After discovering the "secret" many, many, years ago, that calories don't mean squat if you eat appropriate foods, I experimented with adding 1 block of cream cheese (about 800 calories,) and 2 weeks later, and additional half a bag of macadamia nuts (about 1100 calories,) to my weekday daily intake, without removing any of my normal foods (mostly meat, seafood, heavy cream, and eggs.) I did this to see if I could up my energy for my daily activities/work. I was fine with gaining some fat, if it helped me get more work done. Well, after about 6 weeks, not only did I not gain any fat, I actually lost 1 belt hole. Ive never counted a single calorie, and I eat enormous amounts of fatty foods. In my 20's, everyone said "wait till you hit 30." Then, in my 30's, they said "wait until you hit 40 and your metabolism tanks." Well, im over half way through my 40's and still waiting for that dreaded day. 😉
When I originally started eating low (almost no) carb, i had traded as many carbs as I could for fat, gram per gram.. i weighed my food,, and replaced carbs for fat. Later I did the math. I was eat almost 3 times as many calories. On the day I realized that, I knew calories were a fantasy. I had lost 60 pounds, in one month, by eating 300% more in caloric intake. So jut F-off with any talk of calories doing anything. Amount of Calories are irrelevant. What matters is what kind of food it is. How it affects your hormones. When insulin increases it turn on fat storage mod. You can not burn fat in this condition, only store it.
The calorie content is determined by burning the food and then applying a simple factor based on whether you burned protein, fat or carbohydrate. This would work at a simplistic level if we were heat engines with arms and legs attaches. But we're not, if we were we'd need to run at 70°C to achieve the efficiency we do. A better analogy is a fuel cell or perhaps a battery. We run on chemical reactions and electrical charges, just burning the stuff doesn't come close to representing how the body utilises the energy.
Which is exactly why millions lose on a high carb diet when they omit fat. And millions lose weight on a high fat diet when they omit carbs. People love to over complicate things, adhere to a bunch of nonsense.
I am also a researcher on dietetics. I do not count calories. Intermittent fasting is the way to lose weight based on my findings. I wish I can gain some weight and am now doing 2MAD sometimes 3MAD instead of OMAD that I have been practising before. Eating more meals seem to do the reverse to help gain weight regardless of what macro food types we choose.
One of the biggest paradoxes in the nutrition literature is that dieting is a huge risk factor for future obesity and weight gain! And people still preach CICO like it’s the gospel 🤦♂️
I spent decades starving myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat, high fibre calories a day. I weighed and measured everything. Had an active job. Went to the gym. Barely fit a Canadian size 18. Switch to the human health, 1950s British diet in the prologue of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Lost the weight, no starvation involved. Over 14 years now.
The butter bite conclusion was excellent! I used to gross my server coworkers at Olive Garden by biting into a butter packet and tell them "These Andes mints don't taste as good as they used to."
There is a talk by Dr Michael Eads about how you can't weigh a calorie. He suggests we use the much more obvious formula for losing/gaining mass where: Change in Mass = Mass in - Mass out. That talk is on the Low Carb Down Under youtube channel.
I've heard it. I actually disagree on MIMO. I think its practical utility is limited. Not sure it's all that well thought through. I've yet to see a compelling case, nor solid narrative review.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thanks for the reply, Dr Norwitz. I'm not sure, but did you mean you disagree because its practical utility is limited? Or are those two different points? I agree that it doesn't seem to be very practically useful, but you argue in the video that CICO is not only not useful, but it is actively harmful. Perhaps MIMO could be useful as an alternative model just as that--an alternative that won't send people spiraling when CICO doesn't work. The MIMO idea seemed to me to fit right in with your point in this video: focusing on calories as a weight loss tool is ineffective at best and actively harmful at its worst. You can't weigh a calorie, so worry about the health content instead. Thanks for all your work on these videos.
Because you are comparing apple and oranges. Calories are a measurement of heat, by burning some dried “food thing” in a bomb calorimeter. Which is a closed system. And then you are trying to apply it to a human, which is not a closed system. And does not convert food into heat. Nor does the human body burn it. The human body uses different chemical actions in different ways. Burning is a chemical action in a bomb calorimeter. Not the human body.
I have overweight family members and I am certain I eat far more than they do but I've always been very thin and sickly with gastrointestinal issues. I was hospitalized as a kid because according to my mother "my stomach lining was gone." I was about 7 so I don't remember but I do remember passing undigested food through.
I'd always get annoyed hearing "it's all CICO" from people who should know better, like nutritionists. Coming from IT, I wanted to reply with - I know, similarly in IT, it's all about zeroes and ones. But that's saying nothing that could help anybody do or understand anything meaningful in IT, yet it's not wrong per se. Just useless. 🙄
Yes, it has always annoyed me how the reasoning for CICO is always backtracked from whatever your results are then that matches CICO. As a tool for weightloss it is completely unfit for purpose.
Applied it successfully few year back. Counted calories for my usual meals, tracked progress and adjusted. Lost 5kgs in two months as predicted. After the experience I have much better feeling of my intake needs and I rarely count anymore. Mostly because after going low carb it's almost impossible to overeat.
@@FreeBeerMonkey I've lost 50kg by NOT counting calories. When I did calorie restriction I ended up tired, hungry and miserable - yes I lost a few kg but it stalled very quickly which was even more disheartening. I needed to lose 10's of kg, so it failed and I ended up putting all the weight back on. I track my intake at the end of the day, no restriction involved, I eat double the "calories" I did when restricting yet I'm not putting on weight because its the "what I eat" not the "how much I eat" that works.
30 people, locked in cages, pure steak diet for 6 months. Controlled portion. Controlled all conditions. ALL lost weight. Then double the amount of steak per day they were required to eat. Surprise, surprise, the ALL gained weight. Dr. Baker is a relatively strict carnivore. He says the same thing. If he increases his steak volume he gains weight, if he decreases volume he loses weight. I've had a ton of patients gain weight overeating butter. Some like to freeze small chunks and eat throughout the day. Other go way overboard on salted carnivore chips (jerky) or bacon. 😢. All things matter. Volume, quality, type, "Kcals", hormones, health status......it all matters. No free lunch, all things have consequences 😂
@@kraftzion here in South America, prisons don't publish their studies. People bought and sold like cattle. Sad but true. I work very hard to help people eat well during my studies. When the studies are over, they eat very low quality food, sometimes nothing. Mal nutrition and starvation are normal in many third world prisons. Have conducted over 50 great studies. Some for the prisons, some for food companies, some with pharmaceutical companies and others for various universities, with the bulk being government funded. In all cases, those who fund the studies, own the studies. A thousand great studies have been done over the years, not for public viewing. Governments don't like to share. Go ask your government for the Biden documents or the Kennedy assassination documents...... Heck, can't even get them to release the cov19 or Vaxx documents. Just how the world works.
In your first couple lines you cite an experiment that hasn't been done. How do you think that study would really pan out? Also, do you think you could predict weight gained based in increased volume and/or calculated Calories? I'd bet not... at least not with any degree of precision. And note that acute doesn't equal chronic.
@@nicknorwitzPhD first, it has and was done. As you know, underfeeding we can guarantee weight loss but not an exact amount. It is a dynamic process, ever changing variables. Germans proved this in concentration camps. No one gained weight from underfeeding. We also know if we over feed, we can guarantee weight gain, even with an all meat diet. The amount? That is going to vary person by person. As you know, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to predict an amount of water, fat, and muscle tissue per person. However, if connected to a few machines and in a sealed metabolic ward for three months prior, then placed on an eating program, it might be possible to make a rough estimate. Not sure that would be of value for the cost. Not sure anyone would fund something of that level. Basically the insulin model is not sufficient, must include a food volume, type, and quality (calories), model at the same time. All things matter. Just don't want people thinking they can eat as much as they want and not gain weight. I love carnivore, low carb and keto eating plans. However, have seen far too many horror stories with the overeating / over consumption of fats.
@@DrAJ_LatinAmerica First, underfeeding in limited in so far as it reduced insulin as well, even on LFD. Second, "We also know if we over feed, we can guarantee weight gain, even with an all meat diet." You say this but that's actually a hypothetical with respect to the chronic treatment experiment you hypothesized, which has not been done. Irrespective of that fact, of course you know I'd tend to agree with you, with the massive caveat that "The amount? That is going to vary person by person." This is the point, the imprecision is so massive - and the target is a moving one - that expectations are hardly ever/never met. Thus casting CICO as a prospectively accuse model is a fallacy. Taking a step back, I think we are all adults here and can recognize there are other variables at play, including social and emotional elements and that obesity is complex and multifactorial and - obviously - celery doesn't actually have more calories than butter. This remains a thought puzzle for the reasonable. And I find it very difficult to believe anyone will walk away from this truly thinking... YAY! Dr Nick just gave me permission to have two sticks of butter in my coffee every morning and to eat fatty ribeyes for every meal, with butter of course, and maintain 8% body fat without exercise. On this platform, I assume a baseline level of common sense of my viewers.
My first reaction without even watching the entire video is: ‘I don’t care about calories. I continue to keep my carbs low and I’m happy.’ In fact, I'm about to enjoy my bone-in wings and I plan to eat all of the celery!😎🤓😊
yeah we have different body types and what makes you feel good to your body and in health in general then continue to do it.. dont get paranoid! Enjoy the different foods in moderation..
This was one of the most useful videos on the channel. Calories In Calories Out or Energy Balance Model (EBM) of obesity is not only harmful, but actually it's pseudo-science. As you've mentioned it has no physiological basis. I'd add to your points that Insulin hormone is very important in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (CIM) of obesity, since it explains why people gain weight when it's high and why fat is mobilized when insulin level is low. What is more funny is that in the 'Human Metabolism: A Regulatory Perspective', prof. Keith Frayn explains exactly this, but then when he writes about metabolism disorders, mentions EBM as an explanation to weight gain.
Today i found out that 1 Jatz biscuit is almost the same number of calories as 1 pink or white marshmallow. How is that even possible? Both seems to give the same satiety too. 2 foods to avoid i guess. I guess i try macadamia nuts again.
The problem with this video is that calories have no bearing on metabolism. Thermodynamics have very little relevance to biochemical processes. Also, the 3,500 calories equals one pound of fat was made up by Lulu Hunt Peters in 1918. There's no data to support this "fact", as you know since we don't burn calories, we oxidize substrate.
Love your content. I actually put this calculation to work and backed it by action and lost 13kg. Here’s how: Firstly, I understand there’s many variables left on the table and assumptions so let’s not assume this is a scientific test. This test was done on a strict carnivore diet with daily fasting of 20/4 and drinking min 1-2 litres of water a day I was 40yo, I assumed my base daily caloric requirements was 2850 calories. I consumed 500g of grass fed/finished beef mince, 2 full rashers of bacon and 6 eggs daily, roughly 2300 calories a day. I also did not drink any alcohol, vaping or smoking, nothing! I lived in the hills so every morning I walked for 1 hour burning 500 calories due to being mountainous terrain. I calculated that I was receiving a daily calorie deficit of 1000 calories due to my walks. I also calculated that if the 7000 calories per 1kg of body fat were true a 1000 calorie daily deficit would see me lose 1 kg per seven days. It worked, and it worked PERFECTLY. I lost 13kg in 13 weeks and felt absolutely AMAZING! I didn’t go to the gym once and worked daily this may of contributed to an increased energy consumption. I also included 1, 4 day fast at the start to kick me directly into ketosis. I have since allowed 50% of the weight back on as I was 93kg down to 80kg and 6ft1 and my body biologically programmed to have some emergency fat so the bounce back is real. Overall is was a fantastic experience and I truly understood why 99.9% of people fail because what actually needs to be done is very much undermined by todays dietary existence. I basically became a caveman in a modern world. Nothing else existed, there was no other food. It worked and that’s what I had to do to do it! PS: in that process my blood panel improved DRAMATICALLY! My triglycerides dropped by 50% and even though I’ve put 50% weight back on, my triglycerides have remained 50% lower!! ❤ I’m still keto and eat mince everyday. 🤘🏼 Edit: I would say this is extreme and requires 100% dedication and is likely not realistic for the vast majority of punters but, can it be done? Yes! Was it good for me and did I see any metabolic improvements? 100% yes! My body is still better for it 3 years later, overall less inflammation, my eyesight is better, skin is better and many many other improvements. Now I’d say, unless one has done something like this to this extent, it’s very hard to make even somewhat “educated” assumptions. If it were not for the dense calories of meat I feel it would of been impossible and incredibly unhealthy! I’m incredibly happy I found your channel, I understand you’re a smart young man and a great spokesman for this food revolution to change the world, one block of butter at a time. I’m actively getting through all of your videos to get up to speed with your evolving perspective and look forward to your future content. ✌🏼
Nick, another thought provoking video. Great job ! Please use your superior rain power to look at the requirements for eternity with God. Obeying Acts 2:38 is the only plan taught by the very Apostles of Jesus Christ. That just gets you inside the door. Working out your own salvation is a very worthy goal friend. Have a great weekend. 😊
Have you watched Zoe Harcombe's "kettles" presentation where she chronicles her attempt to find the source behind the 3,500 calories =1 lb "fact"? It's hilarious.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Those aren't nutrient dense, do you even know what nutrient density is? Leafy greens are the most nutrient dense foods. Look up a nutrient density chart, you'll see it.
I would guess that most people watching this channel know that CICO is a very rough guide that does not apply in all/many cases, and that to the extent it applies at all, it is more relevant for people ingesting higher levels of carbs, and less relevant for people avoiding carbs. Or maybe I have that wrong. To the extent I have a quibble, it is that saying calories don’t matter as much as other things (maybe particularly for people on a keto diet) can easily be misconstrued as saying that calories matter at all, and isn’t that message equally wrong? Suggesting to a person on a high-carb/high-fat diet that eating another stick of butter is better for them than eating a stick of celery just seems wrong for that person. Anyway, the clickbait worked, but I still prefer the videos with more substance/depth. The core question of how calories are measured in foods is interesting and not well reported in the popular press, as is the related issue of how calories are or are not relevant to different types of people/diets. Love the channel, though; and if clickbait is necessary from time-to-time, so be it. 👍
I believe you know what calories in calories out means but most people don't. Calories in calories out is defined by consuming less calories than you burn. This assumes a lot of things that people don't realize. It assumes all calories are always equal. That is, they will be absorbed the same every time, they will be utilized the same every time and they will be burned at a well known and defined pace every time. This is all false. Calorie deficit when you really push down to the bottom is simply eating less calories than you need or can utilize or even absorb, not less than you burn, because we don't know that information. But, like all other things doctors prescribe for you to result in at least a minimally significant clinical outcome, you may need to titrate up or down based on your needs. Yep, even pharmaceuticals don't always work at their described and prescribed dosage. Food actually works exactly the same way using all the same or similar pathways. I think all that has happened is that they found that at less than 2000 calories, most people did not gain weight eating most things. But that's not personalized or helpful. I appreciate your scientific eye.
Calories are a useless metric concerning dietary intake. It was stupid from the beginning. It’s use was purposeful only in making people think that carbs don’t matter. Eat you white bread and don’t worry because it just about the calories.
Never counted calories, except when I was desperately short of money and trying to get the calories for the least cash. I found supermarket own brand muesli was quite good for this. I'm about a year in to guzzling 4 or 5 tubs of full fat cream per week, a calorie excess of around 5500 per week. I haven't gained 50 Ibs, more like 2 Ibs, could be muscle, still fit my pants! I'm not consciously restricting my other eating though I'm sure I'm eating less other stuff. Point is, the dietary establishment has it that a high fat diet makes you fat, coz it's so darn calorie dense. Maybe for some people but not for me
We need a study of a keto/carnivore people who have gotten down to a weight they have been stuck at for a long time. For me it was 170 pounds. Have them eat in a surplus and see how much weight they can gain. Im sure I ate at a surplus for months and the scale never moved.
No one eats calories. You eat protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol, water and ash. These are the macro nutrients and should be measured in grams, not calories. 1 cal of protein != 1 cal of carbs.
yes it works. Just people dont typically measure their calories out. They assume calories out and measure calories in and their assumption is often wrong and their measurements are often also wrong.
I wouldn't say it this way. Calories in calories out must be correct, because that's how thermodynamics works. Our bodies are working within the limits of physics. Maybe what could happen is that our theories about calories are not 100% accuracy, and they need to be improved
@@nicknorwitzPhDI think the issue I am having with the video is how it is interpreted. As evidenced by the comments, you have e provided an echo chamber for people who heavily bias methods which do not align with CICO. I have no doubt you know leveraging of the imperfect science of CICO is the gateway for many less than scrupulous people (grifters, charlatans, snake oil salespeople) to capitalize on peoples unwillingness/inability to keep consumption in check and increase movement. Is there not a fallacy in saying ‘people use CICO and then don’t lose weight and blame themselves’ while at the same time bringing complicated nutritional concepts into play and not considering the probability of failure in those modalities is much higher than CICO. Look at how many people are employing Keto, Carnivore, insulin resistance, and other anecdotes to justify taking a binary stance on CICO… as if it’s all of one or or all of the other. Sheesh.
Hey Nicholas, really nice video ! I was wondering if I could help you with Best Quality Editing in your videos better than your Editor with good pricing and also make a highly engaging Thumbnail which will help your videos to reach to a wider audience ? Pls let me know what do you think ?
I saw that... honestly, I considered a response video and/or tweet but decided it wasn't even worth it. It wasn't getting much attention and I don't have the muscle to guide them in terms of broader messaging. Better not to give it oxygen. Give it time... change will come
Gotten into so many arguments with people that blindly believe in the calories in calories out logic. They just can't wrap their minds around the human body being a complex machine with different levels of efficiency, or the fact that different types of food have different bio availability. Alas, it's a waste of time arguing with people that can't reason.
Perhaps because as you say - it is more nuanced. BUT - that doesn't mean that it is completely irrelevant. Let's use energy , since calorie scares people now sadly. It is very possible to eat more fat (& protein) than one can use for energy; therefore resulting in net storage.. i.e weight gain; or inability to lose. I hear this all the time with these diets; because people are being mislead into thinking it doesn't matter. All people on keto/carnivore diets who are losing weight are doing so b/c they are in an energy deficit. It's still the bottom line. I also feel people are mislead on the calories out side. No, it's not that the exercise is burning calories for weight loss. Exercise; especially resistance, is maintaining or increasing lean mass (muscle, bone, etc) which otherwise will be lost as one loses weight; lowering the energy requirements over time. As you said - the body is complex machine and anyone telling you to completely ignore CICO is misleading you. It doesn't mean one needs to count them, but if not getting desired results - perhaps track for a bit to see what is going on.
Click bait title. I understand what you're saying but at the end of it all if you eat more than you expend you'll gain weight. The difficult thing is determining how much you're eating and how much you're expending.
So you agree that prospectively CICO is very limited in utility? You agree that it’s a necessary tautology and there may be better independent variables to manipulate for long - term “calorie balance”
A point I make again and again is that acute doesn't equal chronic. Also, my messages are not intended for pro BB or top-level strongman athletes, etc. For example re my athletes don't need carbs video. I think the general point is clear, but I'm certainly not saying Brian Shaw (6'8" 445 lbs) world strong man should not eat carbs to gain mass and dead lift >1000 lbs. Re Calories. Of course they are a variable that can be manipulated over the short term to change weight and if one doesn't eat (or eats only celery) they will lose weight. But such acute interventions don't translate into long terms success. Oh, and also... steroids...
I eat as much fat as I want and therefore am never hungry. Usually eat only once a day. Calories in - calories out does not make sense to me because it's how often and how much you spike insulin that matters.
No, it's not. Not in the context of weight loss. If you only eat one meal a day then of course you can eat whatever you want during that one meal and not become overweight. Even for a relatively sedentary person, eating enough to achieve a consistent caloric surplus when only eating one meal per day is incredibly difficult.
@@TheFlyingCougarIt's one meal but over 2 hours. It's very low carb...sometimes I'll do carnivore for a week or two but if I upped the carbs I'd start eating more and wouldn't be satiated. My weight is stable and I'm not hungry so it works for me. Carbs make me ravenous.
Whatever works for you have at it. Applying the simple principle of CICO and adjusting macros based on my exercise regimen has always accomplished three things: lots of great satiating meals with variety, and fueling activities appropriately which have net good results. (Getting enough carbs for endurance events, getting enough protein for more resistance based periods). As soon as CICO is dismissed, complicated, much less researched and more debated modalities of dieting come into play… insulin spikes, thermogenesis of insulin timing, mitochondrial fractioning of carnivore red meet uptake (making stuff up). It is insane to think the concept of feeding your body to compliment the needed movement expenditure is maligned while embracing theories which open us up to being fooled by grifters who sell the goods and services of the diet and nutrition industry is cheered on. Sheesh.
@@SmeriglioDavid Thank you for writing this - I wanted to make a comment, but figured it would just be ripped on, but you stated it much more eloquently and sadly your last sentence is spot on. Sad to to see another 'name' in the keto/carnivore world turning out to be the same. Yes, it is nuanced by how our bodies process different macros - but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy (i.e calories) coming in is not relevant any more! I feel so bad because this will just continue to hurt so many people with the notion that you can always just eat as much as you want and lose, or not gain weight. Most who take up the keto/carnivore diet are overweight, many very overweight; and have some metabolic derangement. If they added or estimated; most are eating in a calorie deficit; at least when they start; and yes the carb restriction, with the increased protein helps with the weight loss. BUT - it is still an energy deficit. You can't lose weight unless your body needs to burn it's own fat - not the dietary fat. Every day I see several comments, or hear of stories of people who start out great, but then the weight loss 'stalls'. They are told by YT influencers that their bodies are 'healing' , or some such thing; and they just need to continue on and often told they need to eat more! As I'm sure you know - if they are not exercising , especially resistance to to maintain muscle; weight loss involves loss of both lean mass and fat. Always. I also notice theme of "you don't have to exercise" ; which is also appealing. And, in the beginning you don't have to. I guess I'd say people are being told half truths. No, it's not the burning calories that is leading to weight loss; but maintaining or increasing lean mass is so important. So after one loses a large amount of weight, which will be some lean mass, decreasing basal metabolic rate, the caloric needs will decrease and it might require some adjustment to continue to be in an energy deficit. I almost feel reluctant to use that word calorie - but I'm going to - because the bottom line is , it still matters. Of course one can choose to eat sticks of butter and Nick's macademia nuts, but if weight loss is one's goal, they can't just eat unlimited quantities of these things. They are assuming they people will feel full before they go over the their energy needs; but this is not true. I suspect Nick has never had an addictive or binge eating pattern - which is not restricted to just carbs.
To be fair energy intake does have a big impact but I treat as a rough estimate and not the all being. I think a lot of ppl will take spc qnd eat no fat chicken breast and broccli. Which we don't have to overindulge in fat buy can have reasonable amounts.
Hi Nick. A Little off topic but trying to see what you say. It Looks like I’m a hyper responder. Started carnivore about 10 weeks ago and im on a statin but total cholesterol went from 190 to 320. LDL went from 90 to 210. Trigs unchanged at 40 and Hdl unchanged at 100. My cardiologist freaked. I’m seen a lot of your recent videos with Dave and you say you are doing studies but you don’t seem to say whether the increase in ldl is dangerous or not. Thinking I should stop the diet. Any thoughts?
Not going to give medical advice. But to be clear while on a statin you went keto and despite the statin your ldl went from 90 to 210. If you decide to share I’d be interested in which statin, what dose, and what exactly your diet looked like (esp fat sources). Have you tried ezetimibe while keto? Have you measured ketones? Any functional testing (CAC/CCTA)?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Hi Nick. I’m probably an outlier. I’ve been taking atvorstatim 10mg once a day for 10 years. Cholesterol has been consistently Good. So big increase. Wasn’t even strict keto. Just cut a lot of carbs and eating a lot of red meat, lamb, eggs, ground beef etc. I just want to thank you and Dave and others for the research. If LDL is not really important and not very correlated with atherosclerosis we need to know that. My cardiologist says there is countless studies making the connection and that the keto diet is only good for losing weight but I will be the thinness person in the cemetery as it causes colon and other cancers and heart disease. He is old school and while he might be right, You and others seem to think not. Please continue your great work. Thanks.
I have been at my maintenance weight (44M, 170cm, 65kg) for many years (give or take 5kg). As an experiment since getting my Apple watch I have tracked calories and eating to the TDEE indicated by my Apple Watch and weighing all my food. My weight hasn't moved in that time and I have gone from eating carnivore, vegan and everything in between. What I did notice is the way my appetite and hunger varied with each diet but for the sake of the experiment I persisted and didn't give in. Just sharing my experience and I understand we are all different. Like others I have been looking for the "Holy Grail" where I could eat more calories and maintain, but unfortunately I have been unable to find this. Can you please share how this can be achieved as happy to try anything : ).
I think a main point is that every person has different resistance to weight gain/loss... a different 'calorie buffer zone,' if you will. Each person also has different sensitivity to higher GI foods, possibly based on degree of insulin secretion at baseline (this was shown in a reanalysis of DIETFITS). It's also surprising how potent non-diet variables are at influencing body composition in some (anecdotes). Things like stress reduction, improved sleep and even sexual activity.
@@nicknorwitzPhD For sure. I totally agree. My results probably reflect in part how consistent my routine has become because not much regarding my lifestyle has change for a long time. Also I like routine. Lol! I am serious though if you do have any advice on foods that would allow a person to eat more calories for the same energy expenditure, even if it's the slightest amount more, I would try it as an experiment : ).
@@nicknorwitzPhD i dont know what nerve you think you touched, im not some vegan, im actually mainly animal based now, and use to be 100% meat and butter lool, butter in everything, love butter, but the words "celery HAS more calories......" is not a provable statement, hence why i skiped watching this one nick. maybe i missed context. but even if i did watch your video im sure its probably click baiting into another subject. im also sure you know what you said to be not true hence my 'liar' coment, ill watch it do, if your right i will come back with an apology here. Go back to the lab now, bring us some facts please, we are all thumbling around in the dark here, give us some light not more confusion please! on a positive note, i loved LMHR, i loved oreos vs statins. more like that please and thank you!
This is not a circular logic, because it has self-explainatory power. Same as you calculate your speed of an object based on the distance and time given, or calculate distance based on time and speed given or calculate time based on speed and distance given. It's like you try to convince us that calculating our speed doesn't work because our tools to measure time or the distance aren't accurate.
More like calculating speed of a cheetah chasing a gazelle using tools that don’t work and a snapshot in time that doesn’t capture acceleration… sounds rather useless to me
@@IntegraDIY that's just a nonsense. if you are hormonally healthy, you won't be sedentary. and even if you would be, you automatically won't eat 4000kcal, as your body doesn't need it.
Any reason why a carnivore who stalls or sees no weight loss at all goes OMAD and cuts out dairy? And on top of that fasts for 48 hrs during that week. What do you equate those people with? It's not like they added more calories they did the opposite.
Not sure I understand the question. You mean if one changes their diet to an isocaloric diet but lower in carbs and fewer meals seems to see drops in weight/body fat?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Many Carnivores don't experience weightloss because of the volume of food they consume even though it's food based on the criteria of the diet. So, they go OMAD,fast. This equates to less food consumption by a wide margin, or less calories. Then they lose.
CICO never worked for me! Back in 2020 when I was 457lbs and contemplating having a VSG done, the bariatric dr put me on a 1500 calorie a day diet to start my weight-loss. Was the most miserable time of my weight loss journey. After my insurance declined my surgery I kept following the plan. I ended up losing 75lbs between Sept 2020-May 2021, but it was sooo hard to keep under 1500 cal a day and it always lead to ravenous eating. I ended up going back to my old way of eating and gained 50lbs back. Fast forward to 2023 and going keto/low carb with no caloric restrictions and eventually strict carnivore for about seven months I’m down 140+lbs since 1/28/23. For me finding the whole, one ingredient foods that provide satiety was key in my weight loss, not CICO!!!
@@nicknorwitzPhD Are you saying that @RevolutionOfEric lost 140 lbs while NOT being in a calorie deficit? They said "CICO" never worked for them and then said they lost 140lbs, that makes no sense. Counting calories and CICO are 2 different things, I feel like a lot of people are confusing the two.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Oh, message was 100% clear - great hook and message. I was just being a nerd and trying to think of different biological contexts where the hook could be interpretable as true. Keep up the great vids, love the channel as a fellow scientist. :)
@@nicknorwitzPhD No, we know for certain that actual calories in equals actual calories out. That's thermodynamics. The estimates on labels and for activities are just estimates. I'm with you that all that matters is hormonal state for losing/gaining fat and losing/gaining muscle, which is what people really care about, not "weight".
Ah the eternal low carb promise of being able to eat as much as you want. Works for some because it cuts out junk foods and is satiating but there are are plenty who gain if they eat a lot of butter or even just too much meat.
Starved myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat, high fibre calories a day for decades. Had an active job and went to the gym daily. No sugar. My fat came from the tablespoon of low fat seed oil poison dressing I put on 8 cups of salad. Barely fit a Canadian size 18. Been low carb over 14 years now. So many health issues healed. The Adventist cult food industry pushes the myth that it is because you are not eating junk, but I was not eating junk on their evil, semi vegan death diet.
i'm actually curious if celery would actually have more calories than butter in some organisms due to how their metabolisms would process the two foods. especially the organisms that have the means to digest all the fiber. the issue that i have with the calories model is how it doesn't seem to account for nutritional absorption. just because you are eating celery, doesn't mean it has the micronutrients you need and doesn't guarantee you even absorb enough of the micronutrients in the celery. it still feels like people don't get hungry due to the calories so much as their body is craving the nutrients it needs to maintain itself, which is why sometimes we are satisfied when we eat foods high in micronutrients and why amino acids and fat seem to satiate more with their multiple uses in the body (i.e. amino acids buying used to build and repair).
The calories model does account for nutritional absorption. After measuring the calories in the food, they feed it to volunteers for a few days in a controlled diet and then measure the calories in their poop. Granted, a lot of this is based on research that was done over 100 years ago, and doesn't quite account for the extent to which most modern food is processed. A lot of the numbers that are used as standards are probably wrong, but, it does essentially account for absorption. The more you know...
@@danbance5799 i was talking more about how herbivores can gain more calories from fibrous foods than we can do to their digestive system, although some humans will vary as well in how they absorb nutrients as well based on their own microbiomes and such. i was just thinking that celery may have more calories for a rabbit than butter since they process the food better. my second theory is more so talking about the absorption of nutrients for reasons other than calories so i'm not sure it's relevant to your point, but i do agree that the old calorie measurements are probably pretty outdated as a whole, especially since humans could be inherently different after all that time
Nice touch to it, that bite of butter. I can see my friends cringe. I did the same thing several times. They almost fainted, and I wasn't hungry for the rest of the day.
@@nicknorwitzPhD He died alredy in 2022, but his ideas were like low carb and fasting is bad for thyroid, and is slowing metabolism, Cod liver and fish oil is toxic. I would really really like if you would did educational video on Ray Peat diet style where you share your opinions.
@@lukasholly5517 Based on that summary, I can't say I think the arguments are sensible. I will have another keto-thyroid touching video shortly. But, long story short, low T3 doesn't mean hypothyroid. Also, "fish oil is toxic" sounds a bit silly IMHO
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yeah but i would like if you did video on that and say some conterarguments, i also dont know All his ideas, i know he was advocating agains PUFAs, he was saying things about Calcium:Phosporus ratio, Methionine:Glycine Ratio, high carb diet and thyroid, he was advocating for high carb diet with nutrient dense foods(liver, gelatinous meat, seafood, eggs, milk,carrots). I would really really like if you did some educational video on it. Also Nick what do you think about my diet I eat 500 grams grass finished beef and organs from local farm, 5eggs, pound of carrots, raw milk(sheep), Honey, Nonalkalized Cacao, avocado, local fruits and tropical fruits, sardines I avoid seed oils, processed foods and additives My bloodwork is HDL 170mg dl LDL 170 mg dl Total Chol 360 mg dl Triglycerides 38 mg dl ApoB 128 mg dl ApoA 252 mg dl CRP HS Low Glucose 90mg dl Insulin 3.5 mUIl HOMA IR 0.8 CRP low T3 lower T4 lower end of normal range TSH lower end of normal range Im planning to test some Vitamins and Minerals, HbA1C, IGF 1, ALT, AST
I've read research on this and I think a lot of this stuff comes down to the language we use and associate with different meanings. CICO does NOT require you to obsessively count Calories. The "Calories In Calories Out approach" which you mentioned isn't called that. What you described is "Calorie Counting," which is a different monster. The "Calories In Calories Out" system (Thermogenics) is so fundamental to weight management, that even your suggestions confirm that, only indirectly. Your suggestions: Eating foods which are lower on the glycemic index - Lower Calories In - Calorie Deficit Sleep, socialize, exercise and eat foods which improve metabolic heath (all of which increase metabolism) - Higher Calories Out - Calorie Deficit These are all good strategies which STILL lean on the Cal In Cal Out/Thermogenics system of food. Calorie Counting, though stressful and not very sustainable, actually works if you're careful about what foods you eat, when you eat them. The only problem is people don't know how to choose their foods carefully. They're lied to that you can count calories and eat what you like within that window. Then they go in on a lot of sugar. Then the sugar makes it hard for them to stop eating. Then they're stressed. The solution, as always, is proper education.
I don't count calories by the meal. I eat low calorie nutrient rich foods (coffee, tea, vegetables, etc) and I try to eat as much protein as my body needs, to support muscle mass which helps metabolism stay up. I also try to avoid added sugar drinks and foods, which are high in calories and increase inflammation (which has the negative effect of slowing your metabolism). All this leads to me eating less calories and improving my metabolism. Lower calories in and higher calories out. Calorie deficit! CICO!
I know people who eat 2-3 times or more the amount of energy they need. I think being aware of calories, as a general management tool, with the nuances of precision, absorption and the like, a good way to put things into perspective. It allows us to understand the excesses. When we measure the situation, when we have data, it's easier to see the problems and aim for something better. Some people are really far from anything viable. Trying to aim for RDI also helps you choose better foods in the right proportions. When it's a general guide, I don't see anything unhealthy. I appreciate some of the messages you are trying to convey. I'm a little uncomfortable with certain recommendations or shocking elements. Don't the average person already consume too much saturated fat? Isn't the effect of consuming too much saturated fat problematic and well documented? It would be nice to prove otherwise before we go that far, right?
After discovering the "secret" many, many, years ago, that calories don't mean squat if you eat appropriate foods, I experimented with adding 1 block of cream cheese (about 800 calories,) and 2 weeks later, and additional half a bag of macadamia nuts (about 1100 calories,) to my weekday daily intake, without removing any of my normal foods (mostly meat, seafood, heavy cream, and eggs.) I did this to see if I could up my energy for my daily activities/work. I was fine with gaining some fat, if it helped me get more work done. Well, after about 6 weeks, not only did I not gain any fat, I actually lost 1 belt hole. Ive never counted a single calorie, and I eat enormous amounts of fatty foods. In my 20's, everyone said "wait till you hit 30." Then, in my 30's, they said "wait until you hit 40 and your metabolism tanks." Well, im over half way through my 40's and still waiting for that dreaded day. 😉
Nice story
Wait till you hit 64.
That was a Beatles reference😂🎉❤
Eyy, very nice!! Good to hear, as I was wondering if it would change once I get older. ^^
I'm sure your story would shock many... but not me... THANKS for the share.
When I originally started eating low (almost no) carb, i had traded as many carbs as I could for fat, gram per gram.. i weighed my food,, and replaced carbs for fat. Later I did the math. I was eat almost 3 times as many calories. On the day I realized that, I knew calories were a fantasy. I had lost 60 pounds, in one month, by eating 300% more in caloric intake. So jut F-off with any talk of calories doing anything. Amount of Calories are irrelevant. What matters is what kind of food it is. How it affects your hormones. When insulin increases it turn on fat storage mod. You can not burn fat in this condition, only store it.
Your body is not a bomb calorimeter.
Nope...
There are a lot of calories in a log of wood when you burn it
@@JohnMcAfee-se9ms Cellulose has as many calories as glucose!
The calorie content is determined by burning the food and then applying a simple factor based on whether you burned protein, fat or carbohydrate. This would work at a simplistic level if we were heat engines with arms and legs attaches. But we're not, if we were we'd need to run at 70°C to achieve the efficiency we do. A better analogy is a fuel cell or perhaps a battery. We run on chemical reactions and electrical charges, just burning the stuff doesn't come close to representing how the body utilises the energy.
Which is exactly why millions lose on a high carb diet when they omit fat. And millions lose weight on a high fat diet when they omit carbs. People love to over complicate things, adhere to a bunch of nonsense.
I am also a researcher on dietetics. I do not count calories. Intermittent fasting is the way to lose weight based on my findings.
I wish I can gain some weight and am now doing 2MAD sometimes 3MAD instead of OMAD that I have been practising before.
Eating more meals seem to do the reverse to help gain weight regardless of what macro food types we choose.
Greater insulin area under the curve?
My favorite timing for checking the scale, if I’m being a good boy, is once a week max. That daily fluctuation will certainly throw you off.
True... a good poop is worth more than a week of lean boiled chicken breast and steamed broccoli on the scale ;)
@@nicknorwitzPhD 💩 🪶
One of the biggest paradoxes in the nutrition literature is that dieting is a huge risk factor for future obesity and weight gain! And people still preach CICO like it’s the gospel 🤦♂️
How dare you disparage the low-fat yogurt and lean cuisine scripture ;)
celery is evil !!!!! mmmmm butter !!!!
I spent decades starving myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat, high fibre calories a day. I weighed and measured everything. Had an active job. Went to the gym. Barely fit a Canadian size 18.
Switch to the human health, 1950s British diet in the prologue of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Lost the weight, no starvation involved.
Over 14 years now.
AWESOMENESS! Nice, isn't it?
The butter bite at the end must have made so many cringe on the fat bad side. Solid content.
ha ha yeah i did, was wondering if he was serious
Cringe is too strong a word.
I like eating butter like that, of course I cut it, not bite it, but it is possible... when you do keto, butter becomes really tasty for some reason.
That was what I was aiming for ;)
@@montycora no person or animal has ever disliked butter
when i was vegan i regularly ate 3000 calories a day because i was always hungry. On keto, i eat about 1800 calories a day and am satisfied.
Interesting. Have you read "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" ... good book... you may enjoy
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thank you for the recommendation! I'm putting it on my reading list now.
@@angieb4631 welcome :)
You do not eat calories, calories are heat energy. You eat nutrients (hopefully).
@@JohnMcAfee-se9msi eat cakes
I already love this video because it is going to make Dr. Layne Norton's head explode. 😂
Well, he's sworn off engaging with me on any media platform after he last tried to tangle... let's see how long he keeps his promise...
@@nicknorwitzPhDYes. Unfortunately, that doesn't surprise me. Norton loves making criticism, but seldom engages in the responses to his criticism.
Layne was vaporized by Nick's recent video about him 😂
Haha I love it, Layne only picks on people who have no coherent argument, or takes things out of context to make people look bad.
No way you just ate that stick of butter at the end like a boss😂👊😎
Maybe next time I'll make a bacon butter sandwich and leave the audience with a nice "crunch" ;)
Adopting that idea 😮
The butter bite conclusion was excellent! I used to gross my server coworkers at Olive Garden by biting into a butter packet and tell them "These Andes mints don't taste as good as they used to."
Haha! Nice troll
There is a talk by Dr Michael Eads about how you can't weigh a calorie. He suggests we use the much more obvious formula for losing/gaining mass where: Change in Mass = Mass in - Mass out. That talk is on the Low Carb Down Under youtube channel.
I've heard it. I actually disagree on MIMO. I think its practical utility is limited. Not sure it's all that well thought through. I've yet to see a compelling case, nor solid narrative review.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Thanks for the reply, Dr Norwitz. I'm not sure, but did you mean you disagree because its practical utility is limited? Or are those two different points? I agree that it doesn't seem to be very practically useful, but you argue in the video that CICO is not only not useful, but it is actively harmful. Perhaps MIMO could be useful as an alternative model just as that--an alternative that won't send people spiraling when CICO doesn't work. The MIMO idea seemed to me to fit right in with your point in this video: focusing on calories as a weight loss tool is ineffective at best and actively harmful at its worst. You can't weigh a calorie, so worry about the health content instead. Thanks for all your work on these videos.
@@starius1154 "as that--an alternative that won't send people spiraling when CICO doesn't work." ... I suppose ...
A calorie is heat energy. How would you weigh burning something?
Because you are comparing apple and oranges. Calories are a measurement of heat, by burning some dried “food thing” in a bomb calorimeter. Which is a closed system.
And then you are trying to apply it to a human, which is not a closed system. And does not convert food into heat. Nor does the human body burn it.
The human body uses different chemical actions in different ways. Burning is a chemical action in a bomb calorimeter. Not the human body.
I have never in my life ever counted calories.
I'm sure that sounds liberating to many...
That's good because you don't consume calories. Calories are heat energy as observed by burning something and measuring it in a calorometer.
@@JohnMcAfee-se9ms it never made sense to me.
I have overweight family members and I am certain I eat far more than they do but I've always been very thin and sickly with gastrointestinal issues. I was hospitalized as a kid because according to my mother "my stomach lining was gone." I was about 7 so I don't remember but I do remember passing undigested food through.
@JohnMcAfee-se9ms a energy counting system of around 200 years old I believe.
I'd always get annoyed hearing "it's all CICO" from people who should know better, like nutritionists. Coming from IT, I wanted to reply with - I know, similarly in IT, it's all about zeroes and ones. But that's saying nothing that could help anybody do or understand anything meaningful in IT, yet it's not wrong per se. Just useless. 🙄
Yes, it has always annoyed me how the reasoning for CICO is always backtracked from whatever your results are then that matches CICO. As a tool for weightloss it is completely unfit for purpose.
Applied it successfully few year back. Counted calories for my usual meals, tracked progress and adjusted. Lost 5kgs in two months as predicted. After the experience I have much better feeling of my intake needs and I rarely count anymore. Mostly because after going low carb it's almost impossible to overeat.
I agree George
@@FreeBeerMonkey I've lost 50kg by NOT counting calories. When I did calorie restriction I ended up tired, hungry and miserable - yes I lost a few kg but it stalled very quickly which was even more disheartening. I needed to lose 10's of kg, so it failed and I ended up putting all the weight back on. I track my intake at the end of the day, no restriction involved, I eat double the "calories" I did when restricting yet I'm not putting on weight because its the "what I eat" not the "how much I eat" that works.
30 people, locked in cages, pure steak diet for 6 months. Controlled portion. Controlled all conditions. ALL lost weight. Then double the amount of steak per day they were required to eat. Surprise, surprise, the ALL gained weight. Dr. Baker is a relatively strict carnivore. He says the same thing. If he increases his steak volume he gains weight, if he decreases volume he loses weight. I've had a ton of patients gain weight overeating butter. Some like to freeze small chunks and eat throughout the day. Other go way overboard on salted carnivore chips (jerky) or bacon. 😢. All things matter. Volume, quality, type, "Kcals", hormones, health status......it all matters. No free lunch, all things have consequences 😂
Link?
@@kraftzion here in South America, prisons don't publish their studies. People bought and sold like cattle. Sad but true. I work very hard to help people eat well during my studies. When the studies are over, they eat very low quality food, sometimes nothing. Mal nutrition and starvation are normal in many third world prisons. Have conducted over 50 great studies. Some for the prisons, some for food companies, some with pharmaceutical companies and others for various universities, with the bulk being government funded. In all cases, those who fund the studies, own the studies. A thousand great studies have been done over the years, not for public viewing. Governments don't like to share. Go ask your government for the Biden documents or the Kennedy assassination documents...... Heck, can't even get them to release the cov19 or Vaxx documents. Just how the world works.
In your first couple lines you cite an experiment that hasn't been done. How do you think that study would really pan out? Also, do you think you could predict weight gained based in increased volume and/or calculated Calories? I'd bet not... at least not with any degree of precision. And note that acute doesn't equal chronic.
@@nicknorwitzPhD first, it has and was done. As you know, underfeeding we can guarantee weight loss but not an exact amount. It is a dynamic process, ever changing variables. Germans proved this in concentration camps. No one gained weight from underfeeding. We also know if we over feed, we can guarantee weight gain, even with an all meat diet. The amount? That is going to vary person by person. As you know, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to predict an amount of water, fat, and muscle tissue per person. However, if connected to a few machines and in a sealed metabolic ward for three months prior, then placed on an eating program, it might be possible to make a rough estimate. Not sure that would be of value for the cost. Not sure anyone would fund something of that level. Basically the insulin model is not sufficient, must include a food volume, type, and quality (calories), model at the same time. All things matter. Just don't want people thinking they can eat as much as they want and not gain weight. I love carnivore, low carb and keto eating plans. However, have seen far too many horror stories with the overeating / over consumption of fats.
@@DrAJ_LatinAmerica First, underfeeding in limited in so far as it reduced insulin as well, even on LFD. Second, "We also know if we over feed, we can guarantee weight gain, even with an all meat diet." You say this but that's actually a hypothetical with respect to the chronic treatment experiment you hypothesized, which has not been done. Irrespective of that fact, of course you know I'd tend to agree with you, with the massive caveat that "The amount? That is going to vary person by person." This is the point, the imprecision is so massive - and the target is a moving one - that expectations are hardly ever/never met. Thus casting CICO as a prospectively accuse model is a fallacy. Taking a step back, I think we are all adults here and can recognize there are other variables at play, including social and emotional elements and that obesity is complex and multifactorial and - obviously - celery doesn't actually have more calories than butter. This remains a thought puzzle for the reasonable. And I find it very difficult to believe anyone will walk away from this truly thinking... YAY! Dr Nick just gave me permission to have two sticks of butter in my coffee every morning and to eat fatty ribeyes for every meal, with butter of course, and maintain 8% body fat without exercise. On this platform, I assume a baseline level of common sense of my viewers.
Love your channel Nick. Thanks for the info.
You're welcome!
My first reaction without even watching the entire video is: ‘I don’t care about calories. I continue to keep my carbs low and I’m happy.’ In fact, I'm about to enjoy my bone-in wings and I plan to eat all of the celery!😎🤓😊
Whatever floats your boat ;)
yeah we have different body types and what makes you feel good to your body and in health in general then continue to do it.. dont get paranoid! Enjoy the different foods in moderation..
This was one of the most useful videos on the channel. Calories In Calories Out or Energy Balance Model (EBM) of obesity is not only harmful, but actually it's pseudo-science. As you've mentioned it has no physiological basis. I'd add to your points that Insulin hormone is very important in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (CIM) of obesity, since it explains why people gain weight when it's high and why fat is mobilized when insulin level is low. What is more funny is that in the 'Human Metabolism: A Regulatory Perspective', prof. Keith Frayn explains exactly this, but then when he writes about metabolism disorders, mentions EBM as an explanation to weight gain.
Exactly. EBM isn't a pathophysiological model of obesity. It's sweeping the pathology under the rug.
Today i found out that 1 Jatz biscuit is almost the same number of calories as 1 pink or white marshmallow. How is that even possible? Both seems to give the same satiety too. 2 foods to avoid i guess. I guess i try macadamia nuts again.
Macadamia for the win! Happy to provide a discount ;)
3500 calories per hour and I watched this 5.17 minute video. This means I burned 301 calories. Thanks for helping me lose weight Nick.
The problem with this video is that calories have no bearing on metabolism. Thermodynamics have very little relevance to biochemical processes. Also, the 3,500 calories equals one pound of fat was made up by Lulu Hunt Peters in 1918. There's no data to support this "fact", as you know since we don't burn calories, we oxidize substrate.
Love your content. I actually put this calculation to work and backed it by action and lost 13kg. Here’s how:
Firstly, I understand there’s many variables left on the table and assumptions so let’s not assume this is a scientific test.
This test was done on a strict carnivore diet with daily fasting of 20/4 and drinking min 1-2 litres of water a day
I was 40yo, I assumed my base daily caloric requirements was 2850 calories.
I consumed 500g of grass fed/finished beef mince, 2 full rashers of bacon and 6 eggs daily, roughly 2300 calories a day.
I also did not drink any alcohol, vaping or smoking, nothing!
I lived in the hills so every morning I walked for 1 hour burning 500 calories due to being mountainous terrain.
I calculated that I was receiving a daily calorie deficit of 1000 calories due to my walks. I also calculated that if the 7000 calories per 1kg of body fat were true a 1000 calorie daily deficit would see me lose 1 kg per seven days.
It worked, and it worked PERFECTLY. I lost 13kg in 13 weeks and felt absolutely AMAZING! I didn’t go to the gym once and worked daily this may of contributed to an increased energy consumption. I also included 1, 4 day fast at the start to kick me directly into ketosis.
I have since allowed 50% of the weight back on as I was 93kg down to 80kg and 6ft1 and my body biologically programmed to have some emergency fat so the bounce back is real.
Overall is was a fantastic experience and I truly understood why 99.9% of people fail because what actually needs to be done is very much undermined by todays dietary existence. I basically became a caveman in a modern world. Nothing else existed, there was no other food.
It worked and that’s what I had to do to do it! PS: in that process my blood panel improved DRAMATICALLY!
My triglycerides dropped by 50% and even though I’ve put 50% weight back on, my triglycerides have remained 50% lower!! ❤
I’m still keto and eat mince everyday. 🤘🏼
Edit: I would say this is extreme and requires 100% dedication and is likely not realistic for the vast majority of punters but, can it be done? Yes! Was it good for me and did I see any metabolic improvements? 100% yes! My body is still better for it 3 years later, overall less inflammation, my eyesight is better, skin is better and many many other improvements.
Now I’d say, unless one has done something like this to this extent, it’s very hard to make even somewhat “educated” assumptions.
If it were not for the dense calories of meat I feel it would of been impossible and incredibly unhealthy!
I’m incredibly happy I found your channel, I understand you’re a smart young man and a great spokesman for this food revolution to change the world, one block of butter at a time. I’m actively getting through all of your videos to get up to speed with your evolving perspective and look forward to your future content. ✌🏼
This was bloody brilliant and very well done. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I love eating all I want at one sitting per day, I’m full and satisfied eating meat and fat, don’t count calories.
Glad you have an approach that works for you!
I have heard I cant remember who that suggests the calorie system would be better if you dont count fibre and protein. Andre
Nick, another thought provoking video. Great job ! Please use your superior rain power to look at the requirements for eternity with God. Obeying Acts 2:38 is the only plan taught by the very Apostles of Jesus Christ. That just gets you inside the door. Working out your own salvation is a very worthy goal friend. Have a great weekend. 😊
Have you watched Zoe Harcombe's "kettles" presentation where she chronicles her attempt to find the source behind the 3,500 calories =1 lb "fact"? It's hilarious.
In/out deficit or surplus and nobody counts the calories they defecate.
Find me the influencer who but his/her feces in a bomb calorimeter...
@@nicknorwitzPhD pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/632492/
Nutrient density is the key, not calories.
Bring me macadamia and EVOO-drowned sockeye!
@@nicknorwitzPhD Those aren't nutrient dense, do you even know what nutrient density is? Leafy greens are the most nutrient dense foods. Look up a nutrient density chart, you'll see it.
I can't lose weight if I have veggies in my diet.
Best channel ever
I like you Lonely Quant... but don't be Lonely... join our nerdthusiastic community!
I would guess that most people watching this channel know that CICO is a very rough guide that does not apply in all/many cases, and that to the extent it applies at all, it is more relevant for people ingesting higher levels of carbs, and less relevant for people avoiding carbs. Or maybe I have that wrong.
To the extent I have a quibble, it is that saying calories don’t matter as much as other things (maybe particularly for people on a keto diet) can easily be misconstrued as saying that calories matter at all, and isn’t that message equally wrong? Suggesting to a person on a high-carb/high-fat diet that eating another stick of butter is better for them than eating a stick of celery just seems wrong for that person.
Anyway, the clickbait worked, but I still prefer the videos with more substance/depth. The core question of how calories are measured in foods is interesting and not well reported in the popular press, as is the related issue of how calories are or are not relevant to different types of people/diets. Love the channel, though; and if clickbait is necessary from time-to-time, so be it. 👍
I believe you know what calories in calories out means but most people don't. Calories in calories out is defined by consuming less calories than you burn. This assumes a lot of things that people don't realize. It assumes all calories are always equal. That is, they will be absorbed the same every time, they will be utilized the same every time and they will be burned at a well known and defined pace every time. This is all false. Calorie deficit when you really push down to the bottom is simply eating less calories than you need or can utilize or even absorb, not less than you burn, because we don't know that information. But, like all other things doctors prescribe for you to result in at least a minimally significant clinical outcome, you may need to titrate up or down based on your needs. Yep, even pharmaceuticals don't always work at their described and prescribed dosage. Food actually works exactly the same way using all the same or similar pathways. I think all that has happened is that they found that at less than 2000 calories, most people did not gain weight eating most things. But that's not personalized or helpful. I appreciate your scientific eye.
At least Nick is transparent about his click-bait. 😆 He's right - I knew he had a point, and I clicked immediately.
I've fished you... but not I'll release you back into the wild... be free fish and spread the science and deep thought!
he's a Master Baiter!
@@chuckleezodiac24 pun taken too far... lol
@@nicknorwitzPhD 🤣🐠🐠🦈👍
Calories are a useless metric concerning dietary intake. It was stupid from the beginning. It’s use was purposeful only in making people think that carbs don’t matter. Eat you white bread and don’t worry because it just about the calories.
Never counted calories, except when I was desperately short of money and trying to get the calories for the least cash. I found supermarket own brand muesli was quite good for this.
I'm about a year in to guzzling 4 or 5 tubs of full fat cream per week, a calorie excess of around 5500 per week. I haven't gained 50 Ibs, more like 2 Ibs, could be muscle, still fit my pants! I'm not consciously restricting my other eating though I'm sure I'm eating less other stuff. Point is, the dietary establishment has it that a high fat diet makes you fat, coz it's so darn calorie dense. Maybe for some people but not for me
"but not for me" seems to apply a lot for a principle - CICO - that's supposed to apply to all humans... makes one think, doesn't it?
We need a study of a keto/carnivore people who have gotten down to a weight they have been stuck at for a long time. For me it was 170 pounds. Have them eat in a surplus and see how much weight they can gain. Im sure I ate at a surplus for months and the scale never moved.
No one eats calories. You eat protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol, water and ash. These are the macro nutrients and should be measured in grams, not calories. 1 cal of protein != 1 cal of carbs.
How many calories in a log of wood?
Enough to cool a Smore
yes it works. Just people dont typically measure their calories out. They assume calories out and measure calories in and their assumption is often wrong and their measurements are often also wrong.
Feed my salad to the cow and I’ll eat the cow. I don’t eat plants.
Calories do not matter. I gain weight when I eat plants. Not from meat.
🍽️🥩🚫🍰
Exactly. Calorie counting and CICO belief leads to long term failure.
Typically, yep
Id love a video on low-carb/high fat with regards to long-term health effects.
Hard to argue with any of that.
Love the butter chomp at the end.
Thanks :)...
I wouldn't say it this way. Calories in calories out must be correct, because that's how thermodynamics works. Our bodies are working within the limits of physics. Maybe what could happen is that our theories about calories are not 100% accuracy, and they need to be improved
I don't necessarily disagree with you. My point was parallel... maybe watch again and consider how what you said is compatible with the video...
Go ahead, teach us about thermodynamics.
@@nicknorwitzPhDI think the issue I am having with the video is how it is interpreted. As evidenced by the comments, you have e provided an echo chamber for people who heavily bias methods which do not align with CICO. I have no doubt you know leveraging of the imperfect science of CICO is the gateway for many less than scrupulous people (grifters, charlatans, snake oil salespeople) to capitalize on peoples unwillingness/inability to keep consumption in check and increase movement. Is there not a fallacy in saying ‘people use CICO and then don’t lose weight and blame themselves’ while at the same time bringing complicated nutritional concepts into play and not considering the probability of failure in those modalities is much higher than CICO.
Look at how many people are employing Keto, Carnivore, insulin resistance, and other anecdotes to justify taking a binary stance on CICO… as if it’s all of one or or all of the other. Sheesh.
I can actually hear Layne Norton yelling at the clouds and shaking his fists after watching this.
Then I pop out of the clouds like Mufasa, "Son, Everything you see - exists together in a delicate balance."
Oh, I get it now. Calories are a state of mind! How do I join the Breatharians?
Hey Nicholas, really nice video ! I was wondering if I could help you with Best Quality Editing in your videos better than your Editor with good pricing and also make a highly engaging Thumbnail which will help your videos to reach to a wider audience ? Pls let me know what do you think ?
Feel free to send me your contact and samples.
Side note - havard health just published “keto is actually a medical diet that comes with serious risks.” Nick, can you fix from within?
I saw that... honestly, I considered a response video and/or tweet but decided it wasn't even worth it. It wasn't getting much attention and I don't have the muscle to guide them in terms of broader messaging. Better not to give it oxygen. Give it time... change will come
Cico was the original dumb down.
Gotten into so many arguments with people that blindly believe in the calories in calories out logic. They just can't wrap their minds around the human body being a complex machine with different levels of efficiency, or the fact that different types of food have different bio availability. Alas, it's a waste of time arguing with people that can't reason.
Perhaps because as you say - it is more nuanced. BUT - that doesn't mean that it is completely irrelevant. Let's use energy , since calorie scares people now sadly. It is very possible to eat more fat (& protein) than one can use for energy; therefore resulting in net storage.. i.e weight gain; or inability to lose. I hear this all the time with these diets; because people are being mislead into thinking it doesn't matter. All people on keto/carnivore diets who are losing weight are doing so b/c they are in an energy deficit. It's still the bottom line.
I also feel people are mislead on the calories out side. No, it's not that the exercise is burning calories for weight loss. Exercise; especially resistance, is maintaining or increasing lean mass (muscle, bone, etc) which otherwise will be lost as one loses weight; lowering the energy requirements over time.
As you said - the body is complex machine and anyone telling you to completely ignore CICO is misleading you. It doesn't mean one needs to count them, but if not getting desired results - perhaps track for a bit to see what is going on.
Click bait title. I understand what you're saying but at the end of it all if you eat more than you expend you'll gain weight. The difficult thing is determining how much you're eating and how much you're expending.
So you agree that prospectively CICO is very limited in utility? You agree that it’s a necessary tautology and there may be better independent variables to manipulate for long - term “calorie balance”
Monch Monch! The bacteria in the large intestine need these calories to exist
I had a caloric deficit of 1500 calories yesterday, when I woke up I was up 2 pounds. 😅
Yeah, because weight loss doesn't happen in one day lol
100% of pro body builders disagree with you but you go to harvard so you're probably much smarter than all of them.
A point I make again and again is that acute doesn't equal chronic. Also, my messages are not intended for pro BB or top-level strongman athletes, etc. For example re my athletes don't need carbs video. I think the general point is clear, but I'm certainly not saying Brian Shaw (6'8" 445 lbs) world strong man should not eat carbs to gain mass and dead lift >1000 lbs. Re Calories. Of course they are a variable that can be manipulated over the short term to change weight and if one doesn't eat (or eats only celery) they will lose weight. But such acute interventions don't translate into long terms success. Oh, and also... steroids...
I eat as much fat as I want and therefore am never hungry. Usually eat only once a day. Calories in - calories out does not make sense to me because it's how often and how much you spike insulin that matters.
No, it's not. Not in the context of weight loss.
If you only eat one meal a day then of course you can eat whatever you want during that one meal and not become overweight. Even for a relatively sedentary person, eating enough to achieve a consistent caloric surplus when only eating one meal per day is incredibly difficult.
@@TheFlyingCougarIt's one meal but over 2 hours. It's very low carb...sometimes I'll do carnivore for a week or two but if I upped the carbs I'd start eating more and wouldn't be satiated. My weight is stable and I'm not hungry so it works for me. Carbs make me ravenous.
@@TheFlyingCougarYou don't eat calories. Ask yourself what calories are, first of all.
Whatever works for you have at it. Applying the simple principle of CICO and adjusting macros based on my exercise regimen has always accomplished three things: lots of great satiating meals with variety, and fueling activities appropriately which have net good results. (Getting enough carbs for endurance events, getting enough protein for more resistance based periods). As soon as CICO is dismissed, complicated, much less researched and more debated modalities of dieting come into play… insulin spikes, thermogenesis of insulin timing, mitochondrial fractioning of carnivore red meet uptake (making stuff up). It is insane to think the concept of feeding your body to compliment the needed movement expenditure is maligned while embracing theories which open us up to being fooled by grifters who sell the goods and services of the diet and nutrition industry is cheered on. Sheesh.
@@SmeriglioDavid Thank you for writing this - I wanted to make a comment, but figured it would just be ripped on, but you stated it much more eloquently and sadly your last sentence is spot on. Sad to to see another 'name' in the keto/carnivore world turning out to be the same. Yes, it is nuanced by how our bodies process different macros - but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy (i.e calories) coming in is not relevant any more! I feel so bad because this will just continue to hurt so many people with the notion that you can always just eat as much as you want and lose, or not gain weight.
Most who take up the keto/carnivore diet are overweight, many very overweight; and have some metabolic derangement. If they added or estimated; most are eating in a calorie deficit; at least when they start; and yes the carb restriction, with the increased protein helps with the weight loss. BUT - it is still an energy deficit. You can't lose weight unless your body needs to burn it's own fat - not the dietary fat.
Every day I see several comments, or hear of stories of people who start out great, but then the weight loss 'stalls'. They are told by YT influencers that their bodies are 'healing' , or some such thing; and they just need to continue on and often told they need to eat more! As I'm sure you know - if they are not exercising , especially resistance to to maintain muscle; weight loss involves loss of both lean mass and fat. Always. I also notice theme of "you don't have to exercise" ; which is also appealing. And, in the beginning you don't have to. I guess I'd say people are being told half truths. No, it's not the burning calories that is leading to weight loss; but maintaining or increasing lean mass is so important.
So after one loses a large amount of weight, which will be some lean mass, decreasing basal metabolic rate, the caloric needs will decrease and it might require some adjustment to continue to be in an energy deficit. I almost feel reluctant to use that word calorie - but I'm going to - because the bottom line is , it still matters.
Of course one can choose to eat sticks of butter and Nick's macademia nuts, but if weight loss is one's goal, they can't just eat unlimited quantities of these things. They are assuming they people will feel full before they go over the their energy needs; but this is not true. I suspect Nick has never had an addictive or binge eating pattern - which is not restricted to just carbs.
To be fair energy intake does have a big impact but I treat as a rough estimate and not the all being. I think a lot of ppl will take spc qnd eat no fat chicken breast and broccli. Which we don't have to overindulge in fat buy can have reasonable amounts.
This is reasonable :)
Eating celery is a caloric deficit. Eating buttered celery and I guess it breaks even calorie wise. Math is confusing.
😂
Jillian Michaels was on the last Real Time still spouting the CICO nonsense. Terrible
I have "mixed" feelings about Jillian...
I paused the video for over 20 min b/f I realized that I could’ve just gotten the answer(s) from Nick in about 5 min.
But you tried!!!
I clicked on the video expecting Nick to use the celery stalk like a pipe and expected him to smoke the butter using the celery stalk...
Huh… that would be fancy
Hi Nick. A
Little off topic but trying to see what you say. It
Looks like I’m a hyper responder. Started carnivore about 10 weeks ago and im on a statin but total cholesterol went from 190 to 320. LDL went from 90 to 210. Trigs unchanged at 40 and Hdl unchanged at 100. My cardiologist freaked. I’m seen a lot of your recent videos with Dave and you say you are doing studies but you don’t seem to say whether the increase in ldl is dangerous or not. Thinking I should stop the diet. Any thoughts?
Not going to give medical advice. But to be clear while on a statin you went keto and despite the statin your ldl went from 90 to 210. If you decide to share I’d be interested in which statin, what dose, and what exactly your diet looked like (esp fat sources). Have you tried ezetimibe while keto? Have you measured ketones? Any functional testing (CAC/CCTA)?
@@nicknorwitzPhD
Hi Nick. I’m probably an outlier.
I’ve been taking atvorstatim 10mg once a day for 10 years. Cholesterol has been consistently
Good. So big increase. Wasn’t even strict keto. Just cut a lot of carbs and eating a lot of red meat, lamb, eggs, ground beef etc. I just want to thank you and Dave and others for the research. If LDL is not really important and not very correlated with atherosclerosis we need to know that. My cardiologist says there is countless studies making the connection and that the keto diet is only good for losing weight but I will be the thinness person in the cemetery as it causes colon and other cancers and heart disease. He is old school and while he might be right,
You and others seem to think not. Please continue your great work. Thanks.
I have been at my maintenance weight (44M, 170cm, 65kg) for many years (give or take 5kg). As an experiment since getting my Apple watch I have tracked calories and eating to the TDEE indicated by my Apple Watch and weighing all my food. My weight hasn't moved in that time and I have gone from eating carnivore, vegan and everything in between. What I did notice is the way my appetite and hunger varied with each diet but for the sake of the experiment I persisted and didn't give in. Just sharing my experience and I understand we are all different.
Like others I have been looking for the "Holy Grail" where I could eat more calories and maintain, but unfortunately I have been unable to find this. Can you please share how this can be achieved as happy to try anything : ).
I think a main point is that every person has different resistance to weight gain/loss... a different 'calorie buffer zone,' if you will. Each person also has different sensitivity to higher GI foods, possibly based on degree of insulin secretion at baseline (this was shown in a reanalysis of DIETFITS). It's also surprising how potent non-diet variables are at influencing body composition in some (anecdotes). Things like stress reduction, improved sleep and even sexual activity.
@@nicknorwitzPhD For sure. I totally agree. My results probably reflect in part how consistent my routine has become because not much regarding my lifestyle has change for a long time. Also I like routine. Lol!
I am serious though if you do have any advice on foods that would allow a person to eat more calories for the same energy expenditure, even if it's the slightest amount more, I would try it as an experiment : ).
I have never have counted calories when losing weight. That never made sense to me.
liar!
Oh... I touched a nerve...
@@nicknorwitzPhD i dont know what nerve you think you touched, im not some vegan, im actually mainly animal based now, and use to be 100% meat and butter lool, butter in everything, love butter, but the words "celery HAS more calories......" is not a provable statement, hence why i skiped watching this one nick. maybe i missed context. but even if i did watch your video im sure its probably click baiting into another subject. im also sure you know what you said to be not true hence my 'liar' coment, ill watch it do, if your right i will come back with an apology here. Go back to the lab now, bring us some facts please, we are all thumbling around in the dark here, give us some light not more confusion please! on a positive note, i loved LMHR, i loved oreos vs statins. more like that please and thank you!
This is not a circular logic, because it has self-explainatory power. Same as you calculate your speed of an object based on the distance and time given, or calculate distance based on time and speed given or calculate time based on speed and distance given.
It's like you try to convince us that calculating our speed doesn't work because our tools to measure time or the distance aren't accurate.
More like calculating speed of a cheetah chasing a gazelle using tools that don’t work and a snapshot in time that doesn’t capture acceleration… sounds rather useless to me
When I saw the title of this episode, I immediately thought of a new term, "Nick bait."🎣 I hope that doesn't sound rude. 😁
Depends… do you like the results of taking the bait? Do you think the video had value?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yes, this episode was above average for you, and your average is way above average for the genre.
Calories are a complete BS.
"Caloric deficit" doesn't matter.
The hormonal response to food is the only thing what matters...
Ok, be completely sedentary and eat 4000 calories each day. Check back and tell me how much weight you have lost. I’ll wait.
@@IntegraDIY that's just a nonsense.
if you are hormonally healthy, you won't be sedentary.
and even if you would be, you automatically won't eat 4000kcal, as your body doesn't need it.
Any reason why a carnivore who stalls or sees no weight loss at all goes OMAD and cuts out dairy? And on top of that fasts for 48 hrs during that week. What do you equate those people with? It's not like they added more calories they did the opposite.
Not sure I understand the question. You mean if one changes their diet to an isocaloric diet but lower in carbs and fewer meals seems to see drops in weight/body fat?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Many Carnivores don't experience weightloss because of the volume of food they consume even though it's food based on the criteria of the diet. So, they go OMAD,fast. This equates to less food consumption by a wide margin, or less calories. Then they lose.
Another intereting , thought provoking vidio.thankyou .
Thank you!
Hello Again . Is raw heavy cream better than Butter and ghee ? Can we cook with Heavy cream? Thank you.
I mean I wouldn’t fry eggs in heavy cream? But could use it in a curry, to make ice cream, in various desserts etc. different purposes
@@nicknorwitzPhD -Thank you very much.
CICO never worked for me! Back in 2020 when I was 457lbs and contemplating having a VSG done, the bariatric dr put me on a 1500 calorie a day diet to start my weight-loss. Was the most miserable time of my weight loss journey. After my insurance declined my surgery I kept following the plan. I ended up losing 75lbs between Sept 2020-May 2021, but it was sooo hard to keep under 1500 cal a day and it always lead to ravenous eating. I ended up going back to my old way of eating and gained 50lbs back. Fast forward to 2023 and going keto/low carb with no caloric restrictions and eventually strict carnivore for about seven months I’m down 140+lbs since 1/28/23. For me finding the whole, one ingredient foods that provide satiety was key in my weight loss, not CICO!!!
Sorry to break it to you, but that's still CICO. You're down 140 lbs because you ate in a calorie deficit 🤷♀
QED: Kikari's response to
@RevolutionOfEric is to rationalize CICO retrospectively... basically what the video is about
@@nicknorwitzPhD Are you saying that @RevolutionOfEric lost 140 lbs while NOT being in a calorie deficit? They said "CICO" never worked for them and then said they lost 140lbs, that makes no sense. Counting calories and CICO are 2 different things, I feel like a lot of people are confusing the two.
Super well presented as always. The 'old' mindset is very hard to get out of
Let's break the old mindset... get ready for some "unlearning"
I know what I am doing tomorrow morning. Eating some butter ~ ^o^
With what...
The question is what happened to that piece of celery?😂
There are squirrels and rabbits outside my apartment.
I was expecting something like the gut microbiome has cellulase, thus its more caloric for you as a metaorganism.
Nope. Hope it’s clear I don’t think butter is a better weight loss tool literally than celery. It’s just a concept hook 🪝
@@nicknorwitzPhD Oh, message was 100% clear - great hook and message. I was just being a nerd and trying to think of different biological contexts where the hook could be interpretable as true. Keep up the great vids, love the channel as a fellow scientist. :)
That's the way to ESTIMATE (badly) energy flows. To CALCULATE energy flows is a completely different thing. Doubly-labeled water, that sort of thing.
But now you’re measuring when happens/ed not predicting …
@@nicknorwitzPhD No, we know for certain that actual calories in equals actual calories out. That's thermodynamics. The estimates on labels and for activities are just estimates. I'm with you that all that matters is hormonal state for losing/gaining fat and losing/gaining muscle, which is what people really care about, not "weight".
Its impossible to even find the so called maintenance calories lol
For me, it's a wide range
I'mma have a son just like Nick.
Lucky you ;)
Ah the eternal low carb promise of being able to eat as much as you want. Works for some because it cuts out junk foods and is satiating but there are are plenty who gain if they eat a lot of butter or even just too much meat.
Starved myself fat and sick on 1200 low fat, high fibre calories a day for decades. Had an active job and went to the gym daily. No sugar. My fat came from the tablespoon of low fat seed oil poison dressing I put on 8 cups of salad.
Barely fit a Canadian size 18.
Been low carb over 14 years now. So many health issues healed.
The Adventist cult food industry pushes the myth that it is because you are not eating junk, but I was not eating junk on their evil, semi vegan death diet.
Not exactly my message. Actually what you said is fully compatible with the contents of the video if you listen carefully
You are changing the lives of so many. One. video. at. a time. You should know that. Thank you. You are very much appreciated.
AWEE! Thanks!!!
i'm actually curious if celery would actually have more calories than butter in some organisms due to how their metabolisms would process the two foods. especially the organisms that have the means to digest all the fiber.
the issue that i have with the calories model is how it doesn't seem to account for nutritional absorption. just because you are eating celery, doesn't mean it has the micronutrients you need and doesn't guarantee you even absorb enough of the micronutrients in the celery. it still feels like people don't get hungry due to the calories so much as their body is craving the nutrients it needs to maintain itself, which is why sometimes we are satisfied when we eat foods high in micronutrients and why amino acids and fat seem to satiate more with their multiple uses in the body (i.e. amino acids buying used to build and repair).
The calories model does account for nutritional absorption. After measuring the calories in the food, they feed it to volunteers for a few days in a controlled diet and then measure the calories in their poop. Granted, a lot of this is based on research that was done over 100 years ago, and doesn't quite account for the extent to which most modern food is processed. A lot of the numbers that are used as standards are probably wrong, but, it does essentially account for absorption. The more you know...
@@danbance5799 i was talking more about how herbivores can gain more calories from fibrous foods than we can do to their digestive system, although some humans will vary as well in how they absorb nutrients as well based on their own microbiomes and such. i was just thinking that celery may have more calories for a rabbit than butter since they process the food better.
my second theory is more so talking about the absorption of nutrients for reasons other than calories so i'm not sure it's relevant to your point, but i do agree that the old calorie measurements are probably pretty outdated as a whole, especially since humans could be inherently different after all that time
Nice touch to it, that bite of butter. I can see my friends cringe.
I did the same thing several times. They almost fainted, and I wasn't hungry for the rest of the day.
Can't say it's not amusing to get the expected reaction...
Tom Brady in the spotlight 😮
You're the first one to comment on that
Counting calories is just plain stupid.
Enough to cook a Smore.
LOVE butter. Just started eating it straight.
That irritates some people... as I've recently discovered
Excellent content and well produced videos Nick. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thanks you for commenting!
You left the anti-theft tag on your T-shirt.
Umm... you mean my Rode mic?
Excellent. Now can you PLEASE teach the rest of the medical establishment! They seem to have forgotten about critical common sense thinking.
Working on it. Give me some more time ;) there is a changing tide...
@@nicknorwitzPhD I agree. These are the times of change. I’m like any we’ve ever seen before. Keep up the good work.
confidence i have ...
Thanks yoda
I counter calories..
Punny ;)
@nicknorwitzPhD Hey Nick what do you think about Ray Peat diet style if you know that?
Know nothing about him or his ideas so no comment
@@nicknorwitzPhD He died alredy in 2022, but his ideas were like low carb and fasting is bad for thyroid, and is slowing metabolism, Cod liver and fish oil is toxic. I would really really like if you would did educational video on Ray Peat diet style where you share your opinions.
@@lukasholly5517 Based on that summary, I can't say I think the arguments are sensible. I will have another keto-thyroid touching video shortly. But, long story short, low T3 doesn't mean hypothyroid. Also, "fish oil is toxic" sounds a bit silly IMHO
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yeah but i would like if you did video on that and say some conterarguments, i also dont know All his ideas, i know he was advocating agains PUFAs, he was saying things about Calcium:Phosporus ratio, Methionine:Glycine Ratio, high carb diet and thyroid, he was advocating for high carb diet with nutrient dense foods(liver, gelatinous meat, seafood, eggs, milk,carrots). I would really really like if you did some educational video on it.
Also Nick what do you think about my diet
I eat 500 grams grass finished beef and organs from local farm, 5eggs, pound of carrots, raw milk(sheep), Honey, Nonalkalized Cacao, avocado, local fruits and tropical fruits, sardines
I avoid seed oils, processed foods and additives
My bloodwork is
HDL 170mg dl
LDL 170 mg dl
Total Chol 360 mg dl
Triglycerides 38 mg dl
ApoB 128 mg dl
ApoA 252 mg dl
CRP HS Low
Glucose 90mg dl
Insulin 3.5 mUIl
HOMA IR 0.8
CRP low
T3 lower
T4 lower end of normal range
TSH lower end of normal range
Im planning to test some Vitamins and Minerals, HbA1C, IGF 1, ALT, AST
I have utmost confidence you have a point to make, every time 😄
Appreciate the benefit of the doubt :)
I've read research on this and I think a lot of this stuff comes down to the language we use and associate with different meanings.
CICO does NOT require you to obsessively count Calories.
The "Calories In Calories Out approach" which you mentioned isn't called that.
What you described is "Calorie Counting," which is a different monster.
The "Calories In Calories Out" system (Thermogenics) is so fundamental to weight management, that even your suggestions confirm that, only indirectly.
Your suggestions:
Eating foods which are lower on the glycemic index - Lower Calories In - Calorie Deficit
Sleep, socialize, exercise and eat foods which improve metabolic heath (all of which increase metabolism) - Higher Calories Out - Calorie Deficit
These are all good strategies which STILL lean on the Cal In Cal Out/Thermogenics system of food.
Calorie Counting, though stressful and not very sustainable, actually works if you're careful about what foods you eat, when you eat them.
The only problem is people don't know how to choose their foods carefully.
They're lied to that you can count calories and eat what you like within that window. Then they go in on a lot of sugar.
Then the sugar makes it hard for them to stop eating. Then they're stressed.
The solution, as always, is proper education.
I don't count calories by the meal.
I eat low calorie nutrient rich foods (coffee, tea, vegetables, etc) and I try to eat as much protein as my body needs, to support muscle mass which helps metabolism stay up.
I also try to avoid added sugar drinks and foods, which are high in calories and increase inflammation (which has the negative effect of slowing your metabolism).
All this leads to me eating less calories and improving my metabolism.
Lower calories in and higher calories out.
Calorie deficit!
CICO!
This guy right here! Thank you so much, Nick! Let's hear it for "real science."
Welcome Lion cub 🦁:):)
@@nicknorwitzPhD ❤️
I know people who eat 2-3 times or more the amount of energy they need. I think being aware of calories, as a general management tool, with the nuances of precision, absorption and the like, a good way to put things into perspective. It allows us to understand the excesses. When we measure the situation, when we have data, it's easier to see the problems and aim for something better. Some people are really far from anything viable. Trying to aim for RDI also helps you choose better foods in the right proportions. When it's a general guide, I don't see anything unhealthy.
I appreciate some of the messages you are trying to convey. I'm a little uncomfortable with certain recommendations or shocking elements. Don't the average person already consume too much saturated fat? Isn't the effect of consuming too much saturated fat problematic and well documented? It would be nice to prove otherwise before we go that far, right?