Thx a bunch for your videos! What i would really like to know in this low carb vs high carb discussion is (1): Is there an advantage in the form of faster health gains or regains regarding getting fasting insulin down to a normal level from a ketogenic diet over a high carbohydrate diet when calories are the same in both groups and what about in the longer perspective? (2): It is known that exercise decreases insulin resistance. Does this only affect the tissue involved in exercise or also the brain cells? If it also affects the brain cells then how much compared to the muscle cells if there is a difference and why? :)

what about protein and fructose and ketones?

@physionic soooo - what I got out of the last 42 min of my life was "there is no hope for you, your body will force you to stay fat, Fatty." did not hear any solution, just that everyone is wrong that claims that there might BE a solution, and that there IS no solution , your body will just keep you fat, it might allow you to get FATTER, but if you ever try to LOSE fat it will find ways to defeat you, you are screwed. Awesome. This is depressing AF.

You lost me on the metabolism and hunger. It is common knowledge, and you don't need a degree to know it, that obese people are hungry all the time despite not being in a caloric deficit, and people who go into low-carb diets experience a reduction in hunger despite being in a caloric deficit. And these people are arguably in a caloric deficit given that the only 2 molecules that partake in this very specific metabolic process of oxidation into ATP are glucose, or rather glycogen, and triglycerides, not even fat in general. If you reduce the amount of glucose your body absorbs to nothing or almost nothing while eating until satiation, the rest has to come from the very limited amount that your liver can make, which means that your body will experience the "caloric deficit" you mention without feeling hungry, which directly contradicts your proposed model as people experience hunger on caloric restrictions specifically because they do high carb low fat diets. This also ignores another key component of metabolism which is the absorption of nutrients itself, which you never even mentioned in the video for reasons I don't understand since that would in part explain why a lot of people still lose a lot of body fat by eating a low carb, High Fat diet consistently. Also since insulin is the hormone that signals the inclusion of fat into adipose tissue, a reduction in insulin means a reduction of fat that goes into the adipose tissue regardless of a higher fat intake even when taking ASP into account as, despite your spectacularly deceitful imagery, your insulin will decrease much more than you ASP will increase. Moreover, as you said, the whole "energy expenditure" model you advocate for can only work on very short time frames, and if there's one thing to know about fat loss is that what matters is what you do long term. And since your "energy expenditure" (which is an inaccurate term for simple reasons I'll mention a bit later) varies with your sex, activity level, height, weight, age, and plenty of other factors that may vary through time, then it would be a very foolish idea to provide long term recommendations, like lifestyle changes, base on metrics that are not gonna be accurate after a couple of weeks especially if those changes imply becoming a slave to food, having to constantly monitor and calculate exactly how much you eat contrary to what 99.99999% of living creatures on the planet do. As for why "energy expenditure" is an inaccurate framework, is due to the law of conservation of mass you mentioned at the beginning: matter cannot be transformed into energy and vice versa. Given that your body works on chemical reactions, energy is not the main component but a by-product, and since this metric is based on a very specific process that most of the nutrients that your cells need do not partake in, then this is a marker that ignores 99% of the actual metabolism, is missing the forest for the tree in front. A more accurate depiction, and one that can be easily explained without lying to everyone, would be that your metabolism is the collection of chemical reactions that facilitate the distribution of nutrients, such as amino acids, cholesterol, triglycerides, vitamins, glucose and minerals from the bloodstream to the cell walls and then into the cells themselves. Some of those reactions produce heat and is this incidental conversion from chemical energy to radiant heat that allows your body to stay at a somewhat constant temperature. This does not break, or argue against, the laws of physics, it doesn't ignore hormonal activity and it doesn't disregard other critical metabolic processes just to latch on to 1 simple number to let us pretend that the universe is based on math and not the other way around. Not only that, despite your criticisms against the hormone base model, your whole concept of metabolism is still reduced on just one very specific process and it's not even accurate about it when the people who promote the hormonal model take into account, not only this oxidative process in much more accurate terms than you, but also the impact that other nutrients or stresses have not only on fat loss but your overall metabolic health. Sure if you semi-starve yourself you might lose fat, but you're still starving yourself. In conclusion, there's no reconciliation to be had for a model that does not take into account how things affect your body outside of mere fat gain or fat loss, especially if the model is inaccurate and its measurements do not hold true for more than a couple weeks.

Wow, I almost didn't notice you conflating overall energy expenditure with the basal metabolic rate at the end. If you have two people with different heights and weights they would still have different overall "energy expenditure" despite having the same rate of non-exercise activity thermogenesis due to the difference in the number of cells, sure, but if your metabolism is actually slowing down that's a bad sign and you can know for sure that that person will, not only stop losing fat at some point, but experience a lot of other symptoms like being really cold and suffering aches and pains and a reduction in the autoimmune function. So I don't think a would trade feeling sick and cold all the time just so that I can eat a small plate of pasta that will make me feel hungry and miserable after 30 minutes, thank you.

Thank you!

By "no sugar" do you mean no added sugar? You're still eating fruits and vegetables, right?

@@WeighedWilsonYes. I consume a lot of fresh steamed vegetables, and fruit once in a while.

Im glad for your success, but you do know true carnivores eat the stomach contents of their prey first, right? These are plants, since they don't routinely eat other predators. So one big salad before eating raw organs, blood, and last is muscle meat. Do you eat your carne raw? Starting with organs and blood?

Just curious. What do you eat? Beef? Grass fed? Fish? Wild caught?

Did you make it to 80?

Thank you, Param. I certainly plan on continuing.

@@Physionic really authentic. i feel like im in class with a really good professor

@@Physionic Thanks for explaining why my 175 pound weight loss is just my imagination ! Factors you failed to consider, is how high carbs diets increase your set point and hunger !

​@@studygodsword5937 It's like you made this comment before watching a single second of the video lol

All the best in your journey.

I appreciate it, Peter.

Yep. I feel bad for anyone who watched this video and took away that they should go on eating tons of carbs and sugar because "calories are the primary metabolic driver". Yes, that statement is true, but calories are not the primary HUMAN BEHAVIORAL driver. We don't buy calories at the store, we buy products, many of which have been engineered to be as "craveable" as possible. This craveability just so happens to rely on sugar.

I think you need to read more studies instead of watching youtube doctors.

Agree with you, today I do IF and do Jiu Jitsu on the last hour of fasting, and do my best train on years, I don't do KETO, but my main sources of carbs are fruits, eat a lot of meat and fruits, but when I decide eat sugar in cookies or icecream or a pizza, my cravings just go up, but honestly with fruits I have no issues.

The issue with keto is that it doesn’t make you lose fat any faster or better than calorie restriction. Cause on one side of the coin it does turn up fat burning, but people forget about the other side of the coin, which is that it also turns up fat storage . Which is why research where kcals and protein are equated show no difference in fat loss

I agree with you. My own experience with Keto is that it strongest effect is the reduction of craving for food. Therefore it is effortless to reduce calories. Today I am good with two meals a day.

Ha, it's one I've thought about a significant amount and I'm feeling a little more energetic of late, so it translated I suppose. I'm really glad it did, though - thank you!

Hi, one of my favorite times of my life thus far was teaching your class, and this may be one of my all time favorite comments. This is incredible - I hope things are going well with your decision; what major did you end up pursuing? And yes, fasting is wonderful, no doubt. I use it, myself - simply the understanding behind fasting is less than ideal when we're discussing certain individuals.

@@Physionic I'm a Health and Fitness Specialist with a minor in nutrition. I remember thinking "this dude has got it going on he's like a swole nerd that learned all this stuff and now is jacked and really smart. I hope you don't take that the wrong way because that's the path I'm trying to take myself now haha. Yeah that's kind of been a guiding frame work for me in college the last few years. Work out hard and use that focus and motivation to channel it into my schoolwork. But thats kind of how I saw you and it helped motivate me haha. I'm in a biochemistry and metabolism class right now which has helped me actually be able to comprehend some of the more higher level concepts you discuss on here. I graduate this year and I want to try and watch you and other people on youtube to help me continue to learn after graduation when I'm in the workforce.

That's really amazing. I'm so glad I could help in my small way. Put a huge smile on my face. I wish you all the best with your studies (are you taking Dr. Cortright's class in metabolism?), and I hope you continue to learn and stay motivated as you progress in your career as a HFS. You rock - keep it up.

@@Physionic I actually have Dr. Wheeler. Super smart guy. I appreciate it man!

Thank you, Ricky.

Nice work, greaser - and kudos, thank you. :)

Genetics, muscle mass, food quality, glucose/insulin responses.

I'm happy to hear it, Thiago. All the best in your future nutrition goals.

@@Physionic thank you!

Aww, thank you, Patricia. That's really kind of you.

Thanks, Sam!

I'm glad, Sausen - keep it up on your end, too.

Thanks, Nicolas - another "h-less" Nicolas, awesome to see.

Good post. I can tell you've thought this through.

Hopefully one day, and thank you again, Yaron.

@@PhysionicNic, please don't change when your channel gets bigger.

They're absolutely right

A person burns more than 1500 calories a day just laying down doing nothing. There is zero chance of not pulling from stored fat on a diet like that. The timing is only a factor for controlling hunger signals. When calories are equated, you will get the same result regardless of meal timing.

another factor to give more weight to is the effect of the hormones produced on the end result of calories taken in . IE: if the hormones make hunger... more calories are likely to be taken in and vice versa. Sure, if you take in fewer calories you'll lose weight. But the craving to eat is not a small matter in the outcome of level of calories. .If you only pay attention to the calories, you put yourself at a real disadvantage for dealing with the cravings and lack of satiety.

It’s just calories, because they are the “driver” to those hormones. I cannot directly manipulate my hormones in an effort to gain or lose weight, but I can manipulate my calories…which then manipulates my hormones… The modifiable habit for weight loss/gain is at the simplest level, calories. We are not an exception to a good old balanced chemical equation:)

From the most recent studies, food timing does not matter when calories are equated when it comes to fat loss... But from my own personal experience it does.. and this will not be liked by many of the so called experts and gurus.. but at least for me.. and it really makes sense.. one meal per day (calories equated) is WORSE for fat loss than spreading the meals out over the day. My theory is that when you dont eat, you dont have the energy incoming and your body stops figiting, your mitochondria stops decoupling (wasting energy via heat production) and overall you are using less energy via neat than you would if you eat spread out during the day. The whole time restricted fasting craze is all about reduction of caloric intake due to not being able to eat the same about in one meal that you would if you ate during the day. Longer fasts like 24 to 48 or even 72 hours in my opinion are more useful but done sparingly like once a month or so. Again... Just my own opinion

Thank you! The importance of keto and/or fasting for enabling fat loss when previously unable to lose and keep it off seems to be beyond his recognition. There can be a time at which you have to shut off the insulin.

@BigPictureYT, your comment is so wise. Thanks a lot for your time, to explain with such ease. Appreciate also the last french word: voilà ! Hello from France, Danielle

Most people have unhealthy metabolism.

Apparently it is YOU who should take a look at the study because you very clearly have not read it. The study says diddly squat about metabolic rate, because measuring "metabolic outcomes" wasn't their goal at all, rather, it was to investigate adipose tissue cellularity. As for body weight and composition changes, what happened was exactly what you would expect from following the CICO model: The participants gained weight and body fat with reduced physical activity and increased caloric intake, maintained their increased weight while being fed maintenance calories, and then *lost that weight and fat again with reduced caloric intake and increased physcial activity* , which, as you so happened to omit, was part of the study as well.

Here's the study, in case anybody doesn't believe me: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292021/pdf/jcinvest00194-0053.pdf

It's so insane nowadays how people cite sources to disprove themselves lmao.

Sorry but I disagree with the statement that your metabolism doesn’t turn off. I think you train your body to substantially reduce its metabolism when you sit in front of your computer for 8+ hours per day.. you have a normal BMR for living a normal life-one with more movement than a bathroom break every 3 hours and a substantially reduced to as close to zero BMR for when you’re barely living, because when you sit like that you’re barely living. Sure you can try to game it by exercising before or after but you can’t overcome the lower respiration, lower heart rate, lower body temperature that happens when you’re an obedient office worker…

To add keto and IF helps reduce loose skin

"IF means early dinner and brunch" No it doesn't.

@@htp1146 That's how it's worked best for me. Everyone has to find what works for them.. Context is everything. Why so pedantic?

You were in a caloric deficit when you lost weight regardless of how you created that caloric deficit. IF can be one pathway to a caloric deficit. So can a vegan or a carnivore diet.

​@@veniqerveganism cult is so bad that people hate them. Do carnivore only when you need to reverse some kind of disease or autoimmunity. Else, do omnivore diet heavily more on meat and eggs with decent amount of fat and decent or low amount of carb

@@veniqer If he was in a caloric deficit he'd be having hypothermia. But on a serious note, "calories" are not an accurate way to measure energy intake, causing people to necessarily undereat, creating issues in itself. Labels can be off on calories by 20%, so already you're working with bad information. Then you have to factor in the thermic effect of food, how much energy you are using to break down food in the first place. Then how much is going to waste via excretion. It's simply impossible to accurately measure in calories, a cool new phone app is not going to help you. Humans do not eat "calories" they eat mass.

Thank you. I actually have a video coming out on metabolic set points, but it doesn't go into as much depth as this video, so it's something I certainly expect to create in the future (with greater depth).

Haha, no, I haven't changed my tune. You're right about protein, KK - I wanted to limit it to carbs and fats, since those are the controversial ones, but yes, to make it the most accurate, one should add protein. Hope you're well, KK - and, thanks!

Im guessing 1. certain emotions overwrite the feeling of satiety. 2. the foods we are eating do not allow for these natural processes to occur, ie; 200kcal from orange juice vs 200kcal from actual oranges will have a different effect on your satiety

@@stephx9759 I can't speak to explanation 1, But for #2, that explains short-term overeating, but my understanding of leptin is it's our body's fuel gauge. 200 Cal of OJ instead of oranges causes us to overeat by 100 Cal, so insulin kicks in and shoves that extra energy into our fat cells. Our fat cells start generating more leptin and that SHOULD delay hunger for the next feeding session. Since leptin is constantly being produced, the fat cells should produce elevated levels of leptin until we hit a 100 Cal deficit in our diet and they get back down to baseline. We USED to be really sensitive to leptin levels. It was critical to our survival. If our fat stores get low, we get hungry. Now there seems to be something happening that is stopping that signaling. We're fat because our fuel gauge is broken. Wild animals don't count calories. Why should we have to? Calorie labels are really new, and since we've become obsessed with calories, we've only gotten fatter.

There is a very big difference between a normal metabolic profile and a sick metabolic candidate. When in a healthy state, it is EFFORTLESS losing or maintaining weight. Eat when hungry, move a bit and glow with health. HOWEVER, endocrine dysbiosis can make fat loss impossible without fixing root cause: eat less: gain weight. Exercise profusely: gain weight. Thyroid health, cortisol levels, liver function, estrogen and testosterone levels, leptin resistance, microbiome, pathogens such as Candida and numerous other factors impact metabolism. Never trust a skinny chef, never believe an always been slim nutritionist or dietician!

I don't have the qualifications of the guy who made this video. I can appreciate how much he knows about how mitochondria work and I do have a theory I'm exploring which involves mitochondrial health in relation to multiple diseases. My grandmother has Alzheimers. MY father has type-2 Diabetes. I have personally struggled with weight gain my entire life staring from when I was old enough to be aware of my condition. I've listened to a man named Dr. Robert Lustig speak about his experience with children in Memphis, TN as a pediatrician as well as many other trained physicians, scientists and doctors. I've listened to his theories of metabolic health. I may one day read his book 'Metabolical.' Of all the content I've read or listened to it seems to me that there are two common denominators when it comes to disfunctional mitochondria by my estimation. Those would be excessive fructose consumption in the absence of fiber, and excessive consumption of hyper-palatable processed foods which often have added sugars as well. My theory at this point in my journey and research is: Cell metabolism is destroyed by the over consumption of fructose or the production of fructose due to the over consumption of high glycemic foods or processed foods. Once the cells become inefficient, the basal metabolic rate drops, you get more hungry and expend less energy on a cellular level, then eventually develop the disease profiles which follow genetic predispositions, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Alzheimers, etc. I never obtained a degree in any of these things. However, science is my all time favorite subject and I'm trying to use it to help my loved ones and friends and hopefully many more people along the way. I hope, even if I'm not entirely correct, my thoughts here can help you since you are helping others.

@@RD-us2kbThe primary factor that drives the metabolism is protein

There is some interesting information being presented by Dr Robert Lustig and Dr Richard Johnson on the effect of fructose on metabolism. You may find it enlightening (there are KZfaqs).

I would listen to layne Norton he’s more accurate on the topic, scientifically, practically and has more experience in many ways

I literally never said any of that, so thank you for the straw man. Additionally, I have content on how keto can be a great method for weight loss. So…

@@Physionic thank you for the reply! My comment about the studies was not based on this video but another one where you reviewed a set of studies. I have seen this not just on this channel but all over the place where studies that do not know what real keto is are cited as representing that, and it is hugely misleading. In your video you mentioned that there was an odd discrepancy between the North American and European and Asian results. This would be because the exact details of what each diet comprised beyond simply having been labelled low-carb are critical. I know you're not anti-keto however given your own metabolic health, you are likely not seeing/experiencing the significance of the hormonal situation, and that therefore for some people it is not a choice between high-carb low-fat and low-carb high fat, because only one of those two options has a remote chance of working for them. Other than that your explanations of cellular level mechanisms are fantastic which I really appreciate, and please do check out dr. Bikman if you haven't already, as his work is likely right up your alley. Thank you for the work you are doing!

Metabolic adaptation is the answer . Go deep on that topic and younwill fnd your answers

Mm.. I think proper keto still incorporates some leafy greens, but it would be advantageous to just go low carb so you have a greater range of micronutrients to consume from vegetables and fruits. Another alternative is supplements, but you're right, at times it seems a lot of effort for not much reward; but, I will say many people have great success with long term keto, so it does work for some.

Also, if you are fat adapted you will easily use your fat reserves and will not feel hunger, at least I do not - I feel more of the keto clear headedness. I knew I had overdone the carbs recently (visit to parents who are reasonably sceptical about my diet "Here have a potato, not the olive oil") as I was hungry for the first time in perhaps a year.

Some diets just avoid fat in general so you don't even have to burn the fat (i.e Walter Kempner sugar+rice diet. Fit for life, mixed in with a few "gurus" that exploited their research like durian rider.)

​@@l3eatalphal3eatalphaif you had a potato at your parent's you're fine. That potato isn't going to mess everything up.

Let me know your impressions, Mel.

@@Physionic Sure

That's wonderful, Kamran. I hope you did!

This was my takeaway as well. You cant bend physics. Calorie deficit still applies. I tried a normal diet but the hunger made it difficult and carbs taste good. Keto has helped with cravings and is more satiating. It really is hard to eat a lot of fat and I dont find myself overeating.

Well said. This video is a long winded explanation of the most basic concept, energy in energy out. Unfortunately it isn’t that simple for many people…there are plenty of exceptions to this general rule and concept.

I feel like I ended up finding the answer later... If blood glucose gets too low, the body can create some using a process called neoglucogenesis. I still believe that for someone with Insulin Resistance, the path is controlling insulin (low carb and various forms of fasting), and that will lead to a "practical" calorie deficit, and not the other way around.

I don't think that makes sense. IR means that the cells in the body are resistant to insulin, meaning it takes more insulin in the blood to get the same effect. But the pancreas is still able to release enough insulin to get the job done, or else the person would have Diabetes. The pancreas releases more insulin because the beta cells still detect higher blood glucose, if the blood glucose is under control then the insulin would not be released as much. In fact, one way to test for IR is by giving a glucose solution to a fasted patient and seeing what their blood glucose does after 3 hours. As long as the person is not diabetic, then their hormones will work well enough to allow for weight loss without worrying about intermittent fasting or fats or carbs.

exercise

Insulin releases Adipose triglyceride lipase and CPT-1 which inhibit fat burning. More insulin means it's harder to burn fat and more fat is stored. If your body's ability to release insulin effectively is impaired, calories in, calories out isn't going to work the way it would in a healthy individual. Glucose is present in all carbs. It is stored as glycogen in the liver and muscles. If that store isn't used up (because we can only store a certain amount) by taking a break from carbs or by using up the stored glycogen via exercise it gets stored as fat. Insulin is what is required to maintain the fat stores, so the more fat you store from excess glucose, the more insulin your body must produce. Take away the carbs you'll reset that hormonal response.

Thanks, jpz!

Starts and ends with Insulin is a good way to put it. Who would have thought that endocrinology is more complex? Shocking.

It doesn't just start and end with insulin but hormones are without a doubt a integral part of fat storage and fat loss. Calories in and calories out are important too but are not the only part of the picture.

​​​@@Physionic well it is true that high fat diet also produces fat through asp. But I guess there must be reasons or there are some fundamental differences btw the two different ways of fat gaining. How do you explain the fact that people who turn to keto do lose weight than who don't. Do you know any experiments that comparing people who are on keto to who doesn't while consuming the same amount of calories? Is it because people who are on keto are taking less calories but getting the same satiety comparing to people who are not?

​@519stream3 What makes you think people don't lose weight on other diets? Keto has one of the worst adherence rates every time it is studied. Some people find keto easy and feel more satiated. Some don't. I did keto for a few months and felt horrible, and was always hungry. I gained every pound I lost on keto back in just 2 weeks of vacationing. I do way better on a high carb diet where I have finally been able to lose weight and keep it off even on vacations. Everyone is different.

Nicholas' bar diagram is the top level message The blue bar is what your body requires in energy to maintain life. Underfeed, and you lose weight, the red segment Overfeed, and you gain weight the green segment Aka, the title of the video😊 Nicholas and Dr. Carvalho Make it very clear but it doesn't matter what you eat Underfeed with high carb low fat diet, you lose weight Underfeed with low carb high fat diet, you lose weight In other words Fewer calories in then calories required, you lose weight By the way, Undo feeding is much more efficient than exercise There are many sites on internet which show how many calories you burn. Doing a specific exercise for let's say an hour confirms the fact that exercising for an hour to burn 500 calories is excellent for your overall health, but not eating 500 calories is equally effective Several studies have shown that exercise that most people can have manage and maintain is a poor way of losing weight