !
Has he? how? Then why has life expectancy in the US dropped by record 2 years in 2020?
This is a simple overview of the topic, but the best parts of this talk are the historical references to 'common knowledge' at the time, including the Dr. Spock raising children books. Shocking. I thought Atkins discovered hidden knowledge, but now it seems that his contribution was to simplify the formula for consumers and publish it in the face of the AMA. Still deserves a lot of credit.
Xxxxxxxxv
When I was growing up in Mexico, potatoes, tortillas, bolillos, we’re fattening. So we were told to watch the consumption of these. Beans less so, because of the fiber it turns out. Then 1977 and brother in medical school happened. Need I mention the rest is history? I started losing weight after ten years or more, of trying the standard way. You know exercise, counting calories. I was in a bariatric program. I got a tooth infection, a serious one. Accidentally started fasting (it hurt to eat) and eating low carb…still some of my choices were terrible. Three years on I now do IF and Keto consciously. I have lost over 50 pounds, more like sixty. Healthier than ever.
@@nadinabbott3991 congratulations! I have managed to lose weight and stop my tooth inflammation too :) Hope you are still well.
Dr. Atkins was a cardiologist, unlike these reporters.
In Finland it was the same as everywhere else. It was the modern European, American junk food diet. Added sugar and seed oils.
The whole argument around the .laws of thermodynamics when applied to weight gain, or loss, is deeply flawed - because it ignores biology. Animals, even human animals, are not machines. Nor are we closed systems.
In addition to fat storage, or what we think of as exercize, there are many other ways the body can use 'excess' calories - heat generation, energy released via respiration (ketones on the breath is one example), and excretion are three examples.
However, those options are controlled to a great extent by the type of calorie consumed.
One aspect which Taubes and others, mention is whether and how much insulin is triggered by the foods (or food-like substances) we consume.
Anecdotally, a number of people have reported eating high levels of caloric intake comprised mostly of fat, with moderate or relatively moderate protein levels, and have reported that they either gained no weight, or very little. Or, they report gaining a small amount of weight while gaining nothing around their waists, and not visibly becoming 'fatter'.
Of course more studies would be a good idea - well designed studies, without bias.
In the meantime, we are all either unwitting participants in a vast, uncontrolled experiment... or we can run our own N=1 experiments.
It is worth noting that those who seem to do well on a high-carb (sugar and starch) diet, are less and less and less likely to continue to do well eating that way as the decades go by. Remember, even many who appear thin are accumulating fat in and/or around their visceral organs - which can be very dangerous.
argument around the .laws of thermodynamics when applied to weight gain, or loss, is deeply flawed - because it ignores biology
Most wild animals are in survival mode by the environmental design and absence of greed Nor do they have farms and superstores to pick up groceries from. Prehistoric hunter gatherer were barely able to get enough food to be able to fat enough to procreate. The real evil thing with humans is the coal gas and oil. That made it so easy to produce plenty of food without dragging your ass all over town all day. The PR firms hired by the fast food joints brain washing humans dont help. Over 80% of Americans are addicted to junk food and sodas. They are the killer foods. The underlying mechanisms of obesity are very complex and at least 4-6 different routes work among people. Men get different obesity than women. It is sure not thernodyamic alone which does play a role. But there are tools that body can use to shed excess of any chemical or energy. So in addition to a glut of calories there has to be breakdown of those tools that body needs to shed the overload. That can happen in at least half a dozen points in the metabolic pathways. It is complex mess. Not for the simpletons to debate about.
I'm not into physics but the flaw I'm hearing is more about the fuel and not the engine.
My car runs best on gas, but I could conceivably use other fuels (like peanut oil) to run it. Will my car run just as well with peanut oil or even ethanol as it does with gasoline?
yep. it takes a while. catches up w/ one, sometimes quickly too!
I love Gary Taubes!
Good looking man sure. You seem to have hots for him!
@@sleepsmartsmashstress740
You seem to want to get hurt.
@@sleepsmartsmashstress740 what's the deal with your negative comments and the seeming need to post negative comments about someone who has worked very hard and put together helpful information? and then your comment about having the "hots" for someone is totally out of place. Stop acting like a total jerk.
I think it's the addictive nature of foods.
Because when I eat carb foods, I feel satiated and full. So, the fullness and satiety hormones do work! But I keep eating in spite of fullness and satisfaction. And the reason I keep eating is because of the hyper-palatable sweetness. It's like a drug - feelings of "high" override the feelings of "stuffed". So, I stop eating when it severely hurts already - the feeling like my stomach is about to rupture and I can barely breathe and possibly die in a moment. The feeling is so bad that I always think of maybe calling 911 for help. That type of binge happened to me every time I ate a mixture of refined carbs with fats: cheesecakes, pastries, chocolates, cookies, etc.
Today I call that type of food an addictive drug. I guess, such eating over long time can lead to insulin resistance, which in turn, will lead to overeating more and more until a person gets diagnosed with either morbid obesity or diabetes 2.
What this guy fails to include is the effects of the introduction of modern industrial created seed oils have had on fat cells. Excess linoleic acid (PUFAs) makes the fat cell LOCALLY insulin sensitive. It affects the Krebs cycle in the mitochondria of the fat cell, creating a decrease in ROS (reactive oxygen species) which makes it so that the fat cell will keep taking in more triglycerides even to the point of rupturing the cell. If one eliminates seed oils from one’s diet, then the percentage of omega 6 to omega 3 will decrease and the fat cells in the body become LOCALLY insulin resistant. Local insulin resistance at the level of the fat cell is good (pathological insulin resistance at the level of the whole body is not good). When the fat cell is locally insulin resistant ( the mitochondria are burning saturated fat and the Krebs cycle is functioning properly), then the fat cell will resist the intake of triglycerides and instead the body will up regulate energy burning (urges to move/exercise) and the person remains slim and close to proper body weight. This guy keeps banging on sugar and carbs.. but they are not the real culprits of diseases like obesity and diabetes. The chronic metabolic dysfunction that occurs because of the incredibly high levels of industrial seed oils is a huge factor. We need to eat more saturated fat (and cholesterol) in our diets.
Agreed!!! Paul Saladino & Chris Knobbe discuss this. Paul Saladino also discusses what you're talking about with Tucker Goodrich and Hyperlipid. On TH-cam
A lot of the industrial foods gave them. But it’s really a combo…
Watch more of his work. He discusses it.
It's simply both, and sometimes in one person is mostly by carbs and in the other is mostly by PUFAs. I am from Poland, here we have mostly sunflower and rapeseed oils, more people still use lard, then I suppose in US. Health aware people use olive oil and coconut oil. But we have loads of carbs in our stores. And I see more and more people eating whole-grain snacks. And we are getting fatter.
The problem is that while I agree that both carbs (especially refined carbs and sugar) and seed oils are co-causes of chronic disease, the science to robustly prove causality hasn't been done, because of the dominance of conventional ideas like the diet heart hypothesis (aka lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease), which are taught as proven fact and assumed by most professional scientists and clinicians to be proven fact, with no need for further study for either the dominant idea or any alternatives. Until we can crack this arrogant and anti-scientific attitude of "the science is settled", then it is going to take a long time and lot of motivated and expensive effort by individuals on the fringe like Gary Taubes to do the hard scientific leg work that needs doing to provide the proof both that the consensus views are wrong, and that the alternative views many of us believe are in fact the correct alternative views.
In 2018 I lost 100lbs, and I didn't do one exercise. I did it all through changing my diet.
How?
Medifast
Abs are made in the kitchen. Change your diet and you can lose weight for the most part. You can't outrun a bad diet. Losing fat is one thing, building muscle is another though. Congrats on your weightloss success.
Thank you. Losing it was the easy part. Keeping it off has been the real challenge.
I worked at an orphanage in Mexico for five years and I observed many times an overweight mother holding a malnourished child, and they do eat an insanely starchy diet of potatoes, pasta, rice, beans, polenta, tortillas, chayotes, elote, maiz, bolillo and bilote I always assumed it was genetic and part of the "lifecycle" of aging. So for example, at the age of four months, a womans cuts her first tooth, at the age of 13 she menstruates, and at the age of 25 a woman will begin packing on some weight. The babies I presumed to be picky eaters who just intermittently suffer diarrhea from e coli, salmonella, giardia lamblia and lumbrisas, (tapeworms)
I observed same wen watched documentary of tarahumara
Women r really fat cz they dunt run like men...and run on carbs
Anyone ever suspect our mass endocrine problems that cause obesity and diabetes was probably because of pesticides? Pesticide mass usage was around the same time when the obesity-diabetes epidemic started...
that is what it does to the bug/plant - the same so as to destroy the pest/weeds. what do you think are/is the process(es) by which these poisons work?
B12 deficiency apparently influences insulin resistance
Thanks for the amazing insights
Blame it on Linoleic Acid which is in all vegetable oils. The linoleic acid makes you gain weight. That is why everyone is getting so fat so easy. Any excess sugar and carbs from flour products just adds fuel to the fire. If you are not fasting and maintaining a high metabolism with exercise, then you are gaining weight.
Excellent... the feedback from the Mic was a little difficult .
Great info
I find it amazing that educated people have a hard time with the idea that although calories must be taken in ,to be expended constructively, that there are factors of waste and accumulation which alter the expenditure/constructive yield for a given level of intake.
Likewise, it's amazing that in the last fifty years, the summary statement about carbs being fattening , is still subject to
Doubt.
This is great. I've watched other videos produced by Gary Taubes that discuss refined carbs and how they make a person fat. This lecture expands on this and explains the science behind it.
All carbs make fat. Refined carbs are just a little more affective.
This is sooooo well explained! Thank you for your monstrous work!!!! Greetings from Sweden.
Thanks sir from India
Love that baby and bath water picture
Weird that there is almost zero mention of insulin resistance in the first 20 mins. If your insulin is too high and you are resistant, you are either gonna pile on pounds or not lose weight.
insulin resistance in one proposal I make is a suicide mission of the body. The body decides to stop eating glucose even with sky high levels in the blood. That is insulin resistance. Think of kids on Sunday morning refusing to come down for breakfast. So it is hard to get past that suicide mission of the body by starving itself to death. How and why bodies decide to go on this hunger strike is what I am drying to dig up.
Watch longer, it's mentioned in great detail later on
Better yet. Read his books. He is greatly condensing the science in this presentation.
This us a summary of a lot of the science and building to it for these students.
@@sleepsmartsmashstress740 It's pretty basic science, I am surprised so many people including yourself aren't aware but it's just downregulating insulin receptor channels due to over activation from insulin. It's the same reason why drug users need larger amounts of drugs for the same highs. The body responds to over activation through downregulation of the receptors that utilize or are activated by that specific chemical. The opposite is also true, in that the lack of activation will upregulate that receptor.
The professor’s question at the end about a 4000 calorie increase was interestingly irrelevant. He admits that it would be extremely difficult to get people to overeat fat, but simple to do for carbohydrate.
There’s the obesity epidemic right there.
What are Americans consuming today that they weren’t in 1965? Massive levels of carbohydrate.
And polyunsaturated oils.
Q? What carbohydrates specifically are Americans consuming today that they weren't in 1965?
Steve Green high fructose corn syrup did not exist in 1965. The obesity surge started shortly after Coke changed recipe and tried "New Coke". Consumer wanted the Coke they already knew... so, they called it Classic Coke, but did not go back to cane sugar. Still HFCS . Not the whole thing, but a clear example. BTW if you can get it, try a Coke from Mexico. Whole new flavor, that is what it used to taste like
@@meman6964
You are right that high fructose corn syrup is a new addition, but I don’t think it is the real culprit in the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Australia banned the stuff but is right behind the U.S. in heading off the cliff into metabolic disease. They imitated our USDA food pyramid and push ‘Grains for brekkie’.
@@stevegreen243 high fructose corn syrup in there soft drinks!🤠
On past traditional diets I noticed I had no energy, and my activity level and metabolism slowed to offset my body's reaction to being "starved" Clearly my ancestors survived the Irish potato famine, and passed me their genetic ability to gain weight and then hang on to it throughout a famine like a bear hibernating on the power saver setting The Atkins diet didn't seem to trip this switch like a potato based diet might do
+Lorena Smith your full of shit. no such thing as the thrifty gene.
+Ashley W. Why the over kill towards another human being? What was the horrible crime she committed to requite telling her she if essential all shit? My lord! and you ought to apologize to her.
Ashley W.
What a childish nonsensical comment! Grow up!
@@shelleyofthered9062 Ashley doesn't get invited to many parties!!!! Wanna bet!!!!
@@urbanaj4472 It's called a slow thyroid, you dull unempathetic being. There is such a thing. It happens due to ancestors starving, babies being born underweight and getting fat on very little carbs as an adaption to the past starving.
@1:18:31 This guy says in 30 seconds, what it took Gary an hour to say.
If that guy didn't make that statement, I'd have no idea what Gary's message and point was.
same thought!! Taubes never gave a concluding statement.
Is there any research into whether the use of agricultural chemicals is the culprit?
In the "calories in, energy expended" model. Would not one have to calculate the number of calories excreted in pee, poop, sweat, and brearh? I mean my poop must have some calories in it ir else worms would not like it so much. And I have a hard time believing that my poop on a keto diet would have the exact same calories (degrees of energy) that my poop would have if I ate only big macs?
Am I missing something?
Gary Taubes does not merely challenge the "Move More, Eat Less" conventional wisdom. He exposes it to the ridicule that it deserves.
Listening taubes it is more than food
This is a lot of great info. Add leptin and the neural circuit (which I saw in another informative lecture) and it gives us so much more understanding than we’ve ever had in regards to obesity. I am so excited that there could be more potential for the next generation to not suffer through obesity to the same degree as our recent generations. I’ve already lost a parent to obesity related causes and I’m headed that way too.
That finland reference was interesting. North Karelia. They reduced smoking. They didn't mention alcohol consumption. There are lots of factors going on with that one. One is reduced fat maybe, but they reduced bread intake, if you reduce butter/margarine intake. In general. I bet they kept up with fatty fish and preserved/picked things. But this type of modification was broad brush. The carb lovers are always a bit more full/robust looking. Asking the questions or challenging Gary.
They measured total serum cholesterol. No differentiation of HDL, LDL Apo-A, B, etc. or triglycerides.
".....why Bill Gates got rich? Cause he took in more money than he spent". LMFAO. Perfect analogy.
Why did I talk so fast? He was breathless! I couldn’t keep up
No CC, so can add closed caption
He starts off treating obesity as a cause of heart disease and other problems, but correlation isn't causation. Obesity is a symptom of an underlying metabolic disorder. Thomas Seyfried speaks at length on this in the context of cancer in his presentation at the January 2016 metabolic therapeutics conference. Mary Newport does likewise in the context of Alzheimer's at the same conference.
No obesity is not a symptom of an underlying medical condition. It is the result of being in a chronic calorie surplus. Without that surplus none of the mechanisms which are thrown around like confetti to show causation apply. Are you really suggesting that all the obese people in the world have somehow developed an underlying medical condition since the start of the epidemic, or were born with one ?
@@marcdaniels9079 no one is tilting at your strawman windmill. Calories in vs calories out does not pass muster, and in fact has been proven insufficient.
@@elibennett3034 I have not used a straw man and neither is one required to defeat such a fatuous proposition that obesity is caused by an underlying medical condition. Simply asserting that CICO does not pass muster is like a child putting its fingers in its ears and saying la la la. Please explain how people can become obese without being in a chronic calorie surplus. What magic is at play to create increase in fat mass without any energy being used?
@@marcdaniels9079 not sure if you noticed, but there is this video that we are commenting on here, and the guy that speaks in it? He's like really knowledgable and stuff, and you might, you know, what to watch it? Because he does a very good job of explaining it.
But I guess I will give it a shot. The human body is not a machine with a gas tank. It is a biological entity with exquisite control of many facets of its operation. Is the same way that the pH of our body is not a product of ions in vs ions out, neither is caloric intake. We have many means of dealing with excess calories in: generating extra heat, excretion, and storage in adipose tissue (I may be forgetting some). When insulin is present in the blood, we can only place extra glucose in fat. When insulin is not present, we can draw from fat. Insulin is produced in response to glucose levels in the blood. When you are eating no or low carbs, your body will run off of ketones made from fat. As this does not raise blood insulin, any momentary lack of ketones is replaced quickly from fat. Any extra ketones are excreted in urine. Therefore in order to gain weight you MUST have insulin present. Insulin is chronically over produced in people with the *medical disorder* called metabolic syndrome, making it nearly impossible to *not* gain weight unless you eliminate carb sources if you have this disorder (which is caused by over-consuming carbs, btw). As a result, if you are getting you calories from fat you will not gain weight and will lose if you under eat. But if you get your calories from carbs, you will gain weight from any excess and only lose weight when you stop eating long enough to completely eliminate insulin from your blood, which is almost impossible if you are eating carbs AND have metabolic syndrome.
Now, I have given you a good-faith answer. Please, PLEASE, go and educate yourself so you don't come off like an abrasive troll. My prediction is that you will ignore the substance of my comment and either reply with cringy pith or just ignore it completely and continue to post your garbage elsewhere in these comments. Prove me wrong.
@@elibennett3034 I suggest watching this to educate yourself.
The only thing I can understand is my own experience.
I lived in Korea for 2 years. By the end of the first year I must have lost at least 40 pounds. My clothes were falling off of me and I really didn't know why. Because I wasn't trying to lose weight at all. actually when I first got there we were doing a lot of feasting at people's houses eating until we could bust, because the food was so good. I ate what the average Korean person ate because I was living with Korean people. Rice three times a day with the kimchi and vegetables and very little meat. We had Korean snacks, but they didn't have the intensity of flavor as the American snacks.
But me and my American friends found a bakery. And then on my own I found a store that sold American food and snacks. Pancake mix and syrup and peanut butter and jelly and candy bars. My second year I gained half of my weight back.
After I came back to the United States I gained back the other 20 pounds.
Well that's my experience. The Korean diet really works.
alcoholic beverages are often omitted from these inquiries. ever heard the expression, 'choose your poison?' and thinking of such, consider as well the chemicals we consume in the way of artificial this & that, gmos, pesticides, and phamaceuticals. not so healthy, is it?
maybe its the rounduup in the sugar corn soy wheat,,,people have always eat sugar
This is the most powerful presentation on obesity I've ever seen. I have never seen the counter-arguments he starts this presentation with. Fascinating. Every doctor should watch it. At 1 hour 35 minutes an excellent and still unresolved point was made that while obesity can be connected to heart attacks, there are cultures that are thin and have high levels of heart attacks. So there is still this question of saturated fat and heart attacks. It has been proven that Low Carb high fat diets can be connected to higher incidents of heart attacks even though it is associated with lower incidents of obesity, meatabolic syndrome and diabetes. I'm a low carb eater, but I am constantly exploring this question and it is a real question of a high fat diet in spite of what low carb proponents might say about individual indicators.
Obesity is only one route to oxidative stress. Low consumption of antioxidants and high consumption of inflammatory substances like arachadonic acid (mostly found in meat and eggs) is another.
If "it's been proven", cite the proof. Or stuff your Straw Man argument.
I'm 63, and growing up soda was allowed on rare occasions, such as a family picnic or birthday party. Probably 3 or 4 times a year. Meals were appropriating balanced and eaten as a family. There was no such thing as snacking; "It will spoil your dinner". Thing is; we were not anomalies, most people lived like that and fat people were topics of conversation, owing to their rarity. Today, little children are commonly obese.
Obese twins and lean wins could be coming out of a similar family situation and have similar psychology, eating habits attitudes about food and values about sports and exercise could run in the family to some extent
+Lorena Smith That's why we have psychologists treating obesity this days. Results - AMAZING.
There have been studies on identical twins who were separated early in life and had different upbringings. In spite of that, there is evidence that their genetics affect their chance of becoming obese.
How can you explain a man and wife that eat the basic same diet and he stays skinny but she becomes morbid obese. Then later he developes a huge desire for candy and sweets and she diets year after year and he is still skinny and she still same obese. She diet extreme low fat first then extreme low carb most recent. Still obese. I am her sister and my mom and siblings all have major problems with obesity. Thank you I enjoyed your talk and hard work.
Genetics. Have her try keto
She is genetically predisposed to insulin resistance, he is not. All the science is out there to explain these simple questions. That's why obesity runs in families. A man and wife (generally) don't share the same genetic code, which is why they can eat the same food and have vastly different outcomes.
Yeah, regarding the discussion/question around 1:19:00, Sam Feltham claims to have done an overfeeding study on himself with two isocaloric diets, one high fat, one high carb, (5000 calories) done for 3 weeks, with a "washout" period in between, AND with the SAME amount of exercise performed during each diet. The result was that he gained considerably more weight (more than twice as much) on the high carb, 5000 calorie diet.
Interestingly, even though he did gain weight on the high fat diet, he claims his waist measurement decreased slightly nonetheless. This, I think, is particularly noteworthy.
joe schmo Read this:
Some people may worry that eating foods rich in fat, particularly saturated fat, will increase their risk of getting heart disease. A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition says this isn't so. Researchers at Harvard School of Public Health and the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute pulled together all the studies that have been published over the last couple of decades with data for dietary saturated fat intake and risk of cardiovascular disease. This meta-analysis study included data from 21 previous studies involving nearly 350,000 subjects. The focus of this study was to determine if there was sufficient evidence linking saturated fat consumption to heart disease. Their results said "no." Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Those people who ate the greatest amount of saturated fat were no more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke than those who ate the least. Those people who ate bacon, eggs, and steak every day had no more incidence of heart disease than vegetarians who never touched meat, dairy, or eggs. It didn't matter how much saturated fat one ate, the incidence of heart disease was not affected.10 This study was important because it provided definitive proof that saturated fat consumption does not lead to heart disease.Low-fat diets are dangerous. They do not protect against heart disease nor do they prevent obesity. They starve the body of the lipid building blocks needed to achieve and maintain healthy brain function, thus lowering cognitive performance and increasing the risk of Alzheimer's. Including good sources of fat in the diet is a smart way to help protect yourself against Alzheimer's.
+joe schmo
>Sam Feltham
>Ectomorph with super fast metabolic rate
>He actually had a six pack and considerable muscle mass back a years ago, but now he's lost his musculature...all thanks to the primal "smarter" science of exercising for 4 minutes a week. LOL
+Myth Buster A six pack isn't everything. Though I've heard the girls tend to admire them. I think they just like someone who looks normal and proportional, not too skinny, not too muscular, you know, average.
+joe schmo Get rid of the girl lol!
+EarlT357
What is the name of the study?
Sound 1:30:00
His opening statements. That was the Egyptians, i think. The gorged on the good stuff and didn't hunt as often as other areas of the world.
If you overeat fat and only fat there's only one place it ends up... down the toilet bowl. Carbs and sugar end up as fat.
Not really. It's actually easier for the body to burn carbohydrates as fuel, than to turn carbohydrates into fat. Fat itself from your diet is relatively easy to store, as it doesn't require the additional steps by the liver.
@@Magnulus76 The liver stores only fructose. Look out. The body has no use at all for fructose. The body (when we ate naturally) would store fructose from fruit in the Autumn when it grew on trees. Trees only grow fruit once a year to fatten us up for winter. That's when the bears eat all the fruit like berries, they can find. All the animals will do this, and this is what we used to do. Now we have more fruit than we know what to do with, it's on our tables, in the supermarkets all year round. Sugar is fifty percent fructose as well. It's dangerous stuff. It causes fatty liver disease, heart and type 2., Obesity. Not to mention mental ills. We're not supposed to consume this much fructose.
We've always eaten fat but sugar has never been part of our natural diet. Just like the seed oils on the supermarket shelves it's been crushed and added to our food in abundance. We don't need it and it's killing us. It's added to everything on the supermarket shelf.
@@toni4729 Well, a carbohydrate rich food like rice or a potato has no fructose.
@@Magnulus76 It still adds to the problem as any asian would tell you. They have more type 2 now than the west.
@@Magnulus76 If you think living on that stuff is good for you fine. Cancer lives on it too.
this fucked me up real good
Dr. David Diamond has a video showing an experiment where carbohydrates produce fat in the blood. Where as a high fat diet the blood was clear of fat. Carbs are made into fat by the body.
Intermittent fasting works for most regular people on reducing obesity.
But who wants to feel like they're starving to death? And once you resume eating what you were before, all the weight you lost will come right back.
I agree entirely intermittent fasting works for helping insulin resistance- weight normalising and weight loss. You are not hungry and you feel better all day. I eat OMAD after work Monday to Friday and when I like Sat and Sund.
28:53 - this is what I do, lol
my 2 cents: you stop thinking and you end up like these ppl (experts:but empty)-2021
? = the worth of your statement.
1:22:00 Hadn't that guy from the College of Medicine ever heard of glucagon? 4000 calories of insulin-stimulating carbs does not equal 4000 calories of glucagon-stimulating lipids, as far as adipocyte accumulation.
It's insulin that causes fat storage ( eating too often) See David Fung on TH-cam
*Jason* Fung
18:20 It's a difference of belief systems indeed. It's very easy for comfortable, middle-class people to say they'd give up calories so their children could eat. But I can tell you, as one of those erstwhile emaciated, stunted children, with 4 emaciated, stunted siblings, and an overweight single mother, that indeed, a hell of a lot of mothers will let their children go hungry so they can eat a Snickers bar.
And for those children, indeed, McDonald's was a rare thing, I think we may have eaten there three times. Not three times a month, or three times a year, but three times total.
We ate a lot of junk, and a lot of what would be considered healthy because it was foraged from local plants and fruit trees or it was fish I caught. But the total calories were low. School lunches, provided free because we were so poor, were a Godsend.
So I disagree with you that it's not an "obesogenic" environment because, knowing what I know from being a hungry kid to a hungry teen to a less hungry young adult but still living on a lot less than what is standard for Americans, in America myself, and now a puzzled, overweight, middle-aged adult, yes the environment is "obesogenic".
We were surrounded by, growing up, a lot of Pacific Islanders who were poor, but weren't as emaciated and stunted as we were. This was for a few reasons: They ate their traditional foods, which are a better way to obtain calories for the dollar than the stuff Mom threw at us. They valued their children more than children were valued in 1970s American culture. Pacific Islanders have very thrifty genes. And they were either Mormons, an American religions that is unusual in that it looks out for its members who are poor, or integrated in their traditional social structures, complete with local chiefs, who made sure they didn't have to live for a week on flour-and-water pancakes like we did. You had a problem; you went to the chief. Hell even we went to the chief once to get some stolen bikes back and sure enough, we got 'em back.
So a lot of what you say about society is a lot of hooey. But I am not watching this for what you think about overweight African mothers, I'm here to hear about what carbohydrates and fats do in the body and how to eat in our modern obesogenic environment to get get fat and sick.
I'm going to add to this to say that not only were the Pacific Islanders I grew up around not skinny except for very rare cases, but they tended toward plumpness as kids and the adults tended to be obese again with very rare exceptions. One feature that was different was, a drink called Malolo. Now, there's presently a fascination with Hawaiian things, and Hawaiian foods and things are becoming popular on the Mainland US now, but somehow no one seems to be too nostalgic over - or even remember the ubiquity of - a sugar syrup that came in 1-gallon plastic jugs with a finger ring for a handle and a colorful label with a picture of the statue of liberty and the name Malolo, Hawaiian for flying fish. It made about as much sense as many product names there. This was drunk in place of water by everyone aged about 5 to 95 among our neighbors. Pure sugar and chemicals, with flavors like Fruit Punch and Grape and I think there was a lemon-lime and an orange, but the Fruit Punch flavor was by far the favorite. Kids went around with artificially-red mouths looking like characters in the old Clutch Cargo cartoon. Ice pops were made with it and smoothies, but mostly it was just drunk, all day every day. Water was considered harsh or yukky or barbarous, or something. We could generally not afford Malolo. We had it once in a while, but we just drank tons of water. Sodas were also very popular; a rare treat for us and a much more common treat for our neighbors, especially when bought in bulk. There was a lot of tooth decay.
So it's long been sugar, sugar, sugar. Cheap sugar. Cheap starches. The poor going through their lives on the equivalent of George Orwell's "Tea and two slices" the poor of Wigan were given a few times a day, the tea with sugar of course and the two slices of bread slathered with margarine. Even in his day, dripping was considered a real downgrade from some nice modern hydrogenated fats.
Wow.
The northern Europeans and southern Europeans had very different diets for thousand generations and it selected for genetics, or not.
is it genes or what they are fed, angus likely fed corn, holstein eats grass, I guess this proves Gary's point
So, if insulin is the problem, why these tribe people were obese in different places? I think it is totally something else, like virus or some added substance which is going to this category "sorry but we couldn't think of this". Maybe obesity is only thing this thing causes and it makes the obese problem long term. The finn-thing (as being one) has a lot of open ends. We ate a lot of salt, also those men had alcohol and smoke problems. As for now we have big problem with diabetes. So, maybe this should really been investigated more. As a curiosity, I just looked at video about how farmers get pigs fat. They know just what to feed to them. It's grains..
Grains are at the base of the food pyramid…1977. That is when we went low fat
Body set point. If it is calories in calories out, tell me how it's possible for a person to maintain a consistent weight, when obviously their caloric intake varies from day to day.
Because fat doesn't appear overnight! It's sort of a warehouse... If you keep balancing it you probably end up with a tidy warehouse. If not you can end on both ends of the spectrum! So If I had been eating crap, I'm going to see the results the week or the month later.... It's not an instantaneous process! I actually did the experiment... And let me tell you, I got fat almost 1 year later. And this depends also on the metabolism of a person. It can happen in a month (slow metabolism) or it can happen in a year (fast metabolism). This is a combination of factors and not just 1 thing. Even if I did eat healthy ALL the time but I didn't exercise... I'm going to gain weight at some point for sure.
All this people saying that it isn't all about calories in/out.... Yeah it is!!! It is, basically! You can look and have different approaches but that principle is going to stay there no matter what
Childhood vaxines have got to be considered responsible in large part
The word is vaccines, and no, they are not. Stop being ignorant.
Vaxines are destroyers.
A mate of mine got polio from the polio vaccine administered at his school fifty years ago. He's had a pronounced limp ever since and an inability to play sport, walk properly and, of course, find a girl to marry.
Thanks, vaxines!
The convid waxeen is living up to expectations.
People are dropping like flies, who have that.
Yep! You can trust medicine, can't you!
Proposal: (re:audience question at 1:20:35) If the Randle cycle is active, ie, fats and sugars ingested simultaneously, then the optimal metabolic rate will never be achieved. and I contend, that a faster metabolic rate will be recognized if one is eating strictly carbs or strictly fats as a macro nutrient. Feedback appreciated
I can't cite the details but I have seen, from Ben Bikman I think, that I sulin rises much higher, and stays higher longer, when both are eaten together. Since insulin is anabolic, it "shouts down" glucagon, the opponent catabolic driver, and fat is accordingly stored.
A faster metabolic rate will be achieved only when high fat is ingested in the absence of carbs. Carbs > insulin ... Slows down the metabolism. Some people have such high genetic metabolic rates that they can have a fast metabolism in spite of eating many carbs. These people age faster too. Its not a blessing.
Except the whole concept of "carb coma" directly disputes the idea that a high carb diet will result in an increased metabolism. This ish ain't rocket science. If you fat-adapt on a ketogenic diet, you open up your fat stores for an unlimited amount oif energy, at all times. When you eat carbs, you blood sugar spikes, and then immediately drops. When it drops, you suffer from a lack of energy. Which is the experience of pretty much every person who ingests a large portion of their diet through simple carbs. There's a REASON for the common saying "I eat Chinese food, and I am hungry an hour later." It's because you get an immediate blood sugar spike as soon as you eat the rice, and the body oversecretes insulin in response to high blood sugar levels. As soon as the blood sugar is driven down by large amounts of inulin, the low blood sugar signals the brain that you are hungry again, and you want to go back for more carbs.
On a ketogenic diet, there is no blood sugar spike to fool the brain into thinking you are hungry, which is why appetite is naturally controlled on the diet.
@@ShortBusRuss I totally agree: carbohydrate based diet is far less than optimal.
High fructose corn fillers
Nah it's the RICE
This prompted me to eat some cheese.
The most persuasive part of this was when Henry Ginsberg opened his dumb mouth. He's either incompetent or slept through the entire lecture.
Getting fatter and fatter. Could it be that body in its wisdom is trying to get nutrients from the increasingly devitalized food? So, body is asking for more of quality nutrients and we keep feeding it a crap. That is mostly due to the overuse of Glyphosate pesticide (used heavily in the GMO's) that blocks plant from getting nutrients from the soil, which is devitalized to start with by planting monocultures year after year, and by the use of artificial fertilizers.
+Mi Ri
Yes, part of the issue is nutritional density. Another is simply whether the food has organic material in it and how much, you know, like bacteria and stuff. The more processed the food is, the more refined, the less organic material and the less happy the microorganisms living in the human gut are. Furthermore, when the gut bacteria are unhealthy and unbalanced so too the human organism becomes metabolically dysregulated and unhealthy. But Taubes' insulin hypothesis is definitely the place to start looking. That means, looking at what conditions promote hyperinsulinemia.
I think it has something to do with metabolism
What was your first clue?
Man, this dude is choking while speaking, it is hard to listen, I am literally losing breath.
Yes the Emperor is wearing no clothes - and the Emperor is carrying a great deal of unhealthy amount of fat... everyone is eating too many carbohydrates too many calories.. carbs are economically subsidized but healthy veggies are not subsidized... no to low fat hi carb diets causes people to eat more because fat is needed to trigger hormones for satiety - the metabolism regulates carbs fat proteins --- in many animals a metabolism will increase levels of fat during the summer-fall before the winter To protect an animal from starvation during the winter so in many animals during the winter the metabolism burns fat more than glucose .There are two different types of human fat cells and and these two different types serve two distinct secondary uses: (1) Visceral adipose tissue - which protect vital organs (2) subcutaneous fat - which protects the muscles joints and bones ..fat cells is like the bubble wrap in a parcel package.... its your body's natural air bag/bumper system...One might also say there is a third use of fat cells for sexual reproduction: A young women's breast often a focus of sexual health but we know it is primarily made up of fat cells ...Lastly....It is a well know lab rat experiment that has been duplicated time and time again ---that if a skinny rat's colon flora (bacterium ) is transplanted to a fat rat's colon - you'll make the fat rat skinny. Why?? because the colon flora (bacterium) sends out /controls most of the hormones to the brain that is controlling the metabolism. The colon micro flora which is composed of 500 t0 10,000 different strains of bacteria, fungi,.. nobody's extended this hypothesis for humans yet - so there is a possibility of a Ph D dissertation opportunity there if you can get approval for human trials...The colon flora bacterium/fungi makeup is dynamic = it is most diverse during the first 12 months of life and the least diverse during the last 12 months of life.
1. No not everyone is eating too much carbs and too many calories - silly assertion. By the way have you heard of the Tour de France? In the alps the guys consume 6/7000 calories a day of carbs - they are not overweight or obese and they don’t have diabetes or insulin resistance … ask yourself why
2. Rat studies are famous for not transferring to humans. We are not rats
@@marcdaniels9079 1. Athletes and soldiers fighting in a combat zone can easily burn 4000 to 8000 calories per day - but most people in America lead a less physically active life that burns less than 2000 calories per day but eat too many carbohydrates/sugars/starches in their diet. Fructose being the sugar having the highest glycemic index ...going directly into the blood stream the fastest. 2. The experimental results for dietary caloric restriction/Intermittent fasting has consistent shown the same effect across not just rats and mice and men but other animals as well.
The fat makeup is part of it as others pointed out. A calorie is definitely not a calorie in regards to insulin performance or adiposity.
It wouldn’t be because people eat too much crap food, would it? Nah. That theory wouldn’t get funded.
FINALLY! One down to earth (pun unintended) conclusion...... from basement dwellers, happen to be. TO MUCH PROCESSED FOOD
"Biblically this would be known as glutenous and sloth"
Biblically the Daniel diet works and isn’t what we eat or what he’s talking about you should eat.
1:00:00 insulin makes fat
Insulin is a fat storage hormone x
Need more lights.
Now, six years later you must know the evidence is overwhelming and you're absolutely right. It's time to pat yourself on the back.😙 Have a kiss.
I am but a dim layman compared to Taubes but I'm uncomfortable with his easy acceptance that he conflates fat and fat cells. I mean, we raise insulin, store adipose in adiposites and, in that way, get fat, no?
I'm sure I'm the one who's missing something, but what?
Jed Alcantara Yes, but how does that relate to Taubes's concession to the questioner?
Jed Alcantara the question is at 1:19:00. The relevant part of Taubes's reply is at aprox 1:21:00.
ADC20032996 what you are missing is that taubes is an idiot scharlatan
Goog Commenter But he can probably spell his insults correctly.
Jed Alcantara Thanks.
It's not as simple as calories in and calories out. Food high in sugar or carbs which turns into sugar within 30 minutes to a hour spike insulin threw the roof which makes fat burning nearly impossible as 85% of people that rely on carbs are insulin resistant they literally cant burn fat or can burn very little. Take fat for example which has very little insulin response vs sugar which has 100% in 30 minutes. You would think well what's the difference if your eating the same amount of calories well it's huge mainly because when foods don't spike insulin threw the celling your body turns to it's fat supply's for energy people who are carb dependent need to cut out all sugar and processed flours, rice anything that turns to sugar as soon as it hits the gut to train there body to eat fat instead of relying on sugar for everything. Here is a huge surprise the human body is not meant to survive on carbs period the body is meant to burn fat and covert into what it needs it also needs a good amount of protein for building blocks. 99% if not more of these studies that point to carbs as being good are funded buy bread and sugar companies. Remember back in the day when cigarettes were prescribed by doctors as healthy well the cigarette companies paid for those studies. The food pyramid is azz backwards except for the sweets part. Just remember carbs become sugar within minutes to a few hours so you basically eating sugar with a bit of a lag time on your blood sugar. I tried every diet out there and only gained weight until I tried Keto which trains your body to rely on fat for energy not sugar and 2 weeks in I lost 9 pounds at a month at 2 months i lost 20 pounds and I was no longer considered a type 2 diabetic at 3 months I no longer had a fatty liver and ;ost 35 pounds why we recommend a diet that's basically pure sugar to a population of diabetics is beyond stupid and kills tens and thousands of Americans each year. 99% of people that follow my plate fail and only get worse well 80% of people that do keto have amazing results. Never trust a study that was funded by anyone that has something to gain hints don't trust anything from the Government as they are paid of just like politicians to get the results they want which is to sell more dangerous products to people.
Why does he sound out of breath? Nerves?
I think it's soda pop
From lips to hips - the fat you eat is the fat you wear,
From lips to hips - the sugar you eat is the sugar you wear.
Except that when you eat 1600 calories a day of a high (saturated) fat, low carb diet, you body will burn body fat to make up the difference, and output 2400+ calories of energy expenditure, giving your super high energy... Whereas on a 1600 calorie high (simple) carbohydrate, low fat diet, your body will preferentially store the carbs as fat, while reducing the energy output and increasing hunger, as it is detecting that it is in fruiting season and has access to lots of dietary sugar, and that it needs to pack on as much fat as possible, to survive through the winter months. Evolutionarily speaking, of course.
So, other than completely missing the point, and getting one of your two main points completely wrong..... But hey. Keep repeating those dogmatic catchphrases... :-)
Obesity science for beginners 😁😁👍👍
fascinating.. still doesn't stand prove of facts. Population eating High carbs (not refined) mediteranean, indian etc.. diets are related to low BMI. Western (America) high protein high fat diet is related with obesity epidemic. Sugar has a role, carbs as a whole are clearly not the issue
key word: repidedly absorable.
Not sure what you're trying to write? Repidedly and absorable don't exist in the English dictionary. They're not words.
all these arguments about calories, I stopped eating carbs and I got very healthy and lost weight, many other have done it too, if you eat nothing but cokes you likely will die in a day or so, if you eat only fat your body will burn it and turn what it has to into glucose, not sure if it can make proteins from fat but eating high carbs we know is not healthy but it's how people get fat and sick
Some interesting cases, yes, but I think this speaker is presenting the occasional exception as the rule.
Interesting but far too long. This talk could have been easily cut in half by not going off on all sorts of tangents!
I don't mind the tangents but when he finally gets done with all the old, proven false theories -- he tells us the new, true stuff in the same fast sing-song so I can barely catch it. I love this guy but he needs to work on his presentation a little bit.
Fasting and intermittent fasting work to fix your body when unwell caused by your diet. Treating everyone the same is plane wrong - you have to find your own diet that works. This guy was unbelievably boring in his delivery. I wasn’t convinced he believed his own research.
I tried a keto diet and I gained weight p, then ate a diet with complex carbs and lower fat and lost weight. I don’t think low carbohydrate works for everyone.
It does for very short time long lasting diet is near vegan whole foods low fat diet- best health
@@InesGalicMusic / Remember those with diabetes cannot maintain normal blood glucose on high carbohydrate diet.
Not low. No
maybe,maybe not,my take on it all is this,
if i burn up 2000 cals, and i only eat 1500.where does the other 500 come from?.
I MUST LOSE WEIGHT.
energy cannot be created or destroyed,if i keep doing this i will get smaller,
and it is impossible to gain weight,unless you take in more fuel than you use up.
what will the extra weight be made from? food, we cannot make it out of oxygen
No way round it.sorry to bring the bad news.
+red rose You may lose muscle though.
not only will your basal metabolic rate (2000) come down to the 1500 you're taking in; in addition, your fat cells will be crazy hungry for energy so they will store a greater percentage of the 1500 calories as soon as they get access to it, and force other cells to make do with whatever is left over, and thereby further bring down the basal metabolic rate.
so you gain weight both in the short and long run
It's not "bad news", it's "ignorant news".
The villain here is insulin. Let's rule out the perpetually thin people. They can eat whatever the hell they want and it isn't affecting them obviously.
In the case of obese persons, and even in people only 30 lbs or so overweight, they almost always are insulin resistant. That means their baseline insulin (when fasted) is higher than Normal Joe. Since carbs have the highest effect to cause spikes of insulin, if Fat Joe consumes carbs in his "1500" calorie "diet", it's going to spike his insulin very high. As such, it can take up to and over 12 hours or more for his insulin to return to baseline.
Guess what that insulin is doing the whole time? Blocking his body from using it's own fat. Not because it's evil. But because that's what it does.. It makes sense. Insulin responds to the ingested glucose now in the blood... so it has it's hands full. The body has no reason, in this state, to release *more* glucose from it's own stores of fat.
So when Fat Joe eats 1500 calories, but his body wants to use 2000, what's going to happen? If he's eating carbs in there, spiking his insulin? The body simply drops metabolism to match the 1500 calories because that's all it's getting.
But if Fat Joe eats his 1500 calories in a way to minimize insulin response, thereby keeping his insulin low? His body simply pulls 500 calories out of the fat stores and totals up 2000 calories for the day. No problem. So yes, the body *does* balance energy out. But only when it's not suffering from the effects of a damaged hormonal system. Which, in the case of obese people, is insulin resistance due to persistently high glucose over a long period of time. There is a reason Type 2 Diabetes is usually called "Adult *Onset* Diabetes".
Excellent breakdown!
Too much information. Get to the point. You're boring everyone. The title is good and interesting but the lecture is horrendously boring.
There may be a small percentage of people who will get fat without eating more than they expend in energy terms but anyone who eats more than they expend in terms of energy will be fat
spoken like a truly thin man.🤠
Except that some people are genetically predisposed to insulin resistance, or to have slower metabolisms. You are simply repeating outdated dogma. I eat more calories on a ketogenic diet than I did when dieting on a high carb diet, and lose weight. My energy levels are much higher, too. Could it POSSIBLY be that what you eat affects energy output???
Nah... Couldn't possibly be that.
Taubes gets owned at 1:19.00
I actually fell for this quack, tip toeing around thermo dynamic questions, when he knows all his diet offers is a way to control satiety more effectively.
Eating more fat has no magical effect on your ability to burn fat.
And for the last time, your body can store fat without the presence of insulin.
Bioavailability protein such as wheyy is just as Inulin promoting as carbs!!
You cannot avoid insulin it's so important for human function.
The only common ground I have with taubes is that we shouldn't avoid fat altogether... High sugar diets end in hunger and excess hunger ends in Weight gain!!
If you overeat any macro nutrient you will get fatter, taubes should just admit his diet is for controlling appetite.
Connor Roche I would take issue with this..."Eating more fat has no magical effect on your ability to burn fat." For one, it's not magical. Secondly, the evidence shows that if you eat fat, your body preferentially burns fat. If you eat carbs, your body preferentially burns glucose. This is the "intuitive" part of the carbohydrate hypothesis that is outright ignored. Instead, we get hung up on "fat makes you fat" which is an over-simplified message and it's incorrect. In fact, "fat makes you thin" if you eat fat and don't overeat. (and as you've readily acknowledged, it's much easier not to overeat on a high fat diet because it controls appetite much better. Furthermore, we have very good explanations for why this should be).
Arguably the biggest mistake in this whole public health/dietary recommendations debacle : trying to deliver a simple message when the dynamics are not at all simple. As Einstein said, "make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Taubes is (mostly) correct. Spot on. The medical and health establishment is wrong and have egg all over their respective faces. (and that's not vegan!)
Connor Roche What did you fall for, Igmo? Taubes is re-offering a hypothesis that was a sound part of scientific discussions and research in Europe before WWII. So you fell for all that research, too, eh?
To reduce the theory to its simplest (just for you and your ilk): A high carb diet causes individuals to become obese because carbs increase insulin, which causes fat cells to store fat. Conversely, lower levels of insulin in the blood stream, resulting from substituting protein for carbs in one's diet, causes fat cells to discharge stored fat and use that to fuel the body's activities. Got it?
I used Taubes' theory to drop 30 lbs. and have maintained my weight for five years now. The occasional exercise I do is for strength and endurance, not weight maintenance, since "calories-in-calories out" theory simply can't work. Those fancy exercise machines tell me I can run or bike and burn 150 calories an hour. If the energy balance theory was real, I'd have to ride strenuously for twenty hours to burn off those 3,000 calories I consume on a daily basis, which means I'd get no sleep or do any work.....Next time, think about the reality of the situation before your show your damn near total ignorance.
EarlT357 The facts of the matter is, the country whose main source of energy is carbohydrate are the thinnest. The countries who eat more fat are fatter. Now we're just talking about BMI, fat vs lean.
Even if you disregard weight completely. Foods high in fat are usually not the very healthy. With a few nuts etc being the exception. Whereas foods high in carbohydrate are often much healthier.
***** It's been debunked. All Asians turned fat over night. What if I told you it's both facts and correlation. Foods high in carbohydrate tend to be much healthier. Like I said. With the exception of a few nuts. Why would high fat foods be healthier?
Siegfried Furtwängler Knappertsbusch Make shit up much? Where's the data?
wheeze wheeze wheeze
Tim Eaton Yeah, he's not talking about fitness. He's talking about getting fat. There are a lot of in-shape marathoners with pot bellies.
+primalself Sorry, it's not my fault some marathoners look like a skinny framed pregnant woman with 75% arterial blockage.
Former smoker. We do better when we know better.
@tim Eaton, Yeah, attack his lung health why don't you? That's SO helpful, and SO empathic, and SO relevant to the knowledge being shared. Be kind.
Why do these guys talk so fast, jeeeesh I gotta a headache
Just reduce playback speed.
It's not carbs and fat, it's source and quality.
+Jaxson Jillix The problem with this statement is that it makes food not just what you see in front of you but also some innate way of treatment or sourcing that cannot be quantified by what is in front of you. Why does a carb from a potato chip differ from a carb from a carb from a carrot? The fiber? Well then what if you removed the fiber from the carrot -- would it still be different? It is this "nature* that needs to be scientifically proven, which is Taubes' point.
Having said this, there is already plenty of evidence, even if not scientifically proven, that fructose can cause a metabolic syndrome starting from the liver, and that glucose can cause metabolic syndrome from an overall perspective. Fat might indeed make you fat, but doesn't seem to lead to metabolic syndrome. But the several hundreds of patients treated by Dr. Atkins are all anecdotal, even if accepted as part of the evidence.
Lost in talk don't know what point he is making.
This is from “ the hungry brain “ by Stephan Guyenet, PhD. In 1965 researchers used a liquid food dispenser in a hospital setting to feed obese volunteers. The contained all nutrients but was bland . The volunteers were able to eat as much us they wanted. The male volunteer ate 275 calories per day. The female 144 calories per day , losing 23 pounds. More volunteers showed similar results . One lost 200 pounds after 185 days . Tim Spencer quoted “ there were no fat people in a concentration camp “ . Zero. This shows that obese people given only BLAND food will not eat much . ( 144 calories /day) . The food you eat are atoms . If you eat more atoms than you use up …you get fat . All those fat people don’t eat….makes me laugh . I am fat, my mother is fat. It is too much atoms ….eat less. What happens if you eat …Nothing …? For two month ? You still gain weight ? A long podcast about bullshit. Try to eat nothing…that works.
You just explained why fasting works. It reduces insulin resistance. Congratulations.
@@nadinabbott3991 275 calories a day, that's STARVATION. It really works. I urge Mr Dietmar and his mum to try this diet
@@TonyMontana-hf3gt yes, and not recommended for day to day. However, you once again explained how fasting works. It reduces insulin resistance.
Also, clinical studies are not every day life, are they?
I think your understanding of Stephen Guyenet's obesity study is respectfully, narrow sighted. Your evidencery conclusion drifts from a severely restricted caloric diet that provided all of the necessary nutrients, as was provided to Guyenet's subjects, to POW detainees who were given minimal and insufficient nutrition. Yes, people loose weight if their calories are severely restricted. Whether one will reduce their consumption of bland food due to taste is subjective to the availability of other choices and the degree to which you are hungry or starving. Forced starvation is a completely different category. Exess nutrition introduced to someone who is imaciated will not be retained no matter if it is bland, sweet, or savory. And, in that case, one might literally observe atoms in, atoms out, rather abruptly and painfully to the participating subject. Controlled weight loss is not about subjecting one's self to bland food or painful calorie restriction. It's about reducing the intake of food that causes the pancreas to release insulin which negotiates sucrose into your blood cells. If you are overweight your blood cells are overfilled with sucrose. The excess sugars are stored as fat. You can reduce your carbohydrate calories but, if they are still the main source of your nutritional intake you will feel hungry. If you are reducing your calories due to severe metabolic distress, introducing saturated animal fats and proteins into your diet as well as greatly reducing your carbohydrate intake to 20 grams a day, greatly reduces the feeling of hunger, and calorie reduction happens quite naturally due to satiety. We can get all of the essential nutrients from animal fat and protein that we get from any carbohydrate. Our body is more efficient at using nutrients from animal sources. I don't know that there is one essential carbohydrate that we need from plant based foods or from processed carbohydrates.
I think Garry Taubes is correct in his journalism research and his conclusions, but then, he is just a messenger. There is a lot of information available on the internet that previously we didn't have access to which backs up his reporting.
IMHO
Dude rambles
It's mix of carbs and fat making ppl fat, either one on it's own won't, ther's the truth but if u want best health and wellbeing it's less fat and more vegetables and whole foods- near vegan diet
No! It’s CALORIES that are making ppl fat. Despite the many people jumping on the Calories in Calories out is wrong bandwagon, or the anti carb zealots it just isn’t. It cannot be and I notice more and more comments about micro biology, insulin, NEAT, BMR, Thermic effect of food all of which are extremely well understood and confirm perfectly to CICO, being used to muddy the waters for the confused .
You simply cannot gain weight (fat) without being in a calorie surplus and yes it’s physics first then biology.
Where do people think the magic calories in carbs and fat are coming from to be metabolised into fat stores in the absence of a calorie surplus.