its not fantastic. its common sense...and "evidence" is largely bullshit...whatever works do it.

@@sooparticular What if something works much better?

@@ondrej1893 what do you mean?

Not everyone is willing to spend an hour learning a topic in-depth. We applaud your quest for knowledge.

NSCA as an aspiring trainer and future strength coach, I want know as much as possible. I am certified now, but will most likely be certifying through NSCA in the future.

These hormonal changes have less effect on weight gain than caloric intake/expenditure.

In addition, caloric restriction in itself decreases insulin resistance. Carb restriction is not necessary to achieve insulin sensitivity.

High level of body fat can actually cause ur body to prefer burning fat or carbs which will also leads to insulin resistance regardless of diets.

Use your current weight and subtract 500 to lose 1 pound a week.. Just recalculate your caloric needs every once in a while, because they go down as you lose weight

I'm sorry but I am not sure what you are asking.

high amount of protein intake would lead to kidney failure, you could check out" rabbit starvation".

Simply not true, people with healthy kidneys showed no adverse effects of eating beyond 1.8 g per kg of bodyweight to upward of 3.3 g per kg of body weight had no damage or kidney failure whatsoever. Only with subjects who are predisposed to kidney damage or have had kidney failures before shows some correlation​ between protein intake and kidney failure, we have to estimate the amount of protein you are taking here as well as the test samples.

​@@leetommy5972 ​ There are studies with people taking over 2.6-4g/kg body weight for 4 months to 2 years with absolute no kidney issues. It is only a potential issue if you already have kidney pathology.

@@leetommy5972 Broscience! Are we rabbits????

@Jiri Mahr Exactly. They did a study that had people take crazy amounts such as that and STILL no sign of damage to the kidneys, proving the broscience lot "Ohhh if you have too much protein, it leads to kidney failure" lot wrong lol

But that's more about adaptation to different fuel sources. If you're keto adapted then going higher carb straight away would be silly. I've also experimented on myself and I eat too many calories with a low-carb high fat diet. I tend to do better on an even mix (usually 60% of remaining calories after I've allocated protein go on carbs, 40% on fat).

To each their own. The research doesn’t suggest carbs are bad for health. Due to some people’s lifestyle issues low carb might be a better approach but I’ve known people who have been very healthy their entire lives eating lots of carbs. Of course, their is always the balanced approach which isn’t as romantic as believing carbs are evil or fat is evil, and that works quite well for most.

@@michaelcarter8620 What research? And who funded it? The fact is that excess insulin is probably the main cause of ill health. Lots of carbs = lots of insulin = insulin resistance = diabetes 2, heart disease, fatty liver disease, dementia and various cancers.

@@seekingjustice2079 you talk about excess insulin but you realise protein is insulinemic? Further, if you're having to question the funding sources even though multiple studies from different labs show the same thing then you're kind of arguing against thin air. The daily average sugar intake of Americans has been falling since the late 1990's yet obesity continues to rise. Why do you think that is? It's a chronic overconsumption of calories problem, not carbs.

@@MulletMan3108 The insulin response to glucose is considerably greater than that to protein. All carbs are sugar. Americans eat vast quantities of bread, pizza, breakfast cereals and other sources of carbs. Show me a morbidly obese person who refrains from ice cream, cake and chocolate.

Ty!

I think you could argue vegans are protein phobic as well as lipophobic. And this makes sense. animal protein and animal fat go together. It is absurd to separate the two (as has been attempted over the last 40 or 50 years since the diet-heart hypothesis and low fat guidelines were forced into public consciousness.

If you actually look at dietary guidelines in 1980: 1) Eat a variety of foods 2) Maintain ideal weight 3) Avoid too much fat, saturated fat and cholesterol 4) Eat foods with adequate starch and fiber 5) Avoid too much sugar 6) Avoid too much sodium 7) If you drink alcohol, do so in moderation I think the supposed "shift" from "fat is evil" to "carbs are evil" and how the medical establishment failed us is just a fairytale narrative that helps to sell contrarian books on Keto or Paleo plus Crossfit. You can see the guidelines were pretty balanced and could be applied today with success.

Weil die Empfehlungen in Deutschland das absolute minimum sind, um keine mangelerscheinungen zu bekommen

@20:56 ....Listen to what he says

Yes that's right, all the evidence in the world in a range of controlled studies across huge variations of subjects from different countries being presented by one of the absolute highest regarded scientists in his field being called a pencil neck trying to sound smart. Yeah, think I know I'd put my trust in.

@@MulletMan3108 everything out of his mouth is a lie

@@Kane6676 provide scientific, peer reviewed academic literature instead of anecdotes and I might listen.

@@MulletMan3108 no, who would fund such a thing? Lol I know my own body only and was only speaking to my own experience. Apparently you didn’t approve

Martin Irving so what is your counter to the information given then?

This man is looking at every single study that is adequately controlled, and using that as a vehicle to create guideline and consensus. There is no dogma, other than the anti science one u are spewing.

meta-analyses are out on this for god sake's, if you were a scientist you would know how vital that is in getting closer to a conclusion to any certain claims, yet low carb zealots like you still refuse to open your mind. It's pretty narcisstic behaviour to think one's own personal experience must apply to the whole world

@@tamimhusain3376 , We "opened our minds" for fifty years. It didn't work. I ate low fat, exercised a lot , and saw unimpressive results. Not terrible but clearly sub-optimal. I've been eating more animal product (starting with saturated fat) for about 6 years now. Intermittent fasting followed naturally and consistently. Two meals a day, one meal a day, fasted exercise. Working a whole day without food. Once you've discovered the freedom of fat adaptation nothing else is worth considering. I literally avoid sugar more than alcohol. Sugar makes you hungry. I sometimes eat sweet things at the end of the day, or after a large meal. Never at the beginning of the day. I almost never eat breakfast. If I do, it's low carb for sure.

@@martinirving3824 Again what you are saying is anecdotal. Studies rely on multiple people. Anecdotal relies on your own personal experience. And your own personal experience could be influenced by a lot of factors. Some people are better fat burners than carbs, your diet may have had less calories with the low carb, more protein leading to higher thermic effect, more satiety. Without even controlling certain factors and measuring certain things you cannot conclude for yourself let alone the rest of the world. It's very narcissistic behaviour to believe that the results of what you have experienced yourself must apply to the rest of the world. Very self-centred, especially when the science goes against your conclusion. Low carb isn't bad and can work. But it doesn't mean low fat doesn't work and it shows in the meta-analyses. What do you think weighs more, the experience of one person know as Martin Irving or thousands of results? It's simple science to know that the more results you have the stronger your conclusion will be. Just as simply as knowing scientific experiments are repeated (they teach you this in basic secondary/high school science classes for GCSE level let alone beyond this) to obtain more valid results

Martin Irving nope...just nope

Mason Pikey, yeah, well you're going to have to be more specific. I've become a biohacker of sorts. I've done some tests, including insulin and testosterone. I've seen my body composition improve significantly in the last year while maintaining the same weight. When you see, with your own eyes, specific metrics showing improvements with very little effort and in someone 54 years old, you begin to realize that the fitness industry is full of shit. The calorie model is industrial nonsense designed to fool people into buying stuff. Always more, more, this, that. Not, less, very little or none,

What are you talking about? You can't sell calorie counting. I, and anyone else with access to a simple FREE app can track calories easily. It's not hard.

Jack, Right. Does that app tell you what your metabolism is doing?

Not, it doesn't. It gives you a fantastic place to start learning where it sits though. You learn through trial and error where you TDEE tends to be and you adjust accordingly.

@Fitness_Doug the correct answer is yes and no. Satiety effect is important to consider, especially for regular healthy people but it's not "better" for fat loss when calories and protein is kept constant. However when protein intake is increased, calories are kept constant, keto in some studies performed better. There's a lot more information about keto now. Is it better for fat loss, not necessarily, can it work very well. Yes. Could it be better? Need more research using different variables (such as higher protein intake) also many so called keto studies many who don't agree with keto quote, aren't keto but rather just low carb and the fat content in the diet is too low(luckily I've yet to see Brad do this, he calls it a low carb diet in that case not keto). For me and many others it's better.

@@callumbarnes554 Finally a sensible reply from someone who likes keto. As for you Brendon, don't be stupid all your life. You clearly didn't listen to the studies displayed on it, the meta-analyses comparing the different types