Just discovered this and have added it to my resources for a quality and healthy life. I’m 75 am have an average glucose daily of 98, and my average daily BP is 114/72. Divorced myself of the standard American Diet 4 years ago without regret. I have zero arthritis in any form, no brain fog, and my creativity never ends. Gave up preaching about this to my friends as they are well influenced and brainwashed by the food cartels. Found that the best form of education for others is leading by example.

Lower your carbs, you lower your insulin, fat can then come out of your fat cells. You'll eat less because your body is using some of it's own fat so you aren't as hungry, and you may even exercise a bit because you have more available energy. You are not losing weight because you are eating less and exercising more, you are losing weight and exercising more because you are releasing/losing fat.

Their book, Protein Power Life Plan was the first book I read on nutrition and helped me lose over 100lbs in 2007. I've managed to reverse type 2 Diabetes snd maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle due to their teachings.

Ive been on carnivore diet for 4 months, best thing i have ever done. I feel like I am 18 again, i am 44. Along with exercise and walking for the last 3 months I have lost 18kg's, down from 94kg's to 76kg's. Putting on muscle at the same time. Once i get to around 12% body fat ( pretty close now ) I will lower my cardio and concentrate on more bulk, aiming to go back up to 80kg's with muscle.

You are awesome. That picture of the Minnesota study before and after is spot on. When you are in shape/not obese, then you get thinner. That is all the obese need to know. Follow that plan. I was obese and it worked for me. Less carbs, high saturated fat.

Just as the citation was used in the presentation - the whole world was so obsessed with calories that nobody even noticed how useless is thinking about them! Fat and proteins makes us feel satiated quicker so we don't overeat . Brilliant! And I'm loving my keto/carnivore journey in order to save myself from a faith of my slim dad (Alzheimer's disease is in fact a result of starved cells disaster, caused by not noticeable insulin resistance) and over 30 years of eating almost only plant based food.

I found a copy of Dr Eades book "Protein Power" on the bookshelf of a vacation rental. I read it in 2 days, and googled his name. That white rabbit took my down such a deep hole I never imagined, saved me from obesity and processed food addiction.

The Eades book informed me about the amino acid L-Leucine for maintaining muscle mass as you get older. 100% helpful.

Michael Eades is brilliant. Another superb presentation.

A great talk. Perhaps I can further clarify. As Mike said my colleague Gene Fine have considered this question for a while. One important paraphrase of what Mike said: we don’t eat calories. We eat grams (food). Calories are units of energy. (You can’t eat energy - maybe plants eat energy, poetically speaking). The energy is in the process. Cutting to the chase, the assumption that all food is processed in the same way is very unlikely). Talking about calories is colloquial and is okay until you reach a problem. You lose more weight on low-carb. Not always but generally. That’s observed. So the “calorie” idea is no longer useful. You have to go back to basics and ask what’s going on. We take in mass. Energy goes with the process of conversion of mass to different forms. The processes of metabolizing carbohydrate are different than metabolizing fat. The real question, then, is not why we have different outcomes for the same “calories” but, rather, why it turns out to be the same. Recognizing that “calories” may be loose talk, why does “calories in-calories out” hold at all, never mind how often. The answer is that it is in the biology - that’s where hormones and enzyme regulation kicks in. It is not an alternative to a thermodynamic analysis - it is the mechanism that controls the thermodynamics. And, janekay2002 asked what to read. If you’ve finished Protein Power, you should try Nutrition in Crisis. Now, only $11.01 on Amazon. “The calories are in the chemical reaction, not the food.” As Mike said, it is not about E=mc^2. The 4 kcal/g for carbs is for the process of complete oxidation. It’s not in the carbs (so 4 is an average. Oxidation of different carbs has slightly different calories).

Excellent. So it's not a question of energy, but mass. It's not calories in, calories out, it's atoms in, atoms out, depending on which combination of atoms you eat.

A corollary to the breathing out of mass in the form of CO2, (25-27 min), are plants that gain mass via photosynthesis, taking the C atoms from atmospheric CO2. It's easy to see how much carbon is important in the mass of trees when you burn a log in a good stove: you put in some fairly heavy logs. After they have been efficiently burned, all that's left are feather-light cinders. So, plants put on weight when CO2 goes to C and O2, while animal lose weight when O2 and C go to CO2 - the carbon cycle. Now why didn't I think of that before!?

Finally a new talk from Dr. Eades!

Another great talk by Dr Eades; the first person that connected prominent grain eaters to heart disease in the early Egyptians. Perhaps some of the early processed food eaters?

Simple yet profound spin on understanding energy and mass better. The balloon example is perfect

One important point here is that even though someone would consume 1kg of mass, the type of macronutrient ratio determines your hormonal response and dictates what will happen with the mass you have eaten. Eating 1kg of carbs would be different than 1kg of fat because the hormonal response is different, meaning, you would accumulate more mass in the form of bodyfat if you eat lots of carbs because of the hormonal response. In the immediate time after consuming the foodstuffs both the carb-person and fat-person would weigh 1kg more, but after a period of time the carb-person would store more of the consumed foodstuffs as bodyfat and probably have a lower output of work and thus breathing out less CO2 and H2O. This is because the CO2 and H2O is stored in the body in various forms. We also know that insulin competes with glucagon which is an energy-spending hormone. Eat carbs -> higher insulin -> lower glucagon -> lower output = more storage. And of course, the different nutrients found in foodstuffs determine other hormonal responses like satiety/hunger etc. I liked the thought experiments which make it obvious why the calorie paradigm is wrong for determining weight changes.

🤯🤯🤯 WoW!. Great perspective and message. Looking forward to how this will impact future thought and teachings in this space.

What a gem of a video! Super informative and eye opening!

Thank you so much. This is a one of a kind video. And an extremely important point you've made.

I love this guy 🙂

Best talk and explanation for a long time, looking forward to reasearch on this❤

Thank you so much, Dr. Eades!

I can already see the CICO ppl attach the Ribeye steak vs wheat flour by wt slide, but I believe this is the exact slide explaining why LC does better. With the Ribeye steak eaters, there is little time spent turning food into fat+ketones for energy use. For the HC wheat eaters, there is the intermediate step of turning all those carbs into fats. Add to that the effect of satiety hormones' effect (low satiety equals more eating equals higher mass intake) and you quickly understand why it takes longer for HC bodies to excrete the mass they took into their body - no matter how high the useless fiber amount.

As a chemical engineer the mass in equals mass out plus accumulation makes perfect sense to me. If my body is satisfied with a lower mass of food and it doesn’t have to excrete as much to stay at equilibrium or loss weight. I think the hormonal effects and the stress on the body from the added weight and metabolic effects play a role as well, particularly in how the body is satiated and cycles through hunger again. A high fat/low carb diet is what makes intermittent fasting possible because I don’t feel like I am starving myself most of the day.

Excellent! I enjoyed that, thanks.

My late mum’s birthday. I so wanted to be there, but this is a sign

Loved this! Thank you!

Great lecture. Appreciated.

Holy crap!! This presentation is amazing. I went to sleep in Kansas and woke up inside the glass pyramid at the Louvre. (That’s how amazing I think it is.) If Dr. Eades is correct, about 150 years of nutrition research and billions of dollars worth of research have face planted in the mud.

Thanks for sharing this - fantastic!

Wow, that was awesome. Revolutionary by the simplicity of the perspective. Love it!

The fixation on energy and mass is ignoring the role of hormones. Body fat is not just food mass, it is stored fatty acids produced from carbohydrates (triglycerides) that would not be produced and stored on a low insulin diet. Body weight concerns are about obesity and not some random mass. Obesity results from high carb diets and the insulin resistance they induce. Body weight is governed by the metabolic regime regulated by insulin and other hormones (e.g. cortisol). It is not the simplistic thermodynamics of gases in closed adiabatic compartments. Energy and mass are conserved but that is not the issue.

20:19 Finally someone is paying attention to units and performing science rather than the hocuc pocus pseudo science of the calories in calories out crowd.

The questioner who said it's not useful as a pound of cake is the same as a pound of ribeye was missing the composition. As said in the presentation the ribeyes weight is over 50% water which is easily expelled as if you're into calories, has no calories.

I've watched this several times, and each time I'm reminded of the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Sallah tells Indy, "they're digging in the wrong place!!!"

Brilliant and enjoyable talk, thank you!

Great new food for thought! Thank you!

Fats were originally eschewed because they contained more calories per gram and thus the thought was that because more mass would be more satiating carbohydrates would allow dieters to eat more mass at lower caloric content. Ketogenic diets seem to show that fat is actually more satiating per gram and thus the volume of food is decreased. Note that doesnt necessarily invoke a weight loss as we all know that it would be possible to eat more mass but still lose weight (the cellulose diet is a good example). We still come back to causation. I believe it also happens to be the case that the lowest mass diet happens to also produce appropriate weight regulation in humans. It makes sense that our diet would be incredibly efficient because our species had the option to choose fat as our main fuel..

Take it a step further. It’s not mass equilibrium, it’s carbon equilibrium. The number of carbon atoms is the real measure. Carbon in, carbon out = the new CICO 😊

Very insightful!

I am a Structural Engineer myself. What you state is purely "matter of fact". I cannot imagine any engineer would see it any other way. I have recently (3 months ago) started a Keto (more carnivore) diet and this is how I came across this video now. I feel that I Innately already knew what you were saying but never expressed it or had it verbalised thus. I feel most engineers would feel the exact same way because it is the only way it could be. It felt like a Nutrition 101 class. In other words, I find it quite astounding that it has never been expressed previously. Brilliant work! Further, your point to Dr Westman that people need to use this in their future analyses is spot on. I really like Dr Westman, and I am very happy he approached your work with positivity. I think his slight hesitation is quite normal for a person who is not an Engineer no matter how intelligent they are. They often don't have the confidence to accept models as we do, in that they didn't study that way in their various fields. Ultimately my take away is that after your excretions from chemical reactions alone (from exercise, and normal body functions like your heart beating etc) , it's all about what your body decides to excrete through poop and pee, and what it decides to hold on to. The whole "calories in vs calories out" is nonsense. Some people can consume huge amounts of calories and not put on weight and others the exact opposite.

29:46 Yes! A correct diagram that makes perfect sense and has no mumbo jumbo nonsense added in to look "educated".

Wow...this was truly fascinating and clearly promising, for the dialog going forward.👍🏆 ...made sense to me including question at end regarding the food intake cake carbs verses meat low carb fat....I see it. That was very thought provoking. 👍Great talk!🏆on what could be very foundational solid.

I'm glad I watch all the way to the Q&A. I've been watching Dr. Westman's videos on here and then here he pops up in the Q&A! I was like, wait a minute that guy is familiar, oh! That's the keto doc I've been watching and listening to lol

Brilliant!!! 👍

Read Good Calories about 14 years ago. Life saver.

Funnily enough I was one of the personal trainers surveyed for that question of "where does fat go"? I answered that I had no idea what happened but I ended up asking the same question as Dr Eades, why don't we consider the weight of food in managing body weight? I even wrote a blog about it as something of a hypothesis. So cool to see others, especially the calibre of Dr Eades, come to the same idea!

Brilliant!!!!!

Danke

Wonderful intellectual discussion and presentation 👏

And maybe as a follow up it would be great to see someone doing a research to give millions of people hope, since (as per other studies) carbs are more rewarding than drugs and not only "we" want them, but also overgrowth of candida dictates the food choices.

I've worked in the meat and poultry industry. Makes me think about feed conversion in animals. Beef is 7 to 1, pork 4 to 1, chickens 2 to 1 in pounds. Humans have a feed conversion as well.

Wowza! Finally an explanation why high fat works on Keto. Before this talk I thought high fat was all about squelching hunger. Well done.

Just brilliant.

I really enjoyed this, well explained and thought-out. Thank you for this upload!

Doctors amuse me. I always thought you lose weight through your breathe. I mean, think about it. When you burn gas in a combustion engine, it comes out the exhaust, right? Docs overthink sometimes.

Brilliant! ❤️

Maybe it is in the essence quite simple. What we are craving for, when we are hungry is basically mostly energy. We need energy to function (to move, work, digest ...). For the same amount of energy we need we have to eat more than double mass of carbs than fat. And a part of that mass difference stays with us and even accumulates. We are getting fat.

I never could figure out the argument about the laws of thermodynamics being applied to humans... Most often when the assertion is made- they conveniently leave out the part about a 'closed system'... This video touches on the concept I am referring to when it hints that all inputs and all outputs must be accounted for and the simple fact is we poo... The CICO crowd seemingly ignores the need to balance both sides (the ins and outs as they suggest). To me this is a fatal flaw in the CICO perspective because it places emphasis not on 'what' to eat but 'how much' to eat when, in my n=1 experience, is exactly backwards.

75% of what most people eat on a daily basis is carbs..sugar…rice, potatos, pasta, bread..all convert to sugar very quickly. Throw in sodas, junk food, etc. And we wonder why diabetes is increasing dramatically now. Keto has worked for me..was never a heavy eater, but what I did learn was that wheat (grains) were slowly killing me…having negative effects on my hormones for many years. It was a ten year battle until I changed my diet. Keto. It works, and what I have learned is the food industry has changed over the years..hidden ingredients, fructose corn syrup and other ingredients that rewire our brains, (and hormones) What could possibly go wrong? Big Pharma though would digress.

Increase in mass comes from an increase in mass. The answer is right there. So obvious that it's been hiding in plain sight! Eat less, move more didn't quite get us there, but it seemed to make so much sense. Dump the Carbs and increase Saturated Natural Fat. Lose weight, even with minimal exercise and breathe. Exercise to build new muscle. Great talk! Thank you Dr. Eades!!!

Was it Layne Norton? For some reason I feel like Layne Norton would be telling everyone they're an idiot.

Mass= Energy - energy works in a nuclear reactor, but our metabolism is a little more subtle than that. A true equation in physics is easily validated by dimensional analysis- Kg= Joule - Joule is plainly ridiculous. We are not "Designed" to eat CHO- in nature we would eat Fat/Protein mainly . If we used glycogen to store energy instead of Fat we would be the size of a baby elephant. It is clear from the proportion of energy stores that we should fuel with Fat, have protein for structure and carbohydrate is a highly optional extra.

Terbaik. From Malaysia.

So, carbohydrates give twice more mass per calorie, that is, through 800 calories of carbohydrates in the body entered 200 grams of mass, and through 800 calories of fat entered 100 grams of mass. So when you eat carbohydrates you get more mass into the body. That was dr Eades’ idea? But on the other hand, if I ate 800 calories of carbohydrates (200 grams of mass), they are also converted into 800 calories of fat (100 grams of mass). Does this mean that the mass deposited from carbohydrates in the body will eventually become half as much? So, at the ends it’s the same after all. Or I’m missing something..

One of my Heroes 💪

And here’s a better thought experiment (because it has been done more or less). You only need one person. And the second law. Imagine an experimental diet and exercise such that the net effect is that one kg of fat is lost and one kg of protein (muscle) is gained. Now protein is a low energy compound (highly structured), while fat is a high entropy compound (you can put fat into the adipocyte with a spoon). The second law of thermodynamics says that to convert a high entropy compound to a low entropy compound will cost you energy. So, no weight is lost or gained but energy must have been utilized. Jeff Volek actually did such an experiment with low-carb diet and resistance training in undergraduates. There are some details but net effect is that most subjects lost fat mass and gained muscle. The combination was better than diet or exercise alone, of course, but he also compared results to that with a low-fat diet. The outcome was what you would think.

I heard the voice of the first comment at the end and my brain went “what I know that voice!” Funny to see Ben standing in the audience when I’m used to seeing him speaking.

Thank you! I am going to have to think about this for awhile!

Good presentation for thinking about some things from a new perspective. Not sure how the Einstein mass/energy equation fits in, since there is no atomic reaction in burning food fuel. so that is just distracting and a bit flaky.

Thank you for this extremely interesting and important presentation Dr Eades. Your new proposed paradigm based on the conservation of mass in managing weight should profoundly and positively influence the future of nutrition science. Understanding the conservation of mass together with the metabolic impact of hormones, hopefully will give us the complete answer to achieving weight control and optimal health. Your new paradigm does raise some questions and hopefully researchers will take up the torch to move the science forward. Here is one question I have. If I eat 100 grams of carbs having about 400 kcals of energy in excess of my requirements and this is converted by my liver into 44.4 grams of fat having the same 400 kcals of energy, then what has happened to the difference of 55.6 grams? Did this get converted into and expelled as CO2 and water? It doesn't make sense that the 100 grams of carbs with 400 kcals of energy would convert into 100 grams of fat with 900 kcals of energy. Because where would the extra 500 kcals of energy come from?

What should be explained in the mass in mass out is that us, like many animals have a great system to store carbs and crave for more. And there is not a storage and craving system for protein and fat, or at least not the dominant driver for mass/ energie intake.

Dr Eric Westman summed it all up very well, you don't look at the calorie content, you look at the carb content. So basically, since insulin is a fat storing hormone, and carbs raise insulin levels the most, excessive consumption of carbs will cause you to gain more fat than the consumption of protein or fat.

Excellent description of mass in Mass out of the human body. With all these references of Physicians researchers who figured parts of this out many decades ago. It's the level of insulin that controls whether we burn carbohydrates or fat or muscle protein preferentially. Carbohydrates have an Alpha linkage between the glucose molecules. Cellulose has a beta chemical linkage between the glucose molecule. Animals and many bacteria cannot break beta link bonds and thus cannot catabolize cellulose. So calories contained in cellulose can not be used by either our microbiome or our mitochondria in our body.

What about the differing amounts of calories required to metabolize fats, vs proteins vs carbs? My understanding is that it takes more calories to metabolize proteins.

I have lost 75 pounds on a keto diet. I also lost muscle and felt weaker. I started to eat more carbs on days I lift weights. I have gained muscle and strength. I was worried that eating more carbs would cause me to gain weight. So far it has not. Perhaps once you reach your normal weight you can reintroduce a small amount of carbs, say around 100 grams a day and not worry about weight gain.

Well presented and Interesting. While delta_mass = mass_in - mass_out is a bit of a tautology it does have interesting implications for why LCHF has advantage, but since store vs burn is driven by insulin when calories are deficient, so its more like insulting +MIMO + calories.

" breath more weight less" what an interesting title, which explains to me something i've wondered a lot about: in my family there are slim people and asthmatics, who became overweight after their diagnoses... I guess asthma makes people gain weight by restricting their breathing ability.

Very interesting but of course the caveat is energetic density differs between materials and the carbohydrates we eat are not necessarily preserved as carbohydrates in our body. So while I think there is something to this to build off of where one could work out some worst possible conversion in terms of energetic density, it would be impossible to truly prove as you would need to track where every single atom in a piece food goes. Although that would involve not being in a rest state anymore and therefore the equation wouldn't apply...

we can literally breathe out and pee out excess ketones on ketosis so at least on KD we can not even begin to talk about the first rule of thermal dynamics

I'll wait till the end for my next comment. I'll say. I try so hard to comment to others that are clearly obese and want to learn. Or if they start the conversation. This week at a site I started work at. All of them have pot bellies like i used to have. One guy started by saying his toes are foseen and crystalized from diabetes. I asked if anyone(dr or not) had said anything diet related. He said his sister makes him do some clenses, and weight comes off. Then goes back to regular diet, then weight comes back. I gave him the usual, less meal timing, low carb higher fat. No seed oils, high beef intake. 5 others at this site need the same thing. Some do know regular canola, soy corn are bad and use olive/avocado oil. But still have the pot belly. then at lunch he has pre-made store bought breaded chicken nuggets. Terrible. It is hard in one week to convince them to change. Or suggest what to change. One week at that site and going out to just breakfast and dinner, my blood sugar control is way worse than cooking at home. 2 hours after eating sushi, high in rice and low fat, my glucose was still at 130. way worse than at home low carb cooking, were sugar after 1 hour is back down to 110 or 105 in 45 min. Eades, taubes, feng, lustig are my heros.

Tl;DR: you lose mass when you lose mass, not when you convert potential energy. Just as a furnace doesn't lose fuel mass entirely until the ash is scooped out.

I have been Carnivore for 3 years. I'm 74 and feel 20.

The only point here is that our bodies don’t destroy the mass (atoms) of food, we harvest the energy of the bonds between atoms.

It's not the calories it's the insulin resistance, Tim Nokes It's very simple to explain with his words. If you are storing calories i mean mass. Then you will not burn it.

Genius.

A calorie is a calorie. It's like saying an elephant is an elephant. Better terminology is calorie counting is meaningless. Hormones and nutritive value outside of pure calories are the right focus.

The question on @48:00 that fat needs more Oxygen. I have a question on that: I don't know the exact numbers but if that's correct, why is it that when I'm training in ketosis (cycling) I can put out a higher wattage while breathing far less compared to when I train after eating carbs? Is it that carbs need less Oxygen per gram to burn or is it per Kcal? Because to me it seems like fat is the far superior fuel for sports (and I don't even mention the speed of recovery in that comparison).

First person I've seen get into and make the comparison with E equals MC squared even though I say it all the time it's just as relevant as thermal dynamics and you would literally have to be converting math to energy more efficient than a nuclear bomb for thermodynamics to be relevant

If a pound of adipose tissue corresponds to a certain number of calories, then that determines the weight of a calorie in terms of adipose tissue.

I haven't been able to establish a signal for undermining the "calories in calories out" hypothesis. I simply don't have to struggle with relentless hunger since going keto. On top of that the cascade of health improvements I've experienced makes the whole argument moot. I still have a tendency to over eat from time to time but I'm still losing weight in spite of everything. This journey was revolutionary for me.

Very interesting indeed. Regarding weight loss and breathing there is a weight loss exercise named Oxycise where people lose inches just by a certain deep breathing. I've done it on and off, so I found this quite interesting.

These meetings are unsurpassed. These docs are saving us. 🙏

I suspect this third alternative is a dead end. First, we need to unravel our hunger and satiety mechanism and see whether volume and weight matters. I don't think it necessarily does, as anyone who's tried eating 400 calories of peanuts vs 400 calories of soup can attest. Second, a lot of people will think themselves into a knot trying to deal with water weight, when what we really should be considering are nutrients that are metabolism-related, i.e. protein carbs and fats. Finally, I hate to see where this will end up, with the next guru writing best selling books about how we should all weigh our food before we eat them. Haven't we heard this story before?

This ties in with what Bart Kay has been saying for a long time. The calorie is a worthless unit of measurement. The energy generated by burning food bares very little resemblance to the way the effective energy the body actually gets from the food. Weight is a mass balance issue.

Interesting theory. Then fat deposits are not stores for energy but stores for mass? ;)

Energy accounting also must account for the temperature of all food, air, and liquids entering and exiting the body. It also must account for the heat of formation of every molecule that enters or exits your body. Thermodynamics can only be trumped by devine intervention. If your hypothesis doesn't agree with thermodynamics, your hypothesis is wrong. If you can prove a mechanism to defy thermo, your name will go down in history.

Wow very interesting. I wonder if the mass breathed out is more significant when in ketosis vs not and thus meaning that mass is reduced at a higher rate? I need Bart Kay to look at this concept.

Ruben Meerman 👍

I think the thing that has been overlooked here, is the second law.