Thank you! Something just seemed not right about all of this, but it took an actual scientist to call it out for what it is. Useful, helpful, and very well done.
We are so lucky to have your energetic, thoughtful, clear analysis! You manage to make your point concisely, and you are unfailingly polite while doing so. A breath of fresh air!
I was never into Dr. Naiman because his advice was very similar to traditional diet advice, but I was a super fan of Dr. Eenfeldt. I found him in 2014, and even supported his American website when it came out. The goal of DietDoctor was to make low carb simple-although the website was a little hard to navigate. I stopped supporting his website when they started getting into a lot of recipes for soy, and I completely washed my hands of him when he started going down this particular satiety path. Again, it seems very like old diet culture (and I know because I’m old and I stared my first diet in 1979). Thank for this analysis.
You're welcome. To be clear, I certainly do not have a personal issue with either Ted or Andreas. They may be stand-up gentlemen. But this SPC scoring tool is problematic and they seem resistant to feedback on what I see as flaws that must be addressed.
I had been a big fan of Dr. A. Eenfeldt when he was promoting the LCHF (back around 2011), until he fell away from that. Thank you for clarifying his current approach.
@@nicknorwitzPhD I understood that. You have explained your stance in previous videos. I am still grateful for information on what he is doing, how, and why. I am sorry if I was not clear.
Yes!!! I just was thinking what you were and what each of the commenters stated in response to yours!! I loved Dr. Scher and especially what he is doing now, so impactful!
You’re welcome 😊. I really try to resist doing reaction videos but do them when provoked and when I think there may be genuine value to reacting beyond self-serving outcomes. Here, I am choosing to demonstrate that fact be offering to delete the video if the SPC creators can step up and do the right thing
I think the real point of flawed scoring systems like these(previously the Tuffs U one) are to make sure they keep the average person as confused and frustrated as possible. This accomplishes the goal to continue to sell 'non food' as food and normalize their consumption since anyone not willing to really see what's going on will continue to buy and feel good about it. Oh hail all the mighty algorithm! Thanks again Nick, you are more than fair! Keep up the great work!
TBH I'm liking how much the word "fair" has arisen in the comments. Clearly there's a selection bias as this is my UA-cam... but still... seems I wasn't the only one annoyed by the lack of intellectual integrity of the SPC score/program
I've said this for a long time. The contradictory and confusing nutritional recommendations we see have had the net effect of convincing low information consumers (who in earlier years would have been eating 3 square meals a day) that it would be impossible for anyone without an advanced degree in nutrition to figure out how to eat healthily.
Nick, you just knocked this topic "out of the park"-WELL DONE. In this day and age of a tsunami of crappy pseudoscience, we are going to need more honest and insightful researchers like you, Dave Feldman, Vinay Prasad, David Diamond and Bart Kay who can call out the charlatans who are trying to fool us on a daily basis. Please keep up your amazing work in the field of cardiometabolic health.
I gotta comment on the tee shirt Nick... I LOVE IT, so great and funny. Only folks who saw your video(s) on the Oreo/Cholesterol test would understand. Very creative!
Respect, Nick! Well done. I appreciate steel-manning their argument first. FWIW, I tried the "more protein" approach. I gained weight because I felt like eating more often. Also, because my CIRS comes with Hypometabolism I could the glucose spikes after protein heavy meals. Finally, DietDoctor was a primary source and reference when I first got started. I have not been to their site and don't care what they have to say after trying higher protein for satiety and seeing it backfire. (Admittedly, I have CIRS and that changes things. We are complex systems with EMERGENT behaviours. It's up to US to test these things to see how WE respond). Keep it up. And I appreciate you being open minded if they address the issues... (My ending thought is: Curve Fitting is still Curve Fitting... And usually doesn't do more than create a goat rope)
I'm glad that you are talking about this subject! I was a fan of diet doctor and visited the site almost everyday until dr Naiman came on board that ship. His P/E concept never made much sense to me and there was a lot of negative push back from people visiting the site. Dr Eensfeld tried very hard to convince everyone that it was a better way....but it didn't work very well
I can't tell you how disappointed I was when the guy behind Diet Doctor, a site I found so useful and recommended so frequently, started down this path. I really could not believe what I was reading and hearing. It reminds me of the wacky Food Compass rating system out of Tufts University. It is almost as though they are trying to rewrite reality. Boggles my mind.
Honestly, after over 6 years on a keto/animal based diet, I am listening to myself and what I have learned from n=1 eating and not the multitude of talking heads out there peddling their version of the truth, regardless of the letters after their names and the length of their white lab coat. Carry on! As always, Well done Nick! Love your provocative and nuanced videos!!
One of your best videos! I agree with your analysis. I also agree with the notion that healthy, high satiety foods are a good strategy for weight loss & maintenance. BTW, healthy, high satiety to me means a low carb diet cooked at home with REAL food.
True satiety is a signal that you have consumed sufficient nutrients. You cannot have satiety without sufficiency. Many of us have lost touch with this signal and rely on the discomfort of activated stretch-sensors to stop eating (but that’s a longer discussion). This model, at times, seems to view satiety as a measure of the substance’s ability to fill the stomach. This means that pure cellulose could have a high satiety score. We can argue about how nutritive cellulose is, but by this model, sand could also qualify as “high-satiety” and it would “have a beneficial effect on short-term satiety” (on their site in reference to fiber). Thank you for covering this-it’s helped me feel sane, this morning. I saw the presentation where this was first rolled out, and I found it incredible that anyone thought that this edifice of sophistry and marketing could be useful for guiding human health.
Seems we are more or less on the same page. This is a provocative statement: "You cannot have satiety without sufficiency." ... makes me also think about how it's too easy to confuse short-term satiety with longer term weight/metabolic health outcomes. Acute doesn't always translate to chronic...
I have the idea that could be a bit more complicated than just having hit the necessary: I have autoimmune plus the effects of surgeries/long antibiotic cycles (up to 14 months uninterrupted ) and when I get inflamed satiety signals get messed up for a while. I suspect science will nuance it even more in the future.
@@lucia_cossu_voiceteacher I believe that the manifestation of what any individual calls “satiety” has great nuance. I fundamentally believe that satiety is about driving the body toward homeostasis. The needs of a body that has just run a marathon will be different from one nurturing an infant will be different from one with an autoimmune condition. Not to mention, our bodies exist in and with many states and conditions, simultaneously. On top of that, if all of the food you have access to (or are willing to eat/consider eating (if you don’t consider it, you’re not going to eat it)) is of limited nutritional value and has high levels of toxicity, your sense of what satiety is will be limited by that food. Under such a scenario (say you eat only highly-processed foods) it’s conceivable that you’ve never been nutritionally sufficient, and have therefore never felt the satisfaction thereof. But, knowing of the word “satiety” and given that you stop eating (i.e., don’t continuously eat each second of the day), at some point, you assume that you stop because you have reached satiety, when it’s possible that you’ve stopped eating because you are approaching the physical capacity of your stomach.
@@monnoo8221 If you eat properly you will not crave food for multiple hours. If you eat poorly, you will overeat and be hungery much earlier. Why do you think GLP-1 rugs work? Protein and fiber for example increase natural GLP-1, so eating foods centered on those nutrients will be more satiating than foods that lead to the generation of less GLP-1.
I think you were more than fair. This is an outright hustle. Over my own time here regaining control of my metabolic health things like this, that are outright flawed and regular people distort anyway to justify their diet are well beyond harmful if that's even possible.
There is so much about nutrition that we don't know, it's difficult to pick out what is true and what isn't. Personally, I have a broken system from years of obesity started in early childhood. Back then, a fat baby was a healthy baby. I was literally over fed, forced to eat, to satisfy my parents. This has stuck with me my entire life. I am currently ketovore and it's working in that I don't gain weight. I don't lose weight, but not gaining might be all I can hope for. There are as many aspects as there are people. There will never be a "one size fits all". Thank you for pointing out the fallacies. As you mentioned, the theory "sounds" reasonable.
It's surprising how much sounds reasonable and ends up being deception... One might say SPC is like the new "balanced diet" ... sounds nice... put into action (score)... very problematic.
You might need to add fasting into the mix if weightloss is your goal. My goal is health benefits, but I lost weight unintentionally but beneficially. Good luck to you ❤ x
when you said "satiety per calorie" would be a scam, you got me REALLY skeptical! Because I didnt know this was a program, and its been the way I eat my food for a long time now. If something has high calories but cannot provide satiety, why bother? Been very low carb ever since! Great Video!
My contacts with doctors have been horrendous so I don’t trust random doctor. Glad I didn’t listen them. Maybe most idiotic advices were never to excercise and cut salt because I had 140/80 bloodpressure on average at 16 years old. Only light jogging occasionally was advised. Then they gave 5 rounds of antibiotics to get rid of semichronic cold in the head. Got alopecia totalis right after that. Last doctor diagnosed ear infection. I thought it was BS and went to get my stuffed ear cleaned. Now doctors put my father on statins even though oxidated LDL fraction thes was fine and no other problems. Reasoning was that my fathers alcoholic, chain smoking grandfather had heart disease so genetically prone.
Thank you for doing this. I stopped following Diet Doctor when they shifted to this approach even though they were critical to me 5-6 years ago when I discovered Low Carb.
I’m not against alternatives to low-carb. I love that there are lots of options for people who have different preferences. That’s not my issue. My issue is with the pseudoscience propagated by Ted and Andreas that I feel is shameful and harmful. The core idea isn’t terrible. They just have poor execution and dishonest marketing
@@nicknorwitzPhD That is exactly my issue. I actually chatted with Andreas on twitter/X when he started putting out some of the baseless statements and trying to do unscientific surveys (I am a statistician) and he was nice but defensive.
The best part of this episode was "Shifting the Burden of Proof" at 9:00. Starting with a global health emergency four years ago, this has been a common tactic of those who bandy about 'The Science.' Burden-of-proof shifting has been bothering me ever since, and now I have a name for it. When people wield 'The Science' as a political weapon, shift happens.
@@nicknorwitzPhD All Hospitals should be run by doctors for maximal patient health outcomes. Currently, they are not due to being largely socialized, they have no incentive to improve via market forces.
@@24killsequalMOAB so doctors who spend years to learn their craft should instead become business administration types and deal with cafeterias and waste disposal, and bill collections and parking lot striping , etc. Hmm , maybe not the best use of their skills ? Just asking?
@@Call_sign_Rover_1 nice strawman, Doctors should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of a hospital that affect patients health. How is diet not a part of that? Administrators should work in tandem with doctors to make sure that each other's jobs are easier, diet is a part of that. Either Doctors should work for Admins that already understand this to some degree, or they hire Admins that they can teach these things to.
About the doctors thing. Many doctor might want your best, but they can’t/don’t do it. I can’t find a doctor under my provider that wants to treat me, because of my diet. I’ve been in the meetings when they get to know what to recommend to the patients, and it is pathetic. Really, it’s the best way to describe it. It’s not about the doctors, but about the system that forces them to do what they do.
"It’s not about the doctors, but about the system that forces them to do what they do." - a simple statement, but with an unfortunate amount of truth IMHO. But take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm but 28... but I have been that patient that suffers because of a broken system. How do we fix it?
@@nicknorwitzPhDscientists on opposing view points will get eventually more studies out and private clinics like Revero will show undeniable success. That message gets amplified in social media and by word of mouth. Doctors coming on UA-cam and making content has been gamechanger I think
Thank you very much for describing the problem with the composite scores that assign a "health value" to food or groceries. Living in the EU I can refer to the Nutriscore heuristic that aims to inform people about caloric density to avoid obesity. Of course, the "real" underlying problem is more likely to reassign the proportion of the macros (higher fat and lower carb intake). It is an interesting problem how an individualized construction of a nutritional guideline could be done. I thought a lot about it in the last months and concluded that only a paradigm shift can lead to a systematic change; next to the epidemiologic studies that are poorly controllable (confounders, etc.) it is necessary to include studies that actually explain physiological processes that favor certain outcomes for specific target populations (e.g. if an individual always eats carbs three times a day and does some snacking it is more likely that insulin is upregulated permanently which in turn decreases the skill for metabolic flexibility). Keep up the good work :)
Nick: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for taking this whole thing apart. I have been critical of their endeavor, "Hava" or whatever they call it ever since they started putting it out there. They cannot articulate it, yet people are signing up to take part in it as if it offers something of value. At every turn in its development I have tried to ask critical questions of them, but they put me on ignore. Don't be surprised if they stiff you too. But, thanks for trying.
Cooked and ate 6 eggs whilst watching this, I'm satiated. Stop with the calories, the concept is flawed and we need more than just energy from food anyways.
Thank you! This has seemed to be a half-baked, "magical satiety number" event from the get-go, with heavy marketing and an obvious interest in the business bottom line. It is barely distinguishable from Weight Watchers and the food "value" point system that really roared into action after Jean Nidetch sold WW to H.J. Heinz in 1978 for $71 million. The whole SPC thing needed to be fairly sorted out which you have done clearly, with specificity, and with - the usual - excellent support for points in your critique. One can only wonder how many of those who followed Diet Doctor have unquestioningly moved into the SPC business.
I know from experience of four doctors, specialists, who admit that low carb is potentially life changing, but then ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED me because it was "unsustainable." They were all obese. I've been low carb/ketogenic for five years. Reversed heart disease, lost 40 lbs. These doctors were not interested in promoting health, but they tried to sell me drugs and refer me to colleagues that would give me surgeries to fix the problems that low carb has since fixed.
So it's nice that people know that foods rich in protein and fiber tend to be more satiating, but in my view, comparing them directly seems a bit naïve. The body *needs* protein and if you eat just a bunch of fiber, you're unlikely to feel completely satiated. On the other hand, after your diet has enough protein in it, then including high-fiber low calorie foods in the remainder can be an effective way of increasing your satiety. On the other hand, some fatty cuts of meat can be quite calorie dense, so they might not feel as satiating as a protein+fiber combo when you adjust for calories. Sadly, there's no way of escaping the fact that context matters.
I am a 73 yo man became health conscious 33 years ago at the age of 40 started the transformation after reading Dr Gabriel cousins conscious eating book became vegetarian vegan raw food juicing sprouting all was better than a processed western diet last 10 years low carb keto animal based also a supplement junkie and have seen a lot of content in this space Ted was my hero what a journey from high fat to high protein to HAVA hard to believe Halo Top I use frozen blueberries heavy cream drizzle macadamia butter instant best ice cream sprinkle vanilla powder saffron etc so really disappointed to see Ted and Andreas go off on this path kind of gives the carb addicts an easy excuse to backslide by the way dr Gabriel cousins now promotes a vegan keto diet so the knowledge is evolving and thanks Nick for doing your part to advance the science
Thanks. I would say my pleasure… but this video was tbh not a pleasure to make. And, sadly, SPC folks just went back to their pseudoscience and platitudes and marketing
The "fibre" suggestion tells me they can't even differentiate between satiety and fullness. I spent most of my life filling myself all day and always being hungry. Now I eat to satiety once a day, and even with getting an entire day's food in a single sitting, I'm nowhere near half full at the end of the meal. They have the right basic idea, they're just trying to make things a lot more complicated than they are.
This reminds me of the satiety index. It’s so very misleading because it only gives you a short term picture, not how it affects appetite later or the next day. In fact, using the satiety index as a guide was the most ‘fattening’ diet strategy I have ever used!
Hi Nick, Interesting video. Just curious about what you think of the P:E diet? One of the messages I got from it is that "energy toxicity" is the reason for metabolic issues. I can see the merits of this idea. But it goes largely against what lots of Keto people say which is that having lots of fats is not an issue. Thanks.
As I did in the main SPC video I’ll give credit where it’s due: I think the P:E concept can be a useful heuristic for some. I also like that the ratio is rather intuitive and objective/transparent. But I think Ted Naiman makes hyperbolic claims with respect to both PE and more recently SPC, and wish he’d just treat them as heuristics rather than pretending they are universal models of obesity. He’s a skilled graphic designer. He’s a good salesman. But I have not been impressed by his command of the literature. That’s not a secret.
Typically when I hear someone use the term metabolic health, I assume they are a ketard, who thinks the body won’t burn fat in the presence of insulin. Not sure what Ted Naiman means when he says that. I’m unfamiliar with Dr. Andreas, and he may be a total quack with no data whatsoever. But Naiman et al. have been talking about satiety for years. Unlike satiation, which means a food makes you stop eating now, satiety means a food makes you eat less over a time period, say 24 hours. Anyone that has ever eaten fruit for breakfast knows that you are hungry within a short time period. So I have no doubt that a low sugar, high protein frozen milk product leaves one fuller, longer than a couple apples. Your mileage may vary. Their data all springs from the protein leverage hypothesis, and grew into the nutrient leverage hypothesis. The idea is that people will consume foods until their protein/vitamin/mineral needs are met. If the food is low in those, like olive oil, you’ll over consume the energy component. Those studies already exist among animals. There aren’t going to be any double blind, randomized controlled trials for humans, because those are expensive. And there isn’t any money in it, because whatever you learn can’t be trademarked, copyrighted or patented….and sold in a bottle. Dr. E and Naiman are trying to get a first mover advantage. Now I will tell you where I believe they get their numbers. If you go do a search for: optimisingnutrition satiety-index, you will find the website of Marty Kendall. Marty is a great guy with a humble approach in my opinion. About a decade ago someone came into possession of millions of Myfitnesspal data journal entries. They have made those publicly available as well. Now, if you’ve ever used a food tracker, you know they ask you to select a calorie target. Some days you go over the target, some days you go under the target. If you take the aggregation of days that people went under their calorie targets and do a multivariate regression analysis against what protein/vitamins/minerals they consumed, you can correlate energy intake to each of those. And likewise when you go over your target. So you can do a graph that shows each level of fiber consumption relative to calorie intake for example. Or potassium, or protein etc. I personally think cherries are much better for your health than low sugar, high protein frozen milk dessert. But when you consider that fruits and nuts are seasonal, and that people would likely have gorged on them when in season, there is little reason to believe those foods provide a negative feedback to eating them from an evolutionary perspective. One shouldn’t confuse fitness with health however.
Yep. Very Fair critique. I feel like people who are drawn to this type of approach engage in wishful thinking. It’s like Layne Norton’s typical customer. The Sugar Addict. The Sugar Addict wants to lose weight and improve their health but the will not/can not give up sugar. Layne Norton tells them you don’t have to. You can eat Lucky Charms and twinkies and lose weight on my program. “It’s all about CICO”. So…..,ANY dietary restriction will work. So he makes them believe they will get results even if they eat 1500 calories of sugar per day. The problem is …. THEY’RE SUGAR ADDICTS. An alcoholic can not achieve sobriety only drinking 150 ml of alcohol per day. He will not stop. He will fail. Just like most of Layne Nortons customers do.
Andreas Eenfeldt kinda saved my life many years ago convincing me to enter the LCHF world. Diet Doctor with Bret Sher was Amazing. 500 000+ subscribers and fantastic content. I still think Andreas wants to make good, but has jumped into a rabbit hole, (and lost 95% of his subsribers by this HAVA project). A positive interpretation is that hava wants to bridge the gap between vegans and carnivore, but as Nick points out, lost much of the science along the way. Maybe Nicks comments can push Andreas and Ted back toward a more realistic pathway. Keep up the good job Nick.
If there were a proper study pitting the two head to head, then yes. But as noted in our JN, it’s not hard to design a study that presents good optics but is methodologically “worse than useless” - WW. IYKYK.
@@nicknorwitzPhD can you provide a link to "our JN"? The simple version of the experiment would be to, for a month, have 10 people eat unlimited amount of only 1 - burgers and pizza, 2 - macadamias and cream or 3 - egg whites and asparagus, and see which group lost/gained the most weight. A larger data set is needed to validate each of the satiety factors and their weightings, which would be difficult in a controlled feeding study. Kellogs funded the last satiety index study back in 1995 and I'm not sure any big food companies will be stepping forward to help fund a meanful study. I would be interested to understand what you're thinking.
Marty it seems like you deleted your reply to my reply. This is the JN: jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(23)72806-X/fulltext. Note Kevin Hall et al did have an LTE, which we replied to, addressing all points. Additionally, Walter Willet - fully aware of Kevin's response letter - still maintains the Hall metabolic ward trial (which I believe Andreas/Ted have used to extract data from for SPC) is "worse than useless. I think our arguments stand on their own so you may ignore this if the "appeal to authority" is not appealing. But I present it to demonstrate this isn't a matter of "low carb tribalism." It's a matter of scientific integrity. Additionally, I noted your question in X and read is word for word in my chat with Ken today and responded. Thanks for the question.
@@nicknorwitzPhD I don't know what happened to the previous post. I did edit it to say that a simple experiment (though maybe not cheap, or at least within my budget) to test SPC vs CIM would be to have three arms of people that ate unlimited amounts of low satiety (e.g. burgers and pizza) vs 'low insulin' (e.g. macadamias and cream) vs high satiety (e.g. asparagus, broccoli, egg whites, shrimp, sirloin steak, chicken breast, plain potatoes, low-fat Greek yogurt etc) and compare intake and weight loss. I appreciate the mention in the video with Dr Berry. I have been building and refining various iterations of my satiety algo (in public on my blog) for about six years using data from multiple sources. I just added another 50k days of macro and micronutrient data to my dataset and am putting the finishing touches on the updated algo before I write this one up. I'll shoot you a copy once it's drafted. Your constructive feedback would be more than welcome. While no generalised satiety algo will be perfect (because cravings depend on the individual and their current diet), we can build something that helps a lot of people escape foods designed for profit at the expense of our metabolic health.
Thank you so much for bringing this to light! I was one of diet doctors biggest fans back in 2014 when I found them and was 200 + pounds when I went low-carb high-fat with intermittent fasting I lost 60 lbs in 9 months and was one of their success stories. I was the biggest fan of keto. Then through the years I would keep it off and occasionally go off the way of eating and getting a little weight back but I would always go back to the foundational lchf and intermittent fasting keeping carbs below 20 eat and all the butter that I wanted in my Bulletproof Coffee and coconut oil then as of the last few years I kind of gave it all up when covid happens and menopause at the same time and gained most of the weight back . And then I would follow all the UA-cam influencers on the newest way to lose weight and when I saw Ted Naaman Dr E talking about this new way of eating I thought it made sense. I tried it. I tried to increase my protein but I just can't stomach a lot of meat so I was doing as Ted name and suggested and eating a lot of low-fat or fat-free Greek yogurt and cottage cheese and I was breaking out with horrible cystic acne . So that wasn't going to work for me not to mention still hungry even eating all that lean protein. I am very disappointed in Dr E for changing. But I guess it works for some people but not foremost I will go back to my Bulletproof Coffee and moderate protein an intermittent fasting and hopefully lose the weight again this year
I think you were fair. It seems to me both of the individuals in question started this project with good intentions to help people manage their eating habits and become metabilically healthy. I hope they can work out their model in a helpful way.
I just got back into health insurance. I walk into the docs office... Me: im having a great year so far ive lost 20 lb and im feeling good on Keto. (This was march) Him: ok heres metphormine, heres a paper work on why your my approved diet (standard american diet), also would you like to take a sleep apnea test? Let me get you a referal. Yeah, no. Its the doctors pushing this shit. Cant trust them, the insurers, nor the providers. All are out for their own profit and lie through their teeth. The problem of low information patients and the falling of a high trust society into a low trust society.
As far as I can tell, doctors who don’t follow “standard of care” can be held legally responsible for anything that goes wrong even if what went wrong couldn’t have been prevented. I have worked with several doctors who, because of what was considered “poor choice in patient care”, were denied liability insurance. Did they make poor choices? I really don’t know. But in at least 2 cases I know of, the end result was more a matter of the patient not seeking help until it was too late. So, do I blame doctors for “holding the line”? Not really. Why learn what’s new in research results if a sword of Damocles is hanging over your head if you try to implement such knowledge in your practice. The system is broken. People without even poor medical training are telling those with it what they can and can’t do.
Great video, you articulated all of my thoughts and challenges this layman has made to them since they launched this pile of junk, but as they chose to block me on twitter, I’ve not seen any of their output since….🤣 it’s just a shame Diet Doctor once had a good reputation but they’ve lost the plot with satiety/calorie……
Fair criticisms. While an easy-to-use tool/“toy”/app approach may well be helpful to those who don’t have time, interest or education to do more, the creators do need to recognize that positioning themselves as docs here is a conflict of interest since the algorithm is not based on science. I agree that the founders can redeem themselves by making this explicit and not hiding behind their doctor credentials. The public needs help navigating all the messages/choices from big food, big health & big Pharma. An app that is easy to use, maybe even fun, and that emphasizes how to do this using a few accepted nutrition principles like higher protein & fiber and lower carbs in order to fight obesity would be welcome. I think you’re the one who can help them do this Nick.🙏
@@Hikari7775 "It is good for you, we have enough evidence showing that" Quackery, not "evidence". The only good thing about fiber is that it slows down the absorbtion of sugar. But eating sugar is unhealthy any and no one should be doing that. Other than that, fiber is not usefull but is harmfull as it causes leaky gut and malnourishment...
I generally eat focusing on my satiety, but I don't really understand how one could make an actual validated version of this. I have noticed that for example some tuna will have a strong effect on my satiety, but if I have already had 150G of protein in that day eating more tuna will have basically zero effect on my hunger. I assume that at a certain point having more of an amino acid that I already have plenty of isn't going to have a strong effect, but that means you couldn't just assign a value to a gram of protein that works on all people. I couldn't even assign a single value to myself because it really works to keep me sated, until it doesn't. I don't think you need a score though, I just make sure I get my 1 gram per lb of protein, and try and make sure I get plenty of fiber and plenty of volume, so if I have already had plenty of protein, then I make sure I get some green veggies, it doesn't need to be rocket science, all you have to do is make a food diary and make some notes on how full you feel eating certain things and just figure out how your body responds because clearly hunger signals just aren't the same person to person. I don't know if that is because of genetics or microbiome or whatever, but I don't really need to know why, I just need to know how I respond.
I have never even heard of this before! I liked Diet Dr till they put up a paywayy,then I went less and less...Reading all yhese comments ,my head is spinning. Thank you for this video.
I stopped following them when they brought in Ted Naiman. Listening to a couple of podcasts with him really made me angry. I was also angry at Dr. Brett Scher for a while... but he seems to have found himself a better job now.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yes, I loved him too, and I trusted him. That's why I overate protein - and put on weight, and became insulin resistant again.... and I'm not out of the woods yet. I wish you had done this video 3 years ago.
@aurapopescu1875 Define "overate". How many grams per kg of body weight? Ratio of macronutrients? Without additional data your statements are meaningless.
@@okradokrad They are meaningless for you, not for me. I put on 12 kg and my BG went back into pre-diabetic range. All of this while not eating any carbs. The high protein was kicking me out of ketosis.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill (1) Do you see any statement on their website about between category comparisons (2) Even within category, do you think fast food nuggets should score above fried eggs/egg yolks etc. Is that a reasonable, evidence-based claim? (3) Even so, do you think it appropriate to extrapolate their SPC score to claims about "metabolic health" (4) What are your overall thoughts on my criticisms of the methodology/marketing (5) Do you think the 4 opportunities I provide the SPC team to get my video removed are reasonable?
I disagree with Nick on a lot of stuff but agree with this video. There's no study of SPC. It's like saying "eat only green foods, including green candy" and then saying that some studies show leefy green vegetables lead to better outcomes.
I followed Diet Doctor for a long time, mainly for Dr. Bret Scher's UA-cam videos covering current research papers. I've wondered if his move over to Metabolic Mind (which is excellent) was partly due Diet Doctor's shift to Satiety Per Calorie. If you don't know Dr. Bret Scher, check out his DD videos and MM videos
Nick please explain how RCT work. How do they measure extremely important factors that significantly impacts health. Factors such as sleep quality, sleep duration, quality and duration of sunlight exposure, quality and mineral content of drinking water, chemical and toxic exposure duration and dose from medications foods water air etc. How do RCTs control for these factors. How can we get cause and effects data or information when they cannot control for such key significant factors? I am seeing Quantum Biology coming in with great potential information about how human health is declining from the separation of nature in water light and magnetism. To many examples of civilizations in latitudes far from the equator thriving on near carnivores diets and also civilization near the equator thriving on a heavily plant based diet. Quantum Biology suggests sunlight and deuterium water play heavily into this effect. Couldn’t we say that most chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes and cancer a mitochondria disfunction? What about the Sherpas in the Himalayan mountains. I don’t see many people in nature that possess the same physical performance of this Sherpas.
After I saw Teds populistic (is that a word in english 😂?) and unscientific appearance on your "debate" podcast last year (or was it already 2022? Feeling old now), that topic was honestly dead to me. With a single tear falling for diet doctor. Good to see that it was right not to waste more time on them. I would just have gotten angry.
@@SchmittsPeter The irony is I knew what response I'd probably get and highlighted the play play in the video... and they did EXACTLY that. But I can sleep better now knowing that those who want to interrogate the matter rigorously have a resource.
AS ALWAYS 🔥 Nick ! , a small request, could you kindly tell how to find the right nutrition in the context of health and fitness. ( I know from your contents that, it is highly metabolic context dependent, yet few general frameworks to look into for making the most efficient conjectures.), Appreciate your time
Honestly, the best answer I have is to try to learn the principles... Things like if you're more insulin resistant, then it's extra important/beneficial to focus on reducing the glycemic load of your diet. I don't think there is a good algorithm I can provide. But I'm happy to show up and teach principles... hopefully I can deliver helpful content moving forward to address your request.
Satiety per calorie was a silly concept 4 years ago, when they first coined it. I commented at the time that fasting can have a satiating effect. So what does division by zero do to their formulae.
Licensed Doctors are in a bind. If they do kot follow the rules they lose their license. But some doctors follow the rules blindly. I have had doctors get upset because i did not want to ear carbs, i have had doctors tell me, for my age i am very healthy and to keep doing what works for me. Im carnivore.
Their theory makes sense in a 'common sense' way. But that doesn't mean it's valid, ie. having a sound basis in logic or fact. There's no way diet ice cream is better for me than fruit, nuts, olive oil, etc just b/c I like it better and will therefore be satisfied with less of it....that assumption conflates eating a reduced calorie food that is generally a desirable food with eating healthfully, implying that fruit and nuts aren't as desirable and that I will hence eat more of them b/c they won't satisfy me. I despise most reduced calorie foods and would prefer real food like fruit and nuts and b/c I find them so satisfying I may or may not eat less...there are a lot of other factors that would come into play in the 24 hour period in consideration in this circumstance...today for example, I woke up late b/c I didn't rest well the night before, had some full fat dairy milk made into hot chocolate to break the fast (no coffee, etc this morning)..I ate lunch at noon, a healthy sandwich made of flourless multi-grain bread, some mayo, horseradish, cheese, green peppers, with sides of sliced raw carrot, fresh tomato from the garden and an indulgence of half an ounce of salted potato chips...dessert was half an apple, 15 red grapes, some black walnuts with about a TB of sour cream, a tiny sprinkle of brown sugar and a drizzle of honey all mixed tog...I was so satiated up to that point that I had no cravings the rest of the afternoon. When a neighbor sent some cake she'd made with my husband, I caved and ate some b/c I love chocolate and I love cake and that tasted yummy but was in no way satiating..and in fact it started me craving 'more'. Thankfully it was a small mini-loaf pan which limited what I and my husband could eat.
Speaking of burden of proof, before getting into the particulars of how they built their model, I’d start with the assumption that it is even possible to come up with a single ranked list that is useful for any individual. Why should that be our default assumption? I get that it’s a simplifying assumption, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will result in more good than harm. Just as an imagined counterexample, say there was a hypothetical animal that had two modes of metabolism, with some of the animals favoring one mode over the other. And imagine that the two modes had different nutritional requirements, and that animals who tried to mix the two nutritional strategies tended to suffer adverse health effects that naturally directed them, via trial and error, towards one nutritional strategy or the other. If we decided to help the animals achieve better health by using AI to create a ranked list of foods using methodology similar to what was described in this video, but failed to recognize the different metabolic modes and the different subpopulations, we would likely come up with a list of foods that mixed the two nutritional strategies, and that, if adhered to (e.g. trying to eat everything in the top 10), would be a health disaster for many of the animals.
"Why should that be our default assumption?" -- I agree... it shouldn't be. However, if people want to try to execute on it and provide an approximation, they can do so. However, that should come with transparency and validation.
I think Ted’s point was that most obese or diabetic (type 2) people are over fat. So eating low carb is great in not raising acute insulin but in chronically high insulin state both fatty acid and blood glucose are going up. Fat just has a delayed response in blood glucose rising. You see these carnivore doctors with high blood glucose because of this. So high protein and fiber are the way to get both fatty acid and glucose down without starving you to death which he wanted to quantify by satiety index. Now as a result very fatty salmon may have lower score than high protein food and that’s throwing people off. Ted is more an engineer and he is trying to offer solution rather than research result but I guess marketing side he is probably not really controlling and therefore message may be confusing to people
Sounds like yet another round-about, complicated method to make them able to tell people they don't need to manage their carb additions. Isn't that what every modern human on a SAD diet wants to hear? "You can be thin and healthy and still eat the junk food you love so very much!" What better click bait is there?
Okay, I'm not a medical professional or science geek, nor do I play one on tv. However, the preponderance of information I've seen is that fat, particularly saturated fat, is a major driver of satiety. Seems to me that leaving that component out brings everything else into question, or am I missing something?
I think your broader point/suggestion that the SPC model discounts much of nutritional endocrinology is spot on. That said, I wouldn't claim sat fat is more satiating than MUFA or PUFA per se.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thank you for your reply. I'm still early on my journey, even though I'm 72. I'm slowly learning the truth that there is no such thing as a one size fits all diet or way of eating.
Thanks, Nick, on point and polite as usual. Dr E was so vital in contributing to metabolic health previously, I wonder why he has taken off on this strange tangent now.
Interesting comment. Can you elaborate? With you’re referring to Ted and Andreas, it’s very possible they have the best of intentions, truly… does that make their approach any better? Does that compensate for the scientific issues raised or their resistance to address them?
@@nicknorwitzPhD . Pardon the vagueness of my comment. I was referring to physicians in general, not meant to imply anything negative about Ted and Andreas, or physicians for that matter.
Also, adding to these are logical fallacies that are constantly used on social media and in debate in general. People should keep in mind that there's levels of knowledge and specialty in nutrition. You can have a scientist who knows the mechanisms of the body and can explain why something is good or not. Then you have the loudmouth arrogant one who just makes claims (without adequate proof) and attacks whoever has something different to say. Everyone should understand also that debates aren't science and are not proof that someone is right or wrong. You can have a debate that someone "won" with no actual proving something is true or not.
9:00 I can disprove it with their same metrics tho. It doesn't work. Eating higher protein with lower fat isn't more satiating, nor is being bloated by fiber satiety. It didn't work for me. It only made my food more expensive.
I think you were fair. That's why I stopped subscribing to Diet Doctor. I noticed a long time ago that Ted Naimann is all about calorie counting. Not my cup of tea.
Normal people don’t go to college for 14-16 years. This naturally selects for people with a certain agreeable character and by the end of that slog you are willing to go along with nearly anything the “authorities” say. Oh yeah then throw in student debt to that equation.
Pseudoscience is forgivable when compared to the flagrant lies content creators use to name the video clips they farted out. Pseudoscience is only a test for the audience, to keep them alert, to make sure that they still pay attention. Worthless information that is contradicting common cense disguised as something interesting is amusement, it still bring revenues to the maker. It is a crime that pays. The real basic problem is that telling lies is profitable.
Nick, I love your "take names and kick butts" approach to delivering observations of snake oil salesmen posing as health practitioners. I remember this slimy guy Andreas back when Dr. Brett Scher was giving pointers about low carb. Now these guys are saying Ice Cream is better than nuts, watermelon, etc? Put the boot to 'em!
Yes, this was fair, and needed when folks are doing things which look like some sort of scam; i.e., novel claims lacking evidence for the contrary. Sadly, it seems like some in the Low Carb Community are trying to carve-out their own little empires from the community - in doubious ways (in some cases).
@@nicknorwitzPhD I sometimes wonder about Paul Saladino and Thomas DeLauer, which isn't to say I haven't benefited from some of their videos. I like Dr. Eric Westman a lot too, but it is irritating when he comes across a bit arrogant as he goes after other doctors, scientists, and influencers in the space (and sometimes he is spot-on with his concerns about what others are saying).
Not strictly pseudoscience, but a close runner-up is the use of relative risk to inflate benefit and absolute risk to deflate side effects of a given drug or procedure.
Very fair, appropriate and useful critique. Thank you for using your time, intellect and talent to help educate us about nutrition and physiology in such a straightforward and intellectually honest way. I really appreciate you sharing your journey of learning with all of us, and making an extremely complex subject easier for people like me to understand. In this space it is very hard to find resources (people, institutions, etc) that you can fully trust. Keep up the great work.
Definitely a fair analysis. Feels very likely to be abused like the heart smart ticks, low fat, low carb claims by processed food companies- playing the numbers rather than pursuing healthier. Before ignoring whether the foundational claims are sound
What's the point of eating to satiety if you end up with nutrient deficiencies? Just keep it simple; very low carb, high animal fat. (That's how I view it, anyway)
@@egg399. I've sometimes been guilty of the same, and sometimes guilty of mishearing, let us forgive ourselves and carry on. (I think that is sufficiently pretentious sounding)
I think it’s fair to question scientific claims or any claims for that matter. Especially when the claim does not stand up to reason or so called common sense. I read the Wikipedia article on Russell’s teapot, which I found fascinating. For myself personally, I think the person making the claim has the burden of proof. You seem to just be asking them to prove their claim. Which to me proof should come before the claim.
I agree with moat of what you say Herr, especially as it relates to fallacies, evidence, and arbitrariness. One exception I'll make is your objection to the claim that this diet ice cream could be "better" for "metabolic health". Your objection seems to be an argument from incredulity. I say this for 3 reasons: 1) You don't present any reason or evidence it is wrong; you only describe the claim using incredulous disbelief terms such as being absurd or ridiculous. 2) You, yourself, have made similar claims that health professionals have been incredulous towards. Is their claim about the diet ice cream any less believable than claiming oreo cookies can reduce your LDL better than statins? Context matters. 3) Similar to you, I had performed an N=1 experiment on myself to prove a health point, and it arguably fits with what the SPC model is trying to say. In 2018 I saw an episode of Joe Rogan where he and a guest claimed Snickers bars are essentially toxic and you could only survive for about 2 weeks on them. I knew this was wrong, so I spent 30 days where 100% of my calories were from Sniclers bars. I felt fine, my health was good, and I lost a little weight. What I did was a simple calories in / out weight loss. Each 52g Snickers was 250 Cal, and I planned to est 6 per day at 2 hour intervals, for 1500 Cal. What I found was that I often lost interest in food after the 4th or 5th. If I did have the 6th, it was often going through the motions of the plan, not desire or craving. I had no cravings and no snacking in between. Conversely, I have tried many diets to lose weight and have failed repeatedly from cravings and snacking. Most of these, obviously, involved traditionally "healthy foods" such as mediterranian, but also more controversial like keto, vegan, and even carnivore, and I've done full meal replacement powdered diets of exact calories. The easiest weight loss I've ever done was my Snickers diet. If we measure "healthy" based on the paper CV of food from their nutritional value, of course fish and nuts are better than diet ice cream or Snickers bars. But if we measure "healthy" based on effeftiveness for losing weight, the Snickers diet actually worked best for me and was therefore arguably "better" for my health -- at least in terms of weight loss -- than these other foods. Now, there may be other areas of health beyond weight where my Sniclers diet things worse. I didn't have blood work done before and after so I can't say. But I do take a daily multi-vitamin, so I don't think it would be missing micronutrients. This, to me, is what SPC seems to be trying to quantify. Not what foods are the best on paper, but which are the most effective in practice of improving the health of people including them sticking to the diet and not cheating with worse foods in which case diet ice cream may be a lot better for metabolic health in practice than salmon. However, I agree that needs to be proven, and I doubt is true when you measure across all possible health outcomes. There are likely tradeoffs.
HOLD UP… I did not claim is was not possible. I pointed out their claim was far fetched and unsubstantiated. Please don’t fall into classic tactic 4 and shift the burden of proof. They made the claim, not me. I’m challenging the validity of their claim, not the possibility. Regarding the Oreo data, the point was that they were incredible AND that I had data to back them. See the difference?
@nicknorwitzPhD I think we might be miscommunicating a little. I'll reframe my points a little, with an added issue. 1) I think you are absolutely right about process, burden of proof, and their failure to meet those standards at this point. I would not base my diet on their work or spend any money on them. 2) I'm not sure they are claiming what you say they are claiming, at least not in that tweet you show, though I can see the inference is reasonable if they are basing everything on that single score value. 3) I'm not sure you are interpreting the (inferred) claim correctly because you don't give any details, only dismissive incredulity. For #1, I'm fully skeptical of their work, as you presented, and 100% agree with all of the scientific criticisms you've made on what they are doing. It appears, from what you've presented, that they haven't closed the evidence loop by actually comparing people following their approach having better health outcomes. All they' appear to have done is quantified their hypothesis and essentially calibrated it with experimentation. So I agree with your criticisms of both their science and argumentation fallacies. For #2, I do notice you make several positive claims here. It's not that I disagree with your position per se, but that you might be missing some nuance Specifically @4:58 you say, "What results in an evitable stream of absurd claims, like that Arctic chocolate peanut butter ice cream, or Halo Top ice cream, is better for metabolic health. This was the claim by Dr Eenfeldt. Not just weight management but that this diet chocolate peanut butter ice cream is better for metabolic health than avocados, olives, nuts, ground pork, dark chocolate, a lot of fruits. Better for you than cherries, watermelon. They're saying that this diet ice cream is better for your metabolic health than cherries, nuts, or avocados." You put on screen a tweet from Dr. Eenfeldt that did not exactly claim that. What his tweet said that you put on screen was "What's the best ice cream for weight loss and metabolic health. Here's the result of our scoring, ranking popular ice creams based on their @JoinHava satiety score." In the tweet, he didn't claim that the ice cream in question was better than the fruits, vegetables, or nuts that you mention for metabolic health; he referred to ranking different ice creams. *If* his claims about relative value for both weight loss and metabolic healthiness of the ice creams is based solely on their score, then it seems reasonable to infer that they are claiming their score directly correlates with metabolic health value across all foods (as well as weight loss value), and hence your extrapolation from relative ice creams to other foods would be reasonable. But, do they do that? Do they (a) base the claim about relative metabolic health of popular ice creams based solely on their scoring metric, and (b) do that claim that this relative comparison generalizes to all foods based on their score? Perhaps, but I don't know, and you didn't present anything in the video that demonstrates that this is what they claim. You appear to have inferred it and then extrapolated. I would have to do some research into that tweet, their ice cream ranking, their response, etc., to see if that is what they are claiming. For #3 on interpreting the inferred claim in #2, you didn't provide any support for claiming it is absurd or nonsense. Specifically, you say @5:37: "Clearly this [the above quote from @4:58] is absurd, and if you don't think it's absurd then you should probably click off this video." And, @8:10, "You can see that based on the fact that their scoring system, even after a year of engineering and tweaking still produces bupkis results like chocolate peanut butter diet ice cream is better for metabolic health than cherries, avocado, nuts, olive oil, and dark chocolate. That's nonsense." So, if #2 is a correct inference, then a scientific objection would be that this is unproven and unsupported. But you go further than simply saying that. You make the positive claim that this is "absurd", "bupkis", and "nonsense", which appear to be claims that it is wrong and that you are claiming that these fruits, vegetables, and nuts are better for metabolic health than the diet ice creams. You don't give any specific reasons for these claims, and suggest that if anybody disagrees they should "probably click off this video". There are two problems with this way of presenting it this way, I think. The first is that it is just presented as an argument from incredulity. You are saying their claim is "clearly" wrong because it is "absurd" and "nonsense", and if you disagree then just stop watching. You might be right, but you should still state *why* you believe it is absurd and nonsense. That is actually important because it reveals assumptions and understanding. I may agree with you that the (inferred) claim is absurd, nonsense, and not true, but that depends on how I interpret their (inferred) claim and there are at least two very different interpretations: (A) If the claim is that the diet ice creams are "better" in a nutritional sense, that does seem like an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. (2) If it is that functionally people will tend to get better metabolic health if they try to change their diet to include these ice creams -- whether over other ice creams (directly claimed) or the fruits, nuts, vegetables (inferred claim) -- then that is a very different claim and perhaps no so absurd. The difference is in the effectiveness of the diet in terms of people's ability to stay on it. You'd test these two cases differently. For (A), you'd do something like compare a control group to Group 1 that changed their diet to include these ice creams and Group 2 that changed their diet to include these fruits, vegetables, and nuts, under some proper comparison controls, and measure some metrics related to "metabolic health". I'm fairly confident there's already a lot of data on that and the conclusion seems clear that the diet ice creams should do much worse. This would be consistent with claiming it's absurd and nonsense to suggest the reverse, and hence I'm inferring from your statements that this interpretation seems to be what you believe they are claiming. To test (B), you need to address that people in their daily lives are not under controlled scientified studies of what they eat, but directly control their own food intake. You would still have something like a Control Group who isn't asked to do anything differently, Group 1 asked to switch their foods to include the diet ice creams, and Group 2 asked to switch their foods to these fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and then measure the metabolic health metrics out the other end. No effort is made to control what people actually eat or ensure they stick to the diet, because ability to stick to the diet is part of what is being measured. In the case of (B), it is quite possible that Group 1 ends up with better metabolic health than Group 2 or the Control Group. If Group 2 tries to eath fruit, vegetables, and nuts, but fight craving and end up snacking on less healthy food, they could get worse metabolic health outcome. Now, you've said this is possible. But, I don't see any reason to claim that (B) is absurd or nonsense. This is, after all, what many people struggle with when trying to eat healthier. As I mentioned, I did better at losing weigh on 100% Snickers than trying to eat healty foods. It's quite possible my "metabolic health" also improved. It seems perfectly reasonable to claim this. If (B) is their claim, I don't think your claims about it being absurd or nonense would stand up. They could still be wrong, but such a claim would seem to be quite reasonable. They need to provide evidence for their claim, but you'd need to provide evidence for your claim. We don't know whether the ice cream or the fruits, veggies, and nuts are better for metabolic health in the context of (B). We do have a lot of data for (A), but not for (B), as far as I know. Hence, presenting your understanding of their claim about the diet ice cream is important, including your reasons for claiming it is absurd and nonsense. In my experience, and from points made from science philosophy debaters like Daniel Dennett, arguments from incredulity usually mask a misunderstanding or an important premise that is skipped over. Again, I may agree with you on all points, including the absurdity of their claims. I'm not a criticizing that part. I'm simply stating that you've made some claims here yourself that lack foundation. It's not clear that they are claiming what you are saying they claim, and the absurdity of those potential claims isn't clear without stating the context of how they are being interpreted. It's a 98% great video. I could write just as much about the great stuff, to be clear. It would seem a bit redundant, just reiterating the points you've made. So I hope the volume doesn't imply disagreement on the whole. It is only these above issues I'm pointing out. And, I'm pointing them out because others have made similar statements about the absurdity of claims about Oreos and statins, and Snickers and sugar, so we all need to be careful to get context and interpretations clear and not to make the same mistakes that our own critics make about our claims. That's all I was intending.
it is entirely possible, though improbable, that a 'diet' ice cream is better than fruit etc but the metric would be in something like 'anti- nutrients or fructose. A made up score for the win is quite silly by these doctors.
@@nicknorwitzPhD It is just me being pedantic on the aspect of diet ice cream being quite possibly better than fruit (in many ways, not the least of all low carb) an example would be the recent craze of cottage cheese ice cream using Allulose with say a macadamia nut swirl to incorporate a few of your other videos.
Thank you! Something just seemed not right about all of this, but it took an actual scientist to call it out for what it is. Useful, helpful, and very well done.
Thank you Admiral.
We are so lucky to have your energetic, thoughtful, clear analysis! You manage to make your point concisely, and you are unfailingly polite while doing so. A breath of fresh air!
Thank you Mary... evidently Dr E didn't feel the same way ;).
Doctors don't necessarily want you sick, but the medical and pharmaceutical industry do. The food industry helps them drive that.
It’s a matter of misaligned incentives.
The companies want to make money. That is the case for all companies. They don't care about your health as long as you give them your money.
Exactly why people should not put too much trust in corporations for their health...
@@firstchoicefarm7767 Not just food companies but health organisations, univeristies,etc who get massive funding from them.
@@nicknorwitzPhD 'misaligned' is such a polite word. I think 'perverse' is more fitting.
I was never into Dr. Naiman because his advice was very similar to traditional diet advice, but I was a super fan of Dr. Eenfeldt. I found him in 2014, and even supported his American website when it came out. The goal of DietDoctor was to make low carb simple-although the website was a little hard to navigate. I stopped supporting his website when they started getting into a lot of recipes for soy, and I completely washed my hands of him when he started going down this particular satiety path. Again, it seems very like old diet culture (and I know because I’m old and I stared my first diet in 1979). Thank for this analysis.
You're welcome. To be clear, I certainly do not have a personal issue with either Ted or Andreas. They may be stand-up gentlemen. But this SPC scoring tool is problematic and they seem resistant to feedback on what I see as flaws that must be addressed.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Hmm. I wonder why they would $eem to be re$i$tant to feedback?
@@rollingstone3017 One can only gue$$
@@nicknorwitzPhD Ni$$e! 🙂
@@nicknorwitzPhD Honestly I'm surprised you didn't realize Ted is just a grifter years ago. Or maybe you just don't want to say it outright.
I had been a big fan of Dr. A. Eenfeldt when he was promoting the LCHF (back around 2011), until he fell away from that. Thank you for clarifying his current approach.
I have no issue with Dr E going in a non-low carb direction. This isn't about that at all. It's about their arrogant and deceptive marketing
@@nicknorwitzPhD I understood that. You have explained your stance in previous videos. I am still grateful for information on what he is doing, how, and why. I am sorry if I was not clear.
Yes, thats why Dr. Brett left Diet Dr.
I suspect that’s the case, but Brett’s not the type to make a noisy exit.
I did wonder. So sad and very confusing to those of us on the periphery.
@@juliamanning2658 I love what Dr. Brett is doing with the Metabolic Mind podcast/youtube.
Yes!!! I just was thinking what you were and what each of the commenters stated in response to yours!! I loved Dr. Scher and especially what he is doing now, so impactful!
Yes it's great
Note to self. Stay curious and don’t try to BS Nick. Thanks for your videos. Never boring.
You’re welcome 😊. I really try to resist doing reaction videos but do them when provoked and when I think there may be genuine value to reacting beyond self-serving outcomes. Here, I am choosing to demonstrate that fact be offering to delete the video if the SPC creators can step up and do the right thing
I think the real point of flawed scoring systems like these(previously the Tuffs U one) are to make sure they keep the average person as confused and frustrated as possible. This accomplishes the goal to continue to sell 'non food' as food and normalize their consumption since anyone not willing to really see what's going on will continue to buy and feel good about it. Oh hail all the mighty algorithm! Thanks again Nick, you are more than fair! Keep up the great work!
TBH I'm liking how much the word "fair" has arisen in the comments. Clearly there's a selection bias as this is my UA-cam... but still... seems I wasn't the only one annoyed by the lack of intellectual integrity of the SPC score/program
I've said this for a long time. The contradictory and confusing nutritional recommendations we see have had the net effect of convincing low information consumers (who in earlier years would have been eating 3 square meals a day) that it would be impossible for anyone without an advanced degree in nutrition to figure out how to eat healthily.
Good point: "...to continue buying and to feel good about it."
its a system to constantly sell hope to sick and unhappy people.
Nick, you just knocked this topic "out of the park"-WELL DONE. In this day and age of a tsunami of crappy pseudoscience, we are going to need more honest and insightful researchers like you, Dave Feldman, Vinay Prasad, David Diamond and Bart Kay who can call out the charlatans who are trying to fool us on a daily basis. Please keep up your amazing work in the field of cardiometabolic health.
Great. Glad you think so. Was never good at baseball so happy I could compensate with a marketing strategy autopsy
I gotta comment on the tee shirt Nick... I LOVE IT, so great and funny. Only folks who saw your video(s) on the Oreo/Cholesterol test would understand. Very creative!
It’s certainly an inside joke 😂
Respect, Nick! Well done. I appreciate steel-manning their argument first.
FWIW, I tried the "more protein" approach. I gained weight because I felt like eating more often.
Also, because my CIRS comes with Hypometabolism I could the glucose spikes after protein heavy meals.
Finally, DietDoctor was a primary source and reference when I first got started. I have not been to their site and don't care what they have to say after trying higher protein for satiety and seeing it backfire. (Admittedly, I have CIRS and that changes things. We are complex systems with EMERGENT behaviours. It's up to US to test these things to see how WE respond).
Keep it up.
And I appreciate you being open minded if they address the issues... (My ending thought is: Curve Fitting is still Curve Fitting... And usually doesn't do more than create a goat rope)
"I appreciate steel-manning their argument first." - thanks for noticing this. Means a lot.
I'm glad that you are talking about this subject!
I was a fan of diet doctor and visited the site almost everyday until dr Naiman came on board that ship. His P/E concept never made much sense to me and there was a lot of negative push back from people visiting the site.
Dr Eensfeld tried very hard to convince everyone that it was a better way....but it didn't work very well
A ship carrying $, not metabolic health.
I would identify the “prove me wrong”argument as just a fancy new gaslighting narcissist behavior- love the content Nick ! Keep up the great content
🦶 2 the 🔥
I can't tell you how disappointed I was when the guy behind Diet Doctor, a site I found so useful and recommended so frequently, started down this path. I really could not believe what I was reading and hearing. It reminds me of the wacky Food Compass rating system out of Tufts University. It is almost as though they are trying to rewrite reality. Boggles my mind.
Boggles mind too
Maybe that's why Bret left ?
Yes. It is sad. DD was a great and helpful site.
@@nicknorwitzPhD I had no idea this was even going on! Everyone has a price and the powers that be found Diet Dr.'s price. This is so disturbing.
Honestly, after over 6 years on a keto/animal based diet, I am listening to myself and what I have learned from n=1 eating and not the multitude of talking heads out there peddling their version of the truth, regardless of the letters after their names and the length of their white lab coat. Carry on! As always, Well done Nick! Love your provocative and nuanced videos!!
One of your best videos! I agree with your analysis. I also agree with the notion that healthy, high satiety foods are a good strategy for weight loss & maintenance. BTW, healthy, high satiety to me means a low carb diet cooked at home with REAL food.
What… no Diet Coke and Halo Top? 😉
True satiety is a signal that you have consumed sufficient nutrients. You cannot have satiety without sufficiency. Many of us have lost touch with this signal and rely on the discomfort of activated stretch-sensors to stop eating (but that’s a longer discussion).
This model, at times, seems to view satiety as a measure of the substance’s ability to fill the stomach. This means that pure cellulose could have a high satiety score. We can argue about how nutritive cellulose is, but by this model, sand could also qualify as “high-satiety” and it would “have a beneficial effect on short-term satiety” (on their site in reference to fiber).
Thank you for covering this-it’s helped me feel sane, this morning. I saw the presentation where this was first rolled out, and I found it incredible that anyone thought that this edifice of sophistry and marketing could be useful for guiding human health.
Seems we are more or less on the same page. This is a provocative statement: "You cannot have satiety without sufficiency." ... makes me also think about how it's too easy to confuse short-term satiety with longer term weight/metabolic health outcomes. Acute doesn't always translate to chronic...
I have the idea that could be a bit more complicated than just having hit the necessary: I have autoimmune plus the effects of surgeries/long antibiotic cycles (up to 14 months uninterrupted ) and when I get inflamed satiety signals get messed up for a while. I suspect science will nuance it even more in the future.
@@lucia_cossu_voiceteacher I believe that the manifestation of what any individual calls “satiety” has great nuance. I fundamentally believe that satiety is about driving the body toward homeostasis. The needs of a body that has just run a marathon will be different from one nurturing an infant will be different from one with an autoimmune condition. Not to mention, our bodies exist in and with many states and conditions, simultaneously. On top of that, if all of the food you have access to (or are willing to eat/consider eating (if you don’t consider it, you’re not going to eat it)) is of limited nutritional value and has high levels of toxicity, your sense of what satiety is will be limited by that food. Under such a scenario (say you eat only highly-processed foods) it’s conceivable that you’ve never been nutritionally sufficient, and have therefore never felt the satisfaction thereof. But, knowing of the word “satiety” and given that you stop eating (i.e., don’t continuously eat each second of the day), at some point, you assume that you stop because you have reached satiety, when it’s possible that you’ve stopped eating because you are approaching the physical capacity of your stomach.
@@monnoo8221 In your estimation, what are a few reasons why we end any given eating session?
@@monnoo8221 If you eat properly you will not crave food for multiple hours. If you eat poorly, you will overeat and be hungery much earlier. Why do you think GLP-1 rugs work? Protein and fiber for example increase natural GLP-1, so eating foods centered on those nutrients will be more satiating than foods that lead to the generation of less GLP-1.
I think you were more than fair. This is an outright hustle. Over my own time here regaining control of my metabolic health things like this, that are outright flawed and regular people distort anyway to justify their diet are well beyond harmful if that's even possible.
Hustle seems an appropriate term.
There is so much about nutrition that we don't know, it's difficult to pick out what is true and what isn't. Personally, I have a broken system from years of obesity started in early childhood. Back then, a fat baby was a healthy baby. I was literally over fed, forced to eat, to satisfy my parents. This has stuck with me my entire life. I am currently ketovore and it's working in that I don't gain weight. I don't lose weight, but not gaining might be all I can hope for. There are as many aspects as there are people. There will never be a "one size fits all". Thank you for pointing out the fallacies. As you mentioned, the theory "sounds" reasonable.
It's surprising how much sounds reasonable and ends up being deception... One might say SPC is like the new "balanced diet" ... sounds nice... put into action (score)... very problematic.
You might need to add fasting into the mix if weightloss is your goal. My goal is health benefits, but I lost weight unintentionally but beneficially. Good luck to you ❤ x
when you said "satiety per calorie" would be a scam, you got me REALLY skeptical! Because I didnt know this was a program, and its been the way I eat my food for a long time now. If something has high calories but cannot provide satiety, why bother? Been very low carb ever since!
Great Video!
Hey Nick, I really appreciate your eagle eyes for exposing misleading information.
Sadly, medical school has shot my vision... Im' between an eagle and a bat... but thank you ;)
What??? Chocolate ice cream is not better than salmon???? I'm gonna have to rethink my diet..lol.
😂
My contacts with doctors have been horrendous so I don’t trust random doctor. Glad I didn’t listen them. Maybe most idiotic advices were never to excercise and cut salt because I had 140/80 bloodpressure on average at 16 years old. Only light jogging occasionally was advised. Then they gave 5 rounds of antibiotics to get rid of semichronic cold in the head. Got alopecia totalis right after that. Last doctor diagnosed ear infection. I thought it was BS and went to get my stuffed ear cleaned. Now doctors put my father on statins even though oxidated LDL fraction thes was fine and no other problems. Reasoning was that my fathers alcoholic, chain smoking grandfather had heart disease so genetically prone.
Thank you for doing this. I stopped following Diet Doctor when they shifted to this approach even though they were critical to me 5-6 years ago when I discovered Low Carb.
I’m not against alternatives to low-carb. I love that there are lots of options for people who have different preferences. That’s not my issue. My issue is with the pseudoscience propagated by Ted and Andreas that I feel is shameful and harmful. The core idea isn’t terrible. They just have poor execution and dishonest marketing
@@nicknorwitzPhD That is exactly my issue. I actually chatted with Andreas on twitter/X when he started putting out some of the baseless statements and trying to do unscientific surveys (I am a statistician) and he was nice but defensive.
Me too
Diet doctor is still great reference for ketogenic lifestyles but this new tangent is so “blurry” I can’t “see” it.
The best part of this episode was "Shifting the Burden of Proof" at 9:00. Starting with a global health emergency four years ago, this has been a common tactic of those who bandy about 'The Science.' Burden-of-proof shifting has been bothering me ever since, and now I have a name for it.
When people wield 'The Science' as a political weapon, shift happens.
Glad you found lesson 4 insightful/useful in general.
Sure, because allowing UPFs in every hospital cafeteria is screaming proper intent
❤
And you think doctors control what’s served in hospital cafeterias?
@@nicknorwitzPhD All Hospitals should be run by doctors for maximal patient health outcomes. Currently, they are not due to being largely socialized, they have no incentive to improve via market forces.
@@24killsequalMOAB so doctors who spend years to learn their craft should instead become business administration types and deal with cafeterias and waste disposal, and bill collections and parking lot striping , etc. Hmm , maybe not the best use of their skills ? Just asking?
@@Call_sign_Rover_1 nice strawman, Doctors should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of a hospital that affect patients health. How is diet not a part of that? Administrators should work in tandem with doctors to make sure that each other's jobs are easier, diet is a part of that. Either Doctors should work for Admins that already understand this to some degree, or they hire Admins that they can teach these things to.
About the doctors thing.
Many doctor might want your best, but they can’t/don’t do it.
I can’t find a doctor under my provider that wants to treat me, because of my diet.
I’ve been in the meetings when they get to know what to recommend to the patients, and it is pathetic. Really, it’s the best way to describe it.
It’s not about the doctors, but about the system that forces them to do what they do.
"It’s not about the doctors, but about the system that forces them to do what they do." - a simple statement, but with an unfortunate amount of truth IMHO. But take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm but 28... but I have been that patient that suffers because of a broken system. How do we fix it?
@@nicknorwitzPhDscientists on opposing view points will get eventually more studies out and private clinics like Revero will show undeniable success. That message gets amplified in social media and by word of mouth. Doctors coming on UA-cam and making content has been gamechanger I think
they aren't engineers, they are doctors, they would never make it as an engineer...
Well they aren’t scientists
Thank you very much for describing the problem with the composite scores that assign a "health value" to food or groceries. Living in the EU I can refer to the Nutriscore heuristic that aims to inform people about caloric density to avoid obesity. Of course, the "real" underlying problem is more likely to reassign the proportion of the macros (higher fat and lower carb intake). It is an interesting problem how an individualized construction of a nutritional guideline could be done. I thought a lot about it in the last months and concluded that only a paradigm shift can lead to a systematic change; next to the epidemiologic studies that are poorly controllable (confounders, etc.) it is necessary to include studies that actually explain physiological processes that favor certain outcomes for specific target populations (e.g. if an individual always eats carbs three times a day and does some snacking it is more likely that insulin is upregulated permanently which in turn decreases the skill for metabolic flexibility).
Keep up the good work :)
Nick: Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for taking this
whole thing apart. I have been critical of their endeavor,
"Hava" or whatever they call it ever since they started
putting it out there. They cannot articulate it, yet people
are signing up to take part in it as if it offers something
of value. At every turn in its development I have tried to
ask critical questions of them, but they put me on ignore.
Don't be surprised if they stiff you too. But, thanks for
trying.
Actually I'm Andreas's pinned tweet. I've tried to ignore them for months but he keeps tagging me in... so I gave him what he was asking for.
Cooked and ate 6 eggs whilst watching this, I'm satiated.
Stop with the calories, the concept is flawed and we need more than just energy from food anyways.
Thank you! This has seemed to be a half-baked, "magical satiety number" event from the get-go, with heavy marketing and an obvious interest in the business bottom line. It is barely distinguishable from Weight Watchers and the food "value" point system that really roared into action after Jean Nidetch sold WW to H.J. Heinz in 1978 for $71 million. The whole SPC thing needed to be fairly sorted out which you have done clearly, with specificity, and with - the usual - excellent support for points in your critique. One can only wonder how many of those who followed Diet Doctor have unquestioningly moved into the SPC business.
I know from experience of four doctors, specialists, who admit that low carb is potentially life changing, but then ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED me because it was "unsustainable." They were all obese. I've been low carb/ketogenic for five years. Reversed heart disease, lost 40 lbs. These doctors were not interested in promoting health, but they tried to sell me drugs and refer me to colleagues that would give me surgeries to fix the problems that low carb has since fixed.
So it's nice that people know that foods rich in protein and fiber tend to be more satiating, but in my view, comparing them directly seems a bit naïve.
The body *needs* protein and if you eat just a bunch of fiber, you're unlikely to feel completely satiated. On the other hand, after your diet has enough protein in it, then including high-fiber low calorie foods in the remainder can be an effective way of increasing your satiety. On the other hand, some fatty cuts of meat can be quite calorie dense, so they might not feel as satiating as a protein+fiber combo when you adjust for calories.
Sadly, there's no way of escaping the fact that context matters.
I am a 73 yo man became health conscious 33 years ago at the age of 40 started the transformation after reading Dr Gabriel cousins conscious eating book became vegetarian vegan raw food juicing sprouting all was better than a processed western diet last 10 years low carb keto animal based also a supplement junkie and have seen a lot of content in this space
Ted was my hero what a journey from high fat to high protein to HAVA hard to believe Halo Top I use frozen blueberries heavy cream drizzle macadamia butter instant best ice cream sprinkle vanilla powder saffron etc so really disappointed to see Ted and Andreas go off on this path kind of gives the carb addicts an easy excuse to backslide by the way dr Gabriel cousins now promotes a vegan keto diet so the knowledge is evolving and thanks Nick for doing your part to advance the science
Keep up the good work, truth is a great thing, set it FREE. 🎉
Thank you Nick for exposing this pseudoscience. You’re one of the few I trust on UA-cam.
Thanks. I would say my pleasure… but this video was tbh not a pleasure to make. And, sadly, SPC folks just went back to their pseudoscience and platitudes and marketing
The "fibre" suggestion tells me they can't even differentiate between satiety and fullness. I spent most of my life filling myself all day and always being hungry. Now I eat to satiety once a day, and even with getting an entire day's food in a single sitting, I'm nowhere near half full at the end of the meal.
They have the right basic idea, they're just trying to make things a lot more complicated than they are.
This reminds me of the satiety index. It’s so very misleading because it only gives you a short term picture, not how it affects appetite later or the next day. In fact, using the satiety index as a guide was the most ‘fattening’ diet strategy I have ever used!
Fibre and calories have nothing to do with human nutrition
I wouldn’t say that
You are so clever and I believe always fair. Keep it up Nick
Cheers Shelley.
Hi Nick,
Interesting video. Just curious about what you think of the P:E diet? One of the messages I got from it is that "energy toxicity" is the reason for metabolic issues. I can see the merits of this idea. But it goes largely against what lots of Keto people say which is that having lots of fats is not an issue.
Thanks.
As I did in the main SPC video I’ll give credit where it’s due: I think the P:E concept can be a useful heuristic for some. I also like that the ratio is rather intuitive and objective/transparent. But I think Ted Naiman makes hyperbolic claims with respect to both PE and more recently SPC, and wish he’d just treat them as heuristics rather than pretending they are universal models of obesity. He’s a skilled graphic designer. He’s a good salesman. But I have not been impressed by his command of the literature. That’s not a secret.
Typically when I hear someone use the term metabolic health, I assume they are a ketard, who thinks the body won’t burn fat in the presence of insulin. Not sure what Ted Naiman means when he says that.
I’m unfamiliar with Dr. Andreas, and he may be a total quack with no data whatsoever. But Naiman et al. have been talking about satiety for years. Unlike satiation, which means a food makes you stop eating now, satiety means a food makes you eat less over a time period, say 24 hours. Anyone that has ever eaten fruit for breakfast knows that you are hungry within a short time period. So I have no doubt that a low sugar, high protein frozen milk product leaves one fuller, longer than a couple apples. Your mileage may vary.
Their data all springs from the protein leverage hypothesis, and grew into the nutrient leverage hypothesis. The idea is that people will consume foods until their protein/vitamin/mineral needs are met. If the food is low in those, like olive oil, you’ll over consume the energy component. Those studies already exist among animals. There aren’t going to be any double blind, randomized controlled trials for humans, because those are expensive. And there isn’t any money in it, because whatever you learn can’t be trademarked, copyrighted or patented….and sold in a bottle. Dr. E and Naiman are trying to get a first mover advantage.
Now I will tell you where I believe they get their numbers. If you go do a search for: optimisingnutrition satiety-index, you will find the website of Marty Kendall. Marty is a great guy with a humble approach in my opinion. About a decade ago someone came into possession of millions of Myfitnesspal data journal entries. They have made those publicly available as well. Now, if you’ve ever used a food tracker, you know they ask you to select a calorie target. Some days you go over the target, some days you go under the target. If you take the aggregation of days that people went under their calorie targets and do a multivariate regression analysis against what protein/vitamins/minerals they consumed, you can correlate energy intake to each of those. And likewise when you go over your target. So you can do a graph that shows each level of fiber consumption relative to calorie intake for example. Or potassium, or protein etc.
I personally think cherries are much better for your health than low sugar, high protein frozen milk dessert. But when you consider that fruits and nuts are seasonal, and that people would likely have gorged on them when in season, there is little reason to believe those foods provide a negative feedback to eating them from an evolutionary perspective.
One shouldn’t confuse fitness with health however.
Yep. Very Fair critique.
I feel like people who are drawn to this type of approach engage in wishful thinking.
It’s like Layne Norton’s typical customer. The Sugar Addict.
The Sugar Addict wants to lose weight and improve their health but the will not/can not give up sugar. Layne Norton tells them you don’t have to. You can eat Lucky Charms and twinkies and lose weight on my program. “It’s all about CICO”. So…..,ANY dietary restriction will work. So he makes them believe they will get results even if they eat 1500 calories of sugar per day.
The problem is …. THEY’RE SUGAR ADDICTS.
An alcoholic can not achieve sobriety only drinking 150 ml of alcohol per day. He will not stop. He will fail. Just like most of Layne Nortons customers do.
Andreas Eenfeldt kinda saved my life many years ago convincing me to enter the LCHF world.
Diet Doctor with Bret Sher was Amazing. 500 000+ subscribers and fantastic content.
I still think Andreas wants to make good, but has jumped into a rabbit hole, (and lost 95% of his subsribers by this HAVA project).
A positive interpretation is that hava wants to bridge the gap between vegans and carnivore, but as Nick points out, lost much of the science along the way.
Maybe Nicks comments can push Andreas and Ted back toward a more realistic pathway.
Keep up the good job Nick.
Thanks for sharing! Good stuff
Would you renouce the CIM if there was adequate data to validate SPC to your satisfaction?
If there were a proper study pitting the two head to head, then yes. But as noted in our JN, it’s not hard to design a study that presents good optics but is methodologically “worse than useless” - WW. IYKYK.
@@nicknorwitzPhD can you provide a link to "our JN"?
The simple version of the experiment would be to, for a month, have 10 people eat unlimited amount of only 1 - burgers and pizza, 2 - macadamias and cream or 3 - egg whites and asparagus, and see which group lost/gained the most weight.
A larger data set is needed to validate each of the satiety factors and their weightings, which would be difficult in a controlled feeding study. Kellogs funded the last satiety index study back in 1995 and I'm not sure any big food companies will be stepping forward to help fund a meanful study.
I would be interested to understand what you're thinking.
Marty it seems like you deleted your reply to my reply. This is the JN: jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(23)72806-X/fulltext. Note Kevin Hall et al did have an LTE, which we replied to, addressing all points. Additionally, Walter Willet - fully aware of Kevin's response letter - still maintains the Hall metabolic ward trial (which I believe Andreas/Ted have used to extract data from for SPC) is "worse than useless. I think our arguments stand on their own so you may ignore this if the
"appeal to authority" is not appealing. But I present it to demonstrate this isn't a matter of "low carb tribalism." It's a matter of scientific integrity. Additionally, I noted your question in X and read is word for word in my chat with Ken today and responded. Thanks for the question.
@@nicknorwitzPhD I don't know what happened to the previous post.
I did edit it to say that a simple experiment (though maybe not cheap, or at least within my budget) to test SPC vs CIM would be to have three arms of people that ate unlimited amounts of low satiety (e.g. burgers and pizza) vs 'low insulin' (e.g. macadamias and cream) vs high satiety (e.g. asparagus, broccoli, egg whites, shrimp, sirloin steak, chicken breast, plain potatoes, low-fat Greek yogurt etc) and compare intake and weight loss.
I appreciate the mention in the video with Dr Berry. I have been building and refining various iterations of my satiety algo (in public on my blog) for about six years using data from multiple sources. I just added another 50k days of macro and micronutrient data to my dataset and am putting the finishing touches on the updated algo before I write this one up. I'll shoot you a copy once it's drafted. Your constructive feedback would be more than welcome.
While no generalised satiety algo will be perfect (because cravings depend on the individual and their current diet), we can build something that helps a lot of people escape foods designed for profit at the expense of our metabolic health.
There isn't such data and will never be.
Thank you so much for bringing this to light! I was one of diet doctors biggest fans back in 2014 when I found them and was 200 + pounds when I went low-carb high-fat with intermittent fasting I lost 60 lbs in 9 months and was one of their success stories. I was the biggest fan of keto. Then through the years I would keep it off and occasionally go off the way of eating and getting a little weight back but I would always go back to the foundational lchf and intermittent fasting keeping carbs below 20 eat and all the butter that I wanted in my Bulletproof Coffee and coconut oil then as of the last few years I kind of gave it all up when covid happens and menopause at the same time and gained most of the weight back . And then I would follow all the UA-cam influencers on the newest way to lose weight and when I saw Ted Naaman Dr E talking about this new way of eating I thought it made sense. I tried it. I tried to increase my protein but I just can't stomach a lot of meat so I was doing as Ted name and suggested and eating a lot of low-fat or fat-free Greek yogurt and cottage cheese and I was breaking out with horrible cystic acne . So that wasn't going to work for me not to mention still hungry even eating all that lean protein. I am very disappointed in Dr E for changing. But I guess it works for some people but not foremost I will go back to my Bulletproof Coffee and moderate protein an intermittent fasting and hopefully lose the weight again this year
I think you were fair. It seems to me both of the individuals in question started this project with good intentions to help people manage their eating habits and become metabilically healthy. I hope they can work out their model in a helpful way.
Their intent might have been good... doesn't alter the product...
@@nicknorwitzPhD Agreed.
I just got back into health insurance. I walk into the docs office...
Me: im having a great year so far ive lost 20 lb and im feeling good on Keto. (This was march)
Him: ok heres metphormine, heres a paper work on why your my approved diet (standard american diet), also would you like to take a sleep apnea test? Let me get you a referal.
Yeah, no. Its the doctors pushing this shit. Cant trust them, the insurers, nor the providers. All are out for their own profit and lie through their teeth. The problem of low information patients and the falling of a high trust society into a low trust society.
As far as I can tell, doctors who don’t follow “standard of care” can be held legally responsible for anything that goes wrong even if what went wrong couldn’t have been prevented. I have worked with several doctors who, because of what was considered “poor choice in patient care”, were denied liability insurance. Did they make poor choices? I really don’t know. But in at least 2 cases I know of, the end result was more a matter of the patient not seeking help until it was too late.
So, do I blame doctors for “holding the line”? Not really. Why learn what’s new in research results if a sword of Damocles is hanging over your head if you try to implement such knowledge in your practice. The system is broken. People without even poor medical training are telling those with it what they can and can’t do.
Great video, you articulated all of my thoughts and challenges this layman has made to them since they launched this pile of junk, but as they chose to block me on twitter, I’ve not seen any of their output since….🤣 it’s just a shame Diet Doctor once had a good reputation but they’ve lost the plot with satiety/calorie……
Yep
Fair criticisms. While an easy-to-use tool/“toy”/app approach may well be helpful to those who don’t have time, interest or education to do more, the creators do need to recognize that positioning themselves as docs here is a conflict of interest since the algorithm is not based on science. I agree that the founders can redeem themselves by making this explicit and not hiding behind their doctor credentials. The public needs help navigating all the messages/choices from big food, big health & big Pharma. An app that is easy to use, maybe even fun, and that emphasizes how to do this using a few accepted nutrition principles like higher protein & fiber and lower carbs in order to fight obesity would be welcome. I think you’re the one who can help them do this Nick.🙏
Thanks. I’ve offered. Their replies have not been so inviting 😅
Keep trying, I will too ;)
Knew Dr. Ted had some massive blind spots after listening to him on peak human.
I was pretty spirited how confidently he spoke about matters in which he was clearly not well-versed. Very surprising
Claiming that fiber is good for you is ridicuolous!
It is good for you, we have enough evidence showing that. I bet Nick would disagree with you.
@@Hikari7775 "It is good for you, we have enough evidence showing that"
Quackery, not "evidence".
The only good thing about fiber is that it slows down the absorbtion of sugar. But eating sugar is unhealthy any and no one should be doing that. Other than that, fiber is not usefull but is harmfull as it causes leaky gut and malnourishment...
I generally eat focusing on my satiety, but I don't really understand how one could make an actual validated version of this. I have noticed that for example some tuna will have a strong effect on my satiety, but if I have already had 150G of protein in that day eating more tuna will have basically zero effect on my hunger. I assume that at a certain point having more of an amino acid that I already have plenty of isn't going to have a strong effect, but that means you couldn't just assign a value to a gram of protein that works on all people. I couldn't even assign a single value to myself because it really works to keep me sated, until it doesn't.
I don't think you need a score though, I just make sure I get my 1 gram per lb of protein, and try and make sure I get plenty of fiber and plenty of volume, so if I have already had plenty of protein, then I make sure I get some green veggies, it doesn't need to be rocket science, all you have to do is make a food diary and make some notes on how full you feel eating certain things and just figure out how your body responds because clearly hunger signals just aren't the same person to person. I don't know if that is because of genetics or microbiome or whatever, but I don't really need to know why, I just need to know how I respond.
I have never even heard of this before! I liked Diet Dr till they put up a paywayy,then I went less and less...Reading all yhese comments ,my head is spinning. Thank you for this video.
You are welcome
I stopped following them when they brought in Ted Naiman. Listening to a couple of podcasts with him really made me angry. I was also angry at Dr. Brett Scher for a while... but he seems to have found himself a better job now.
Me too! Naiman is frustratingly shifty and wrong a lot of the time.
I love Brett. Such a nice and humble man.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yes, I loved him too, and I trusted him. That's why I overate protein - and put on weight, and became insulin resistant again.... and I'm not out of the woods yet. I wish you had done this video 3 years ago.
@aurapopescu1875 Define "overate". How many grams per kg of body weight? Ratio of macronutrients? Without additional data your statements are meaningless.
@@okradokrad They are meaningless for you, not for me. I put on 12 kg and my BG went back into pre-diabetic range. All of this while not eating any carbs. The high protein was kicking me out of ketosis.
At 5:19 Dr E’s claim seems to be specific to ice-cream (a within product type claim) not ice-cream versus non ice-cream foods?
Is the SPC meant to compare foods from diff food groups - or only within a food group?
@@TheProofWithSimonHill (1) Do you see any statement on their website about between category comparisons (2) Even within category, do you think fast food nuggets should score above fried eggs/egg yolks etc. Is that a reasonable, evidence-based claim? (3) Even so, do you think it appropriate to extrapolate their SPC score to claims about "metabolic health" (4) What are your overall thoughts on my criticisms of the methodology/marketing (5) Do you think the 4 opportunities I provide the SPC team to get my video removed are reasonable?
I disagree with Nick on a lot of stuff but agree with this video.
There's no study of SPC.
It's like saying "eat only green foods, including green candy" and then saying that some studies show leefy green vegetables lead to better outcomes.
We need not agree on everything. That would be boring. But I'm glad you see reason on this video...
I followed Diet Doctor for a long time, mainly for Dr. Bret Scher's UA-cam videos covering current research papers. I've wondered if his move over to Metabolic Mind (which is excellent) was partly due Diet Doctor's shift to Satiety Per Calorie. If you don't know Dr. Bret Scher, check out his DD videos and MM videos
I’ve suspected similar. Love Bret. Great guy.
Nick please explain how RCT work. How do they measure extremely important factors that significantly impacts health. Factors such as sleep quality, sleep duration, quality and duration of sunlight exposure, quality and mineral content of drinking water, chemical and toxic exposure duration and dose from medications foods water air etc. How do RCTs control for these factors. How can we get cause and effects data or information when they cannot control for such key significant factors? I am seeing Quantum Biology coming in with great potential information about how human health is declining from the separation of nature in water light and magnetism. To many examples of civilizations in latitudes far from the equator thriving on near carnivores diets and also civilization near the equator thriving on a heavily plant based diet. Quantum Biology suggests sunlight and deuterium water play heavily into this effect. Couldn’t we say that most chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes and cancer a mitochondria disfunction? What about the Sherpas in the Himalayan mountains. I don’t see many people in nature that possess the same physical performance of this Sherpas.
After I saw Teds populistic (is that a word in english 😂?) and unscientific appearance on your "debate" podcast last year (or was it already 2022? Feeling old now), that topic was honestly dead to me. With a single tear falling for diet doctor. Good to see that it was right not to waste more time on them. I would just have gotten angry.
Can't say I haven't been frustrated at times.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Only more props for you not to take the easy way out and ignore it. Especially considering what response you got.
Can we have a link to it Peter?
@@hdv333 ua-cam.com/video/NhnzlZew-Yw/v-deo.html&pp=ygUeZGViYXRlIHRlZCBuYWltYW4gbmljayBub3J3aXR6
@@SchmittsPeter The irony is I knew what response I'd probably get and highlighted the play play in the video... and they did EXACTLY that. But I can sleep better now knowing that those who want to interrogate the matter rigorously have a resource.
AS ALWAYS 🔥 Nick ! , a small request, could you kindly tell how to find the right nutrition in the context of health and fitness. ( I know from your contents that, it is highly metabolic context dependent, yet few general frameworks to look into for making the most efficient conjectures.), Appreciate your time
Honestly, the best answer I have is to try to learn the principles... Things like if you're more insulin resistant, then it's extra important/beneficial to focus on reducing the glycemic load of your diet. I don't think there is a good algorithm I can provide. But I'm happy to show up and teach principles... hopefully I can deliver helpful content moving forward to address your request.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Appreciate your time Nick !
Thanks a lot for your lectures. I would love to see a video of yours about health books recommendations.
Satiety per calorie was a silly concept 4 years ago, when they first coined it. I commented at the time that fasting can have a satiating effect. So what does division by zero do to their formulae.
Diet Coke perfection effect
Brilliant Nick. Thank you.👍👍👍👍👍
You're welcome.
Licensed Doctors are in a bind. If they do kot follow the rules they lose their license. But some doctors follow the rules blindly.
I have had doctors get upset because i did not want to ear carbs, i have had doctors tell me, for my age i am very healthy and to keep doing what works for me. Im carnivore.
Their theory makes sense in a 'common sense' way. But that doesn't mean it's valid, ie. having a sound basis in logic or fact. There's no way diet ice cream is better for me than fruit, nuts, olive oil, etc just b/c I like it better and will therefore be satisfied with less of it....that assumption conflates eating a reduced calorie food that is generally a desirable food with eating healthfully, implying that fruit and nuts aren't as desirable and that I will hence eat more of them b/c they won't satisfy me. I despise most reduced calorie foods and would prefer real food like fruit and nuts and b/c I find them so satisfying I may or may not eat less...there are a lot of other factors that would come into play in the 24 hour period in consideration in this circumstance...today for example, I woke up late b/c I didn't rest well the night before, had some full fat dairy milk made into hot chocolate to break the fast (no coffee, etc this morning)..I ate lunch at noon, a healthy sandwich made of flourless multi-grain bread, some mayo, horseradish, cheese, green peppers, with sides of sliced raw carrot, fresh tomato from the garden and an indulgence of half an ounce of salted potato chips...dessert was half an apple, 15 red grapes, some black walnuts with about a TB of sour cream, a tiny sprinkle of brown sugar and a drizzle of honey all mixed tog...I was so satiated up to that point that I had no cravings the rest of the afternoon. When a neighbor sent some cake she'd made with my husband, I caved and ate some b/c I love chocolate and I love cake and that tasted yummy but was in no way satiating..and in fact it started me craving 'more'. Thankfully it was a small mini-loaf pan which limited what I and my husband could eat.
Speaking of burden of proof, before getting into the particulars of how they built their model, I’d start with the assumption that it is even possible to come up with a single ranked list that is useful for any individual. Why should that be our default assumption? I get that it’s a simplifying assumption, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will result in more good than harm.
Just as an imagined counterexample, say there was a hypothetical animal that had two modes of metabolism, with some of the animals favoring one mode over the other. And imagine that the two modes had different nutritional requirements, and that animals who tried to mix the two nutritional strategies tended to suffer adverse health effects that naturally directed them, via trial and error, towards one nutritional strategy or the other.
If we decided to help the animals achieve better health by using AI to create a ranked list of foods using methodology similar to what was described in this video, but failed to recognize the different metabolic modes and the different subpopulations, we would likely come up with a list of foods that mixed the two nutritional strategies, and that, if adhered to (e.g. trying to eat everything in the top 10), would be a health disaster for many of the animals.
"Why should that be our default assumption?" -- I agree... it shouldn't be. However, if people want to try to execute on it and provide an approximation, they can do so. However, that should come with transparency and validation.
I think Ted’s point was that most obese or diabetic (type 2) people are over fat. So eating low carb is great in not raising acute insulin but in chronically high insulin state both fatty acid and blood glucose are going up. Fat just has a delayed response in blood glucose rising. You see these carnivore doctors with high blood glucose because of this. So high protein and fiber are the way to get both fatty acid and glucose down without starving you to death which he wanted to quantify by satiety index. Now as a result very fatty salmon may have lower score than high protein food and that’s throwing people off. Ted is more an engineer and he is trying to offer solution rather than research result but I guess marketing side he is probably not really controlling and therefore message may be confusing to people
Sounds like yet another round-about, complicated method to make them able to tell people they don't need to manage their carb additions. Isn't that what every modern human on a SAD diet wants to hear? "You can be thin and healthy and still eat the junk food you love so very much!" What better click bait is there?
GREAT point!
Diet agnosticism virtue signaling is one of the techniques reviewed.
Okay, I'm not a medical professional or science geek, nor do I play one on tv. However, the preponderance of information I've seen is that fat, particularly saturated fat, is a major driver of satiety. Seems to me that leaving that component out brings everything else into question, or am I missing something?
I think your broader point/suggestion that the SPC model discounts much of nutritional endocrinology is spot on. That said, I wouldn't claim sat fat is more satiating than MUFA or PUFA per se.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thank you for your reply. I'm still early on my journey, even though I'm 72. I'm slowly learning the truth that there is no such thing as a one size fits all diet or way of eating.
Yes, follow the money!
Can I get some please? I'd like to purchase a corgi.
Fair and straightforward.
Thanks.
Excellent analysis and thank you. Even the math that Ted uses doesn’t add up.
🥺😞🤓
Thanks, Nick, on point and polite as usual. Dr E was so vital in contributing to metabolic health previously, I wonder why he has taken off on this strange tangent now.
One can speculate… but it’s disappointing
Private equity
They are gifted and well disciplined learners. Many of them mean well.
Interesting comment. Can you elaborate? With you’re referring to Ted and Andreas, it’s very possible they have the best of intentions, truly… does that make their approach any better? Does that compensate for the scientific issues raised or their resistance to address them?
@@nicknorwitzPhD . Pardon the vagueness of my comment. I was referring to physicians in general, not meant to imply anything negative about Ted and Andreas, or physicians for that matter.
Also, adding to these are logical fallacies that are constantly used on social media and in debate in general. People should keep in mind that there's levels of knowledge and specialty in nutrition. You can have a scientist who knows the mechanisms of the body and can explain why something is good or not. Then you have the loudmouth arrogant one who just makes claims (without adequate proof) and attacks whoever has something different to say. Everyone should understand also that debates aren't science and are not proof that someone is right or wrong. You can have a debate that someone "won" with no actual proving something is true or not.
9:00 I can disprove it with their same metrics tho. It doesn't work. Eating higher protein with lower fat isn't more satiating, nor is being bloated by fiber satiety. It didn't work for me. It only made my food more expensive.
I think you were fair. That's why I stopped subscribing to Diet Doctor. I noticed a long time ago that Ted Naimann is all about calorie counting. Not my cup of tea.
Normal people don’t go to college for 14-16 years. This naturally selects for people with a certain agreeable character and by the end of that slog you are willing to go along with nearly anything the “authorities” say. Oh yeah then throw in student debt to that equation.
??
Call me an outlier then
This is very helpful - thank you
Welcome
Endoscopic Fundus ablation is the holy grail. Mark my words. It’s the GLP-1 killer.
Words marked. Bold hypothesis
Pseudoscience is forgivable when compared to the flagrant lies content creators use to name the video clips they farted out. Pseudoscience is only a test for the audience, to keep them alert, to make sure that they still pay attention. Worthless information that is contradicting common cense disguised as something interesting is amusement, it still bring revenues to the maker. It is a crime that pays. The real basic problem is that telling lies is profitable.
Strong words
Nick, I love your "take names and kick butts" approach to delivering observations of snake oil salesmen posing as health practitioners. I remember this slimy guy Andreas back when Dr. Brett Scher was giving pointers about low carb. Now these guys are saying Ice Cream is better than nuts, watermelon, etc? Put the boot to 'em!
The boot has been applied
Nick, you may be inadvertently selling a sh*tload of bogus ice cream.
Halo top? Hope not.
Yes, this was fair, and needed when folks are doing things which look like some sort of scam; i.e., novel claims lacking evidence for the contrary. Sadly, it seems like some in the Low Carb Community are trying to carve-out their own little empires from the community - in doubious ways (in some cases).
Who else comes to mind?
@@nicknorwitzPhD I sometimes wonder about Paul Saladino and Thomas DeLauer, which isn't to say I haven't benefited from some of their videos. I like Dr. Eric Westman a lot too, but it is irritating when he comes across a bit arrogant as he goes after other doctors, scientists, and influencers in the space (and sometimes he is spot-on with his concerns about what others are saying).
Not strictly pseudoscience, but a close runner-up is the use of relative risk to inflate benefit and absolute risk to deflate side effects of a given drug or procedure.
Very fair, appropriate and useful critique. Thank you for using your time, intellect and talent to help educate us about nutrition and physiology in such a straightforward and intellectually honest way. I really appreciate you sharing your journey of learning with all of us, and making an extremely complex subject easier for people like me to understand. In this space it is very hard to find resources (people, institutions, etc) that you can fully trust. Keep up the great work.
Definitely a fair analysis. Feels very likely to be abused like the heart smart ticks, low fat, low carb claims by processed food companies- playing the numbers rather than pursuing healthier. Before ignoring whether the foundational claims are sound
Precisely.
Great content
Steaks > Cakes
What if the steak is a fatty ribeye and the cake has psyllium husk and Whey. Asking for a friend ;)
@@nicknorwitzPhD always Steaks > Cakes
What's the point of eating to satiety if you end up with nutrient deficiencies? Just keep it simple; very low carb, high animal fat. (That's how I view it, anyway)
SPC indeed fails to account for micronutrients in any meaningful way.
Keto ice cream is a thing. Can make it yourself with heavy whipping cream, butter, and cream cheese.
I do make my own, often for family events.
Isn’t it the system that is broken?
The system allows bullshit science to exist.
I think he mentioned that at the start. The part about most trying to do their best within a broken system.
@@roberth721 I had committed the cardinal sin of commenting before watching! Bad me!
@@egg399. I've sometimes been guilty of the same, and sometimes guilty of mishearing, let us forgive ourselves and carry on. (I think that is sufficiently pretentious sounding)
@@roberth721You’re so kind!
I think it’s fair to question scientific claims or any claims for that matter. Especially when the claim does not stand up to reason or so called common sense. I read the Wikipedia article on Russell’s teapot, which I found fascinating. For myself personally, I think the person making the claim has the burden of proof. You seem to just be asking them to prove their claim. Which to me proof should come before the claim.
" I think the person making the claim has the burden of proof." - exactly...
Oreovastatin shirt is 🔥
LOL. Thanks man... nice inside joke ;)
I agree with moat of what you say Herr, especially as it relates to fallacies, evidence, and arbitrariness.
One exception I'll make is your objection to the claim that this diet ice cream could be "better" for "metabolic health". Your objection seems to be an argument from incredulity. I say this for 3 reasons:
1) You don't present any reason or evidence it is wrong; you only describe the claim using incredulous disbelief terms such as being absurd or ridiculous.
2) You, yourself, have made similar claims that health professionals have been incredulous towards. Is their claim about the diet ice cream any less believable than claiming oreo cookies can reduce your LDL better than statins? Context matters.
3) Similar to you, I had performed an N=1 experiment on myself to prove a health point, and it arguably fits with what the SPC model is trying to say.
In 2018 I saw an episode of Joe Rogan where he and a guest claimed Snickers bars are essentially toxic and you could only survive for about 2 weeks on them. I knew this was wrong, so I spent 30 days where 100% of my calories were from Sniclers bars. I felt fine, my health was good, and I lost a little weight.
What I did was a simple calories in / out weight loss. Each 52g Snickers was 250 Cal, and I planned to est 6 per day at 2 hour intervals, for 1500 Cal. What I found was that I often lost interest in food after the 4th or 5th. If I did have the 6th, it was often going through the motions of the plan, not desire or craving. I had no cravings and no snacking in between.
Conversely, I have tried many diets to lose weight and have failed repeatedly from cravings and snacking. Most of these, obviously, involved traditionally "healthy foods" such as mediterranian, but also more controversial like keto, vegan, and even carnivore, and I've done full meal replacement powdered diets of exact calories.
The easiest weight loss I've ever done was my Snickers diet. If we measure "healthy" based on the paper CV of food from their nutritional value, of course fish and nuts are better than diet ice cream or Snickers bars. But if we measure "healthy" based on effeftiveness for losing weight, the Snickers diet actually worked best for me and was therefore arguably "better" for my health -- at least in terms of weight loss -- than these other foods.
Now, there may be other areas of health beyond weight where my Sniclers diet things worse. I didn't have blood work done before and after so I can't say. But I do take a daily multi-vitamin, so I don't think it would be missing micronutrients.
This, to me, is what SPC seems to be trying to quantify. Not what foods are the best on paper, but which are the most effective in practice of improving the health of people including them sticking to the diet and not cheating with worse foods in which case diet ice cream may be a lot better for metabolic health in practice than salmon.
However, I agree that needs to be proven, and I doubt is true when you measure across all possible health outcomes. There are likely tradeoffs.
HOLD UP… I did not claim is was not possible. I pointed out their claim was far fetched and unsubstantiated. Please don’t fall into classic tactic 4 and shift the burden of proof. They made the claim, not me. I’m challenging the validity of their claim, not the possibility. Regarding the Oreo data, the point was that they were incredible AND that I had data to back them. See the difference?
@nicknorwitzPhD I think we might be miscommunicating a little. I'll reframe my points a little, with an added issue.
1) I think you are absolutely right about process, burden of proof, and their failure to meet those standards at this point. I would not base my diet on their work or spend any money on them.
2) I'm not sure they are claiming what you say they are claiming, at least not in that tweet you show, though I can see the inference is reasonable if they are basing everything on that single score value.
3) I'm not sure you are interpreting the (inferred) claim correctly because you don't give any details, only dismissive incredulity.
For #1, I'm fully skeptical of their work, as you presented, and 100% agree with all of the scientific criticisms you've made on what they are doing. It appears, from what you've presented, that they haven't closed the evidence loop by actually comparing people following their approach having better health outcomes. All they' appear to have done is quantified their hypothesis and essentially calibrated it with experimentation. So I agree with your criticisms of both their science and argumentation fallacies.
For #2, I do notice you make several positive claims here. It's not that I disagree with your position per se, but that you might be missing some nuance
Specifically @4:58 you say, "What results in an evitable stream of absurd claims, like that Arctic chocolate peanut butter ice cream, or Halo Top ice cream, is better for metabolic health. This was the claim by Dr Eenfeldt. Not just weight management but that this diet chocolate peanut butter ice cream is better for metabolic health than avocados, olives, nuts, ground pork, dark chocolate, a lot of fruits. Better for you than cherries, watermelon. They're saying that this diet ice cream is better for your metabolic health than cherries, nuts, or avocados."
You put on screen a tweet from Dr. Eenfeldt that did not exactly claim that. What his tweet said that you put on screen was "What's the best ice cream for weight loss and metabolic health. Here's the result of our scoring, ranking popular ice creams based on their @JoinHava satiety score."
In the tweet, he didn't claim that the ice cream in question was better than the fruits, vegetables, or nuts that you mention for metabolic health; he referred to ranking different ice creams. *If* his claims about relative value for both weight loss and metabolic healthiness of the ice creams is based solely on their score, then it seems reasonable to infer that they are claiming their score directly correlates with metabolic health value across all foods (as well as weight loss value), and hence your extrapolation from relative ice creams to other foods would be reasonable. But, do they do that? Do they (a) base the claim about relative metabolic health of popular ice creams based solely on their scoring metric, and (b) do that claim that this relative comparison generalizes to all foods based on their score?
Perhaps, but I don't know, and you didn't present anything in the video that demonstrates that this is what they claim. You appear to have inferred it and then extrapolated. I would have to do some research into that tweet, their ice cream ranking, their response, etc., to see if that is what they are claiming.
For #3 on interpreting the inferred claim in #2, you didn't provide any support for claiming it is absurd or nonsense. Specifically, you say @5:37: "Clearly this [the above quote from @4:58] is absurd, and if you don't think it's absurd then you should probably click off this video." And, @8:10, "You can see that based on the fact that their scoring system, even after a year of engineering and tweaking still produces bupkis results like chocolate peanut butter diet ice cream is better for metabolic health than cherries, avocado, nuts, olive oil, and dark chocolate. That's nonsense."
So, if #2 is a correct inference, then a scientific objection would be that this is unproven and unsupported. But you go further than simply saying that. You make the positive claim that this is "absurd", "bupkis", and "nonsense", which appear to be claims that it is wrong and that you are claiming that these fruits, vegetables, and nuts are better for metabolic health than the diet ice creams. You don't give any specific reasons for these claims, and suggest that if anybody disagrees they should "probably click off this video".
There are two problems with this way of presenting it this way, I think. The first is that it is just presented as an argument from incredulity. You are saying their claim is "clearly" wrong because it is "absurd" and "nonsense", and if you disagree then just stop watching.
You might be right, but you should still state *why* you believe it is absurd and nonsense. That is actually important because it reveals assumptions and understanding. I may agree with you that the (inferred) claim is absurd, nonsense, and not true, but that depends on how I interpret their (inferred) claim and there are at least two very different interpretations:
(A) If the claim is that the diet ice creams are "better" in a nutritional sense, that does seem like an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. (2) If it is that functionally people will tend to get better metabolic health if they try to change their diet to include these ice creams -- whether over other ice creams (directly claimed) or the fruits, nuts, vegetables (inferred claim) -- then that is a very different claim and perhaps no so absurd.
The difference is in the effectiveness of the diet in terms of people's ability to stay on it. You'd test these two cases differently. For (A), you'd do something like compare a control group to Group 1 that changed their diet to include these ice creams and Group 2 that changed their diet to include these fruits, vegetables, and nuts, under some proper comparison controls, and measure some metrics related to "metabolic health". I'm fairly confident there's already a lot of data on that and the conclusion seems clear that the diet ice creams should do much worse. This would be consistent with claiming it's absurd and nonsense to suggest the reverse, and hence I'm inferring from your statements that this interpretation seems to be what you believe they are claiming.
To test (B), you need to address that people in their daily lives are not under controlled scientified studies of what they eat, but directly control their own food intake. You would still have something like a Control Group who isn't asked to do anything differently, Group 1 asked to switch their foods to include the diet ice creams, and Group 2 asked to switch their foods to these fruits, vegetables, and nuts, and then measure the metabolic health metrics out the other end. No effort is made to control what people actually eat or ensure they stick to the diet, because ability to stick to the diet is part of what is being measured.
In the case of (B), it is quite possible that Group 1 ends up with better metabolic health than Group 2 or the Control Group. If Group 2 tries to eath fruit, vegetables, and nuts, but fight craving and end up snacking on less healthy food, they could get worse metabolic health outcome.
Now, you've said this is possible. But, I don't see any reason to claim that (B) is absurd or nonsense. This is, after all, what many people struggle with when trying to eat healthier. As I mentioned, I did better at losing weigh on 100% Snickers than trying to eat healty foods. It's quite possible my "metabolic health" also improved. It seems perfectly reasonable to claim this. If (B) is their claim, I don't think your claims about it being absurd or nonense would stand up. They could still be wrong, but such a claim would seem to be quite reasonable. They need to provide evidence for their claim, but you'd need to provide evidence for your claim. We don't know whether the ice cream or the fruits, veggies, and nuts are better for metabolic health in the context of (B). We do have a lot of data for (A), but not for (B), as far as I know.
Hence, presenting your understanding of their claim about the diet ice cream is important, including your reasons for claiming it is absurd and nonsense. In my experience, and from points made from science philosophy debaters like Daniel Dennett, arguments from incredulity usually mask a misunderstanding or an important premise that is skipped over.
Again, I may agree with you on all points, including the absurdity of their claims. I'm not a criticizing that part. I'm simply stating that you've made some claims here yourself that lack foundation. It's not clear that they are claiming what you are saying they claim, and the absurdity of those potential claims isn't clear without stating the context of how they are being interpreted.
It's a 98% great video. I could write just as much about the great stuff, to be clear. It would seem a bit redundant, just reiterating the points you've made. So I hope the volume doesn't imply disagreement on the whole. It is only these above issues I'm pointing out. And, I'm pointing them out because others have made similar statements about the absurdity of claims about Oreos and statins, and Snickers and sugar, so we all need to be careful to get context and interpretations clear and not to make the same mistakes that our own critics make about our claims. That's all I was intending.
Shifting the burden is also a tactic used in religion.
Ya... did you google Russel's teapot?
@@nicknorwitzPhD I'd never heard of that one before, thanks.
I have heard of the flying spaghetti monster though :)
Looks like they just want their thing to hit the podcast circuit with.
it is entirely possible, though improbable, that a 'diet' ice cream is better than fruit etc but the metric would be in something like 'anti- nutrients or fructose. A made up score for the win is quite silly by these doctors.
"possible, though improbable" -- so who carries the burden of proof? See 4.
@@nicknorwitzPhD It is just me being pedantic on the aspect of diet ice cream being quite possibly better than fruit (in many ways, not the least of all low carb) an example would be the recent craze of cottage cheese ice cream using Allulose with say a macadamia nut swirl to incorporate a few of your other videos.