is it possible to eat a diet that does not contain any carbohydrates? I think it is not because there's glycogen in meat, lactose in dairy, and some glyconutrients in eggs. please tell Me if I'm wrong. regards.
I just found your content today and so far I've already listened to over 6 hours. This is one of the best UA-cam channels I've ever found. Very informative. I'm really enjoying it.
@@Physionic I'm a long haul truck driver so it's the perfect job to consume educational content. I drive for 11 hours a day. I usually read about two audiobooks per week. It's the perfect job for learning! And this channel is right up my alley because I studied physiology for about 2 years in my undergrad. Really enjoying your stuff
Many looking for bal of objective based evidence no matter where it leads. Good science tests itself and open to change. Opinions or ideology often not partly due to reputations and money.
The point of keto is losing the insulin spikes and the consequent hunger pangs. Long enough on it and you just don’t eat as much, and your insulin sensitivity increases.
Heart Failure..............Five years ago I had heart failure....Naturally scared to death... Docs can only do so much therefor I decided that overhalling my metabolism would be a tremendous benefit . I have gained sooo much knowledge from this site ! I can not begin to enumerate the health benefits I've accrued . Thank you very much.....Stephen
I am in Keto OMAD for 10 days now. I work out and bring my heart rate based on my age in a 20-min exercise tops. My carb intake is below 10g daily. And the max calorie I can eat in OMAD is less than 1000 not by choice but because I can get so full from the protein-fat portion. Carb is from veggies - very low. I have been following you to make sure I am educating myself as I go. I gained so much weight (40 lbs) but I want the weight loss to be healthy and sustainable. Thanks for your videos. This is so helpful and made me see things more scientifically and logically. Really appreciate you!
Keto is f'ing stupid. You are not going to lose more weight or lose it faster by doing that. The amount of weight you lose depends on how much of a calorie deficit you are in. It doesn't frigging matter what you eat in terms of fat, carbohydrates, and protein. Furthermore, and more importantly, a high fat diet for a prolonged period of time will greatly increase your chances of developing heart disease. Run away from "low carb" bozos! They are full of crap.
Keto is definitely not stupid. It reduces feelings of hunger for many many people which leads to weight loss that is sustainable. Anyway that gets you to be able to keep weight off is good for you. If you like I have had years fighting your weight keto may be the lifestyle that finally works for you
Personally, my diet is 60% carbs (at least 50-60grms of fiber), 25% protein and 15% fat. I never considered going: low carb, low protein and low fat... why? There is a reason why those macronutrients are needed for our health.
Hi, Nick! Thanks for the vid, it's awesome as always. Honestly, your channel is a real catch on UA-cam :) In this vid you mention physical activity. Is it true that we tap mainly our fat stores during low intensity training and glycogen during high intensity training? If I, let's say, walk long distances between my meals, what do I use as energy source?
Thanks! And, yes, that’s right. Long distance is largely fueled by fat. If you do it after a meal, there may be more carbohydrates in the mix (if the meal contains carbs), but overall, it would be fat.
@@Physionic : A more nuanced question on the same topic... It is well established that exercise intensity, often expressed as a percentage of maximum heart rate, alters our relative demand of fat and carbohydrate. Sixty-five per cent is often cited as ideal for maximum fat metabolism. I have often wondered, then, (but never calculated) whether that holds up once exercise total energy expenditure (TEE) is accounted for. Would we not utilise more fat training for an hour at our anaerobic threshold than we would from training for an hour at a leisurely sixty-five per cent, simply by virtue of the amount of energy we would expending?
Honestly I foundation this refreshing. I'm trying to learn how to tracks my food properly and I've had people proselytizing keto to me forget years. I have no interest in keto. I'm a picky eater especially when it comes to meats.
I think one of the biggest problems is energy density, so the worst combo is fat + carbs together very little satiety to eating foods with that combo. You be low carb or low fat and still get results but can the people maintain the fat loss that is the tough part. I focus on the lean proteins and add either carbs or fat depending on whether I need quick energy for the day. So sprinting days I eat carbs and days with low intensive activities like walking lean more toward fat with my meals but that is something I'm still exploring.
Amazing video Nic! thank you!! *Question*: When consuming high fat in a low carb (not keto) diet (protein can be moderate or high) then will the body use this FAT as FUEL or NOT? - If yes, then is this considered "ketosis" ie when fat is burned are ketones always produced ? - If no, because the body is not in ketosis (due to high protein or
Thank you for this excellent video that I’ve seen two years too late! It’s cleared up some confusion and explains why there’s successes on both sides of the fence. And definitely a key takeaway is do what works best for you! The one question I am left with is if a low carb diet equals a high carb diet in terms of weight loss, are there other health benefits of each of these diets to take into account?
What is more metabolically healthy for mitochondria as a fuel source? Carbs or Fat? Is that a consideration when considering what diet to choose based on current metabolic health/issues?
The final rant....as a follower of keto and if, it was the final rant that actually made sense to me, thank you, I will continue what I’m doing since it works for me but now at least I have a better understanding of the facts over the hype.
@@PhysionicI think you just insist that human body has to maintain metabolic balance which is true and none of the keto gurus deny it. But there must be a fundamental difference btw keto and none keto which doesn't not break the balance rule but causes difference in weight lose which you don't understand and the keto gurus fail to explain. For instance a type 1 diabetic can not gain more weight than a normal person by taking in more calories. Does it break the balance rule? No I'm pretty sure the rule is still followed. And we know why. Keto diet is more affective in losing more fat which is proven by real life experience and obviously does not and never gonna break metabolic balance. We just need to find out why. The fact also proves exactly that your simple calories in and calories out theory is not enough to explain the phenomenon and more details need to be discovered to better explain it. It is wrong to say keto does not lead to more fat lose. More precisely we should say we don't know why it loses more fat.
@@Physionica general rule, if your theory can not explain a fact. You are sure you theory is wrong but not the fact. You know more research needs to be done to find out why you are wrong.
Nick do you have a podcast on increasing metabolism? Especially BASAL metabolic rate. There is only so much exercise and food restriction one can do. Thanks!
Great video! Can you do a video explaining why HIIT or strength training (which primarily burn carbs during the workout) can still lead to overall fat loss? I assume by upregulating fat burning vs carb burning later that day?
I acknowledge people vary in the amount of detail they would like. But I think that an explanation like this is definitely a great introduction for those curious who start off at a lower level like myself. 🙂
Yay follow thru! Okay I guess I've been confounding the more complex aspects with the general principle that you explained. Now I'm wondering whether or not in a ketosis state will break down body fat to maintain constant energy or "wait" before it fed with more fat to consume that. In other words whether or not there's a sort of fat cell turn over. I would guess the former. Also, I know it's beyond the scope of this video, but there seems to be a strong correlation between the type and/or source of fat with whether or not it is more readily stored or burned.
When you are in ketosis fat comes out of the cells easily, so it can take fat out of fat cells. However your body always runs mainly on fat even when you are not in ketosis.
It doesn't need to wait until fed more fat to enter ketosis, if I'm understanding your question correctly. A good example of this is fasting, which leads to ketosis, regardless of fat consumption. On the flip side, you can also increase your fat intake, but still consume sufficient carbohydrates to not end up in a ketosis state. No doubt the type of fat matters for a number of reasons - the structure of fat dictates how it will be used - some will be oxidized, some will form cholesterol particles, some will be used for phospholipids, some will be used for myristoylation, - the number of functions are vast, so you're right, it does matter on a microscopic level, but big picture, its unlikely to make a difference unless you predominantly eat a particular fat, but that's something I'd need to look into further.
@@Physionic thanks for the reply. Let me try to explain my thought process in more detail. On a daily basis some cells in our body lose some integrity and end up degrading in quality, including fat cells. One of the benefits of fasting is that the body switches into repair mode from growth mode, helping to break down some of those low quality cells. During fasting the body also goes into ketosis. So I'm wondering if going into ketosis without fasting has might include the specific benefit of breaking down the body's fat storage that might be similar to (but surely not the same as) a repair mode during fasting. That would be a plus for keto. I hope that made more sense. I could go into it more, but who has the time listen to all my physiology questions? Lol. In terms of the downstream pathways for fat that you mentioned, I was wondering more so about saturated fats vs polyunsaturated. I ran my 23andme data thru the Rhonda Patrick genetics reader, and it said that genetically I should be well equipped to breakdown saturated fat. However, in the most nonscientifically controlled observation, I find that I tend to easily gain more when eating saturated fats. In addition, traditional healing methods, such as ayuveda and tcm, specify that in a weaked state, consuming animal parts is easier on the body to digest, store, and utilize because of its closer resemblance to our body than plants. That's where that comment came from, was wondering what western science had to say about that.
Good stuff, what about scenario 70% of your calories were proteins versus carbs or fats. This would seem to be away to lose more fat then keto or high carb for the same number of calories. Because protein is no easily converted to an energy source for the body.
Quick question. I read, more than once in school that we have the same amount of fat cells as an adult as we did as children. At first this seemed reasonable, but then I thought _"We recycle cells all the time. We have injuries here and and there..."_ So is that true? Ei we are born with X amount of fat, and barring some type of major injury we have the same amount of fat cells later on in life? Or does the body create an excess of fat cell *if* we in turn get fatter? Does it recycle and decrease said amount if we lose a substantial amount of weight for an extended period of time? Do we produce additional fat cells like we do many others during puberty? Or is the addition/subtraction too negligible to matter? Anyone is welcome to answer if they happen to have a more definitive conclusion than I was able to glean from a physiology course I took along with some random books/articles I used for my own references a decade ago. Edit: By the way, subbed. I've listened to a few videos so far on my daily 3-7 mile walks and wow are you one in depth Content Creator. More like what you would get on a Fitness and Biology based _"Discovery Channel"_ or _"Nova"_ series. Very entertaining and exceptional communication skills that make some extremely complex topics digestible to the masses. Heh, sounds like the topic of one of your Videos. "Digestible" and "masses." Oh quit _bullying_ me, it sounded good in my head ;^) . Good FuN!
Hi Nic, suppose a person's energy intake is about 2000 kcal and her expenditure is about 2500 kcal daily. Is that person going to be able to lose/oxidize fat even if her insulin is continously high?
@@Physionic i was asking because Ben Bikman and some others usually say that one cannot burn fat if insulin is higher than normal because of the diet is too high in carbs.. Yes, maybe they are pre-diabetic or diabetic.. But I don't understand, is insulin so powerful and able to avoid fat loss even if a person is in a energetic deficit? It doesn't make much sense
I like that you’re thinking about this, Rui. A calorie deficit necessitates, in healthy people, lower insulin. So, the scenario you pointed out is made up and wouldn’t happen under physiological conditions. In diabetics, it’s possible to have elevated insulin, but then that’s because they’re insulin insensitive, so the hormone may be present, but is less effective. If we assume that’s not the case and we assume a person is healthy, I have 2-3 sequential videos showing data and explaining how insulin is NOT the only hormone to consider. I’d look at those videos for more information, then look at my ASP videos (“the hormone keto gurus ignore” is the name of the video). Hope it helps.
The keto dieters talk about a satiating effect from high fat's intake that never happened to me in the many keto years and ended, on contrary, making me fatter and cortisol-driven, after the first good results I had had in the lowcarb regimen years ago. As a matter of fact, to me the satiating perfection comes from a whole food meal made in the like of a 30p 30f 40c combo or even less fat. I recognized later that this is the 'zone diet' by Berry Sears approach that indeed leads to less eating without effort. Seems like hormones and cico match together in this scenario. I don't care about diets anymore, just follows what works with me, but the zone diet seems to cath with it. Any thoughts on this balanced approach?
In recent videos and conferences, Benjamin Bikman claims that consumed fat can’t be stored unless adequate insulin is present. Even at a basic level, in a Petri dish in his lab, fat can’t be grown unless a solution of insulin is injected into the fat. Is that overly simplistic? If that’s true, then wouldn’t the consumed fat be excreted rather than stored? I’ve thrown most YT influencer info out the window based on your other videos, but I can’t figure out how his facts jive with your explanation here. Not trying to sound argumentative…just trying to learn so I can make better decisions for myself and my family.
I don't think you need to understand the biology to understand that calories in and calories out is how fat gain and loss works. Calories is energy. It is a function of mass and speed. Speed is a function of distance and time. That's all you need to know. Your body is a machine. There's no magic going on. Biochemical reactions and biological systems obey the laws of physics just like any man made machine. I like to troll low carb zealots on UA-cam and tell them and their subscribers this. It is amazing to me that many of them refuse to believe this. Your channel is very good.
While I agree with your overall point, I do think its critical to educate on the biology, because people already know its a matter of the law of conservation of mass in one way or another, yet you still find many people that still don't believe it, so if they understood it on a biological level, they may be more prone to being convinced of the physics. Thanks, Donald - I'm sure you do have fun with them. :)
High-protein, ketogenic diet, and intermittent fasting have been described as nutritional strategies to reduce appetite in several studies. - Why is that?
First off I don't do keto or believe in it, it is too low protein and 99% of population does not need extremely low carbs. However no one is arguing that fat can be burned without being burned, obviously it has to be burned to actually leave the body except for small amounts your body gets rid of as cholesterol in the digestive system. The problem is your conclusion which implies nutrition partitioning doesn't exist. But nutrition partitioning does exist and is shown in countless studies that a different body composition will occur from eating the same amount of calories with different macros so the whole idea is simply trash. Ancel Keys also put prisoners on a 1570 calorie low fat high carb diet for a year and at the end of the year the result was that no one lost any weight, in fact they gained fat and lost muscle at the same time. Since this is pretty much the exact diet that is recommended today to lose weight, it is kind of preposterous to think that we should take this advice seriously. Now if you cut the calories down to 500 you will lose fat for sure and eventually die, too, but then you may as well fast. If all your body burned was fat and it was in a giant pool, then what you claim is true but neither of those statements is true. When your insulin is high you will burn sugar not fat, it is impossible to get the fat out of the fat cells - and when you eventually run out of sugar you must make it from lean tissue. You can eat all carbs or all fat or all protein for short periods and these are all instructive. If you eat fat only you will lose only fat if you have a calorie deficit, and you will lose some lean tissue too. If you eat only protein you will not lose much lean mass if any, but only fat. If you eat only carbs then you will lose more lean tissue and less fat, which is what some people want say if they have cancer for example. All of these kinds of 'fasting' have been measured and people have used all three of these intentionally to get the results that they are looking for. Eating fat may not magically make you burn more fat but eating carbs does 'magically' make you less able to burn fat and more likely to be burning lean tissue which is not what most people desire.
I feel like you misunderstood the video. The argument made to me is not that " fat can be burned without being burned", but rather, that increased fat burning/oxidation/utilization equals greater fat loss, when that isn't necessarily the case, as explained in the video.
Excellent video. I would like to mention, though, that the people I follow who truly understand keto do not make the claim you mentioned, that it is better for burning fat. What is it better at is satiation. You eventually feel less hungry and tend to eat less, which is the ultimate goal: calorie reduction. I have heard some keto proponents say that calories don't matter, but that is clearly not true. In the end, no matter which way of eating you choose, CICO applies. You have to expend more than you ingest if you want to lose weight.
I'm really glad to hear it - sounds like the people you follow have the right idea in mind. I mention that at the end of the video - I completely agree, John!
Thank you for this video I got to understand that there is no best diet. My question is how would you compute for daily calorie intake for a person? Any recommeded formula that I should use specific to my age and ethnicity? Is it safe to assume for macro nutrients percentage would be 33% each? Like 33% Carb, 33% Protein and 33% fat? Also should I follow the RDA for vitamins and trace minerals as well? Sorry for many questions.
What about insulin resistance? If it’s all about Calories in calories out, we don’t need to heal insulin resistance to lose weight? The body is so complex lol
It's definitely calorie centric when looking at bodyweight and is the biggest driver of fat loss, but there's certainly more to health than calories, and it is possible to improve insulin resistance without a calorie deficit - for example, low carbohydrate diets (as we've been covering on the channel of late) do a wonderful job.
@@Physionic I'm was doing 72 hours fasting (during last 24hours of fasting I'm being in ketosis) and starts eating whatever I want on remaining 4 days I'm was doing this every week, its been 7weeks, I found I losing 3kgs for 1st week then following weeks there no any changes in my weight(lost 1-2kgs during fast period, regain that weight on refeed days) So even I'm been ketosis, I'm unable to reduce since I didnt watch my calorie intake. I watched your SNP: hormones or calorie cause fat loss video shows that despite hormones calorie does matter for fat gain/loss My question is even our body uses fat for fuel by being in ketosis or low insulin, if our body produces enough ATP means we lose nothing, right? So ATP determines whether losing fat or gaining fat?
Its not a matter of if I know how to answer - I get a lot of comments and questions and my time and attention is spread thin. No, that fat that is liberated in a low insulin state or ketosis is used to generate ATP in other cells, therefor it "disappears" from your fat cells as its broken down by other cells (like muscle) for ATP. ATP must remain relatively constant, so the body continues to draw on fat and carbohydrates, primarily, to supply the cells with sufficient ATP.
@@Physionic Thanks for your reply, what i could understand from your answer muscle requires ATP and to maintain ATP level, our body needs to tap from fat and carbohydrate. Then there no point being in ketosis for fat loss unless if in caloric deficit, right?
New to your channel and enjoy the in-depth content. However, you seem to be stuck on keto/low-carb as a means to lose fat. I have merely found burning fat provides a consistent source of energy without blood sugar spikes and dips, and more importantly - helps to control appetite and eliminates cravings. I can overconsume fat, but it's easier to control my caloric input. One other advantage for someone from a family of diabetics, I am the only one to avoid T2D. For many of us it's not about vanity. It's essential to better metabolic health.
I do OMAD. Nothing is off the menu. No restrictions, no kitchen scales no counting. No food deprivation. Lost fat and built muscle. My caveat. It took me a while to figure out what I could eat to sustain 23 hours of not taking in kcals. What works for me will not necessarily work for someone else. Be the lab rat, work out what is best for you.
![Negative Metabolism Adaptation to Exercise [Some have it Worse]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7TY-HMZkKA/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want data showing my points to be correct: ua-cam.com/video/elHKLBTB5WI/v-deo.html
is it possible to eat a diet that does not contain any carbohydrates? I think it is not because there's glycogen in meat, lactose in dairy, and some glyconutrients in eggs. please tell Me if I'm wrong. regards.
I just found your content today and so far I've already listened to over 6 hours. This is one of the best UA-cam channels I've ever found. Very informative. I'm really enjoying it.
6 hours! Geez - I'm honored. Thank you.
@@Physionic I'm a long haul truck driver so it's the perfect job to consume educational content. I drive for 11 hours a day. I usually read about two audiobooks per week. It's the perfect job for learning! And this channel is right up my alley because I studied physiology for about 2 years in my undergrad. Really enjoying your stuff
Thrilled to hear it. Safe travels.
Same, but I just found your channel last week.
The algorithm gods have been smiling down on you lately physionic.
He has added 20 thousand subscribers in 3 weeks. This channel is starting to blow up!!And yes Nick please DO go into great detail. We love it!!
I know. Not long ago, I was disheartened by his low numbers, but all that seems to have changed recently. I am pleased for him.
Many looking for bal of objective based evidence no matter where it leads. Good science tests itself and open to change. Opinions or ideology often not partly due to reputations and money.
The point of keto is losing the insulin spikes and the consequent hunger pangs. Long enough on it and you just don’t eat as much, and your insulin sensitivity increases.
Heart Failure..............Five years ago I had heart failure....Naturally scared to death... Docs can only do so much therefor I
decided that overhalling my metabolism would be a tremendous benefit . I have gained sooo much knowledge from this site !
I can not begin to enumerate the health benefits I've accrued . Thank you very much.....Stephen
Great video. I hope you'll do one on metabolism and body set point.
I have a podcast on body set point, if you haven't seen that one yet.
I am in Keto OMAD for 10 days now. I work out and bring my heart rate based on my age in a 20-min exercise tops. My carb intake is below 10g daily. And the max calorie I can eat in OMAD is less than 1000 not by choice but because I can get so full from the protein-fat portion. Carb is from veggies - very low. I have been following you to make sure I am educating myself as I go. I gained so much weight (40 lbs) but I want the weight loss to be healthy and sustainable. Thanks for your videos. This is so helpful and made me see things more scientifically and logically. Really appreciate you!
Keto is f'ing stupid. You are not going to lose more weight or lose it faster by doing that. The amount of weight you lose depends on how much of a calorie deficit you are in. It doesn't frigging matter what you eat in terms of fat, carbohydrates, and protein. Furthermore, and more importantly, a high fat diet for a prolonged period of time will greatly increase your chances of developing heart disease. Run away from "low carb" bozos! They are full of crap.
@@donwinston thank you. Yes, I am reconsidering. I think I am not ready for it.
Keto is definitely not stupid. It reduces feelings of hunger for many many people which leads to weight loss that is sustainable. Anyway that gets you to be able to keep weight off is good for you. If you like I have had years fighting your weight keto may be the lifestyle that finally works for you
Personally, my diet is 60% carbs (at least 50-60grms of fiber), 25% protein and 15% fat. I never considered going: low carb, low protein and low fat... why? There is a reason why those macronutrients are needed for our health.
Hahaha "consume 50 fat" I know what you're saying but it made me laugh
I’m glad, haha. I didn’t know how to talk without having units involved.
This had me crying too lol
Hi, Nick! Thanks for the vid, it's awesome as always. Honestly, your channel is a real catch on UA-cam :) In this vid you mention physical activity. Is it true that we tap mainly our fat stores during low intensity training and glycogen during high intensity training? If I, let's say, walk long distances between my meals, what do I use as energy source?
Thanks! And, yes, that’s right. Long distance is largely fueled by fat. If you do it after a meal, there may be more carbohydrates in the mix (if the meal contains carbs), but overall, it would be fat.
@@Physionic : A more nuanced question on the same topic... It is well established that exercise intensity, often expressed as a percentage of maximum heart rate, alters our relative demand of fat and carbohydrate. Sixty-five per cent is often cited as ideal for maximum fat metabolism. I have often wondered, then, (but never calculated) whether that holds up once exercise total energy expenditure (TEE) is accounted for. Would we not utilise more fat training for an hour at our anaerobic threshold than we would from training for an hour at a leisurely sixty-five per cent, simply by virtue of the amount of energy we would expending?
Honestly I foundation this refreshing. I'm trying to learn how to tracks my food properly and I've had people proselytizing keto to me forget years. I have no interest in keto. I'm a picky eater especially when it comes to meats.
I think one of the biggest problems is energy density, so the worst combo is fat + carbs together very little satiety to eating foods with that combo. You be low carb or low fat and still get results but can the people maintain the fat loss that is the tough part. I focus on the lean proteins and add either carbs or fat depending on whether I need quick energy for the day. So sprinting days I eat carbs and days with low intensive activities like walking lean more toward fat with my meals but that is something I'm still exploring.
Amazing video Nic! thank you!!
*Question*: When consuming high fat in a low carb (not keto) diet (protein can be moderate or high) then will the body use this FAT as FUEL or NOT?
- If yes, then is this considered "ketosis" ie when fat is burned are ketones always produced ?
- If no, because the body is not in ketosis (due to high protein or
Thank you for this excellent video that I’ve seen two years too late! It’s cleared up some confusion and explains why there’s successes on both sides of the fence. And definitely a key takeaway is do what works best for you! The one question I am left with is if a low carb diet equals a high carb diet in terms of weight loss, are there other health benefits of each of these diets to take into account?
What is more metabolically healthy for mitochondria as a fuel source? Carbs or Fat? Is that a consideration when considering what diet to choose based on current metabolic health/issues?
The final rant....as a follower of keto and if, it was the final rant that actually made sense to me, thank you, I will continue what I’m doing since it works for me but now at least I have a better understanding of the facts over the hype.
Glad I could rant myself into making sense, Stephanie. Yes, please keep doing what works - that's the point.
@@PhysionicI think you just insist that human body has to maintain metabolic balance which is true and none of the keto gurus deny it. But there must be a fundamental difference btw keto and none keto which doesn't not break the balance rule but causes difference in weight lose which you don't understand and the keto gurus fail to explain. For instance a type 1 diabetic can not gain more weight than a normal person by taking in more calories. Does it break the balance rule? No I'm pretty sure the rule is still followed. And we know why. Keto diet is more affective in losing more fat which is proven by real life experience and obviously does not and never gonna break metabolic balance. We just need to find out why. The fact also proves exactly that your simple calories in and calories out theory is not enough to explain the phenomenon and more details need to be discovered to better explain it. It is wrong to say keto does not lead to more fat lose. More precisely we should say we don't know why it loses more fat.
@@Physionica general rule, if your theory can not explain a fact. You are sure you theory is wrong but not the fact. You know more research needs to be done to find out why you are wrong.
pretty cool and very much needed podcast ❤
Nick do you have a podcast on increasing metabolism? Especially BASAL metabolic rate. There is only so much exercise and food restriction one can do. Thanks!
No, but I’ll consider making one.
Great video! Can you do a video explaining why HIIT or strength training (which primarily burn carbs during the workout) can still lead to overall fat loss? I assume by upregulating fat burning vs carb burning later that day?
Sure can. And, yes.
So what would be an ideal type of diet for weight loss with someone who has CFS (exercise intolerance and ATP delivery issues)?
Can I summerize: maintain a calorific deficit to loose fat..
Correct me if I am wrong
I can't correct you. :)
Love this video. Would love to hear you go into all the weeds after listening to this.
I'll keep that in mind - people are usually split on how much detail they want me to go into.
I acknowledge people vary in the amount of detail they would like. But I think that an explanation like this is definitely a great introduction for those curious who start off at a lower level like myself. 🙂
Yay follow thru! Okay I guess I've been confounding the more complex aspects with the general principle that you explained. Now I'm wondering whether or not in a ketosis state will break down body fat to maintain constant energy or "wait" before it fed with more fat to consume that. In other words whether or not there's a sort of fat cell turn over. I would guess the former. Also, I know it's beyond the scope of this video, but there seems to be a strong correlation between the type and/or source of fat with whether or not it is more readily stored or burned.
When you are in ketosis fat comes out of the cells easily, so it can take fat out of fat cells. However your body always runs mainly on fat even when you are not in ketosis.
@@LTPottenger sure, but that doesn't tell me anything about the priority of what gets burned/converted first.
It doesn't need to wait until fed more fat to enter ketosis, if I'm understanding your question correctly. A good example of this is fasting, which leads to ketosis, regardless of fat consumption. On the flip side, you can also increase your fat intake, but still consume sufficient carbohydrates to not end up in a ketosis state.
No doubt the type of fat matters for a number of reasons - the structure of fat dictates how it will be used - some will be oxidized, some will form cholesterol particles, some will be used for phospholipids, some will be used for myristoylation, - the number of functions are vast, so you're right, it does matter on a microscopic level, but big picture, its unlikely to make a difference unless you predominantly eat a particular fat, but that's something I'd need to look into further.
@@Physionic thanks for the reply. Let me try to explain my thought process in more detail. On a daily basis some cells in our body lose some integrity and end up degrading in quality, including fat cells. One of the benefits of fasting is that the body switches into repair mode from growth mode, helping to break down some of those low quality cells. During fasting the body also goes into ketosis. So I'm wondering if going into ketosis without fasting has might include the specific benefit of breaking down the body's fat storage that might be similar to (but surely not the same as) a repair mode during fasting. That would be a plus for keto. I hope that made more sense. I could go into it more, but who has the time listen to all my physiology questions? Lol.
In terms of the downstream pathways for fat that you mentioned, I was wondering more so about saturated fats vs polyunsaturated. I ran my 23andme data thru the Rhonda Patrick genetics reader, and it said that genetically I should be well equipped to breakdown saturated fat. However, in the most nonscientifically controlled observation, I find that I tend to easily gain more when eating saturated fats. In addition, traditional healing methods, such as ayuveda and tcm, specify that in a weaked state, consuming animal parts is easier on the body to digest, store, and utilize because of its closer resemblance to our body than plants. That's where that comment came from, was wondering what western science had to say about that.
There’s so many keto treats I gained fat so I’m carnivore and it’s been a yr. I’m slim but I need more muscle. I’m 69 F.
Good stuff, what about scenario 70% of your calories were proteins versus carbs or fats. This would seem to be away to lose more fat then keto or high carb for the same number of calories. Because protein is no easily converted to an energy source for the body.
Quick question. I read, more than once in school that we have the same amount of fat cells as an adult as we did as children. At first this seemed reasonable, but then I thought _"We recycle cells all the time. We have injuries here and and there..."_ So is that true? Ei we are born with X amount of fat, and barring some type of major injury we have the same amount of fat cells later on in life? Or does the body create an excess of fat cell *if* we in turn get fatter? Does it recycle and decrease said amount if we lose a substantial amount of weight for an extended period of time? Do we produce additional fat cells like we do many others during puberty? Or is the addition/subtraction too negligible to matter?
Anyone is welcome to answer if they happen to have a more definitive conclusion than I was able to glean from a physiology course I took along with some random books/articles I used for my own references a decade ago.
Edit: By the way, subbed. I've listened to a few videos so far on my daily 3-7 mile walks and wow are you one in depth Content Creator. More like what you would get on a Fitness and Biology based _"Discovery Channel"_ or _"Nova"_ series. Very entertaining and exceptional communication skills that make some extremely complex topics digestible to the masses. Heh, sounds like the topic of one of your Videos. "Digestible" and "masses." Oh quit _bullying_ me, it sounded good in my head ;^) . Good FuN!
Hi Nic, suppose a person's energy intake is about 2000 kcal and her expenditure is about 2500 kcal daily. Is that person going to be able to lose/oxidize fat even if her insulin is continously high?
I’m assuming this person is diabetic or pre-diabetic?
@@Physionic i was asking because Ben Bikman and some others usually say that one cannot burn fat if insulin is higher than normal because of the diet is too high in carbs.. Yes, maybe they are pre-diabetic or diabetic.. But I don't understand, is insulin so powerful and able to avoid fat loss even if a person is in a energetic deficit? It doesn't make much sense
I like that you’re thinking about this, Rui. A calorie deficit necessitates, in healthy people, lower insulin. So, the scenario you pointed out is made up and wouldn’t happen under physiological conditions. In diabetics, it’s possible to have elevated insulin, but then that’s because they’re insulin insensitive, so the hormone may be present, but is less effective. If we assume that’s not the case and we assume a person is healthy, I have 2-3 sequential videos showing data and explaining how insulin is NOT the only hormone to consider. I’d look at those videos for more information, then look at my ASP videos (“the hormone keto gurus ignore” is the name of the video). Hope it helps.
Here’s another: ua-cam.com/video/wVNhY9kP2X4/v-deo.html
The keto dieters talk about a satiating effect from high fat's intake that never happened to me in the many keto years and ended, on contrary, making me fatter and cortisol-driven, after the first good results I had had in the lowcarb regimen years ago. As a matter of fact, to me the satiating perfection comes from a whole food meal made in the like of a 30p 30f 40c combo or even less fat. I recognized later that this is the 'zone diet' by Berry Sears approach that indeed leads to less eating without effort. Seems like hormones and cico match together in this scenario. I don't care about diets anymore, just follows what works with me, but the zone diet seems to cath with it. Any thoughts on this balanced approach?
Nice talk! i like the image of a cell thinking ! what the hell is going on here! hahahah
Haha, if only they had brains.
In recent videos and conferences, Benjamin Bikman claims that consumed fat can’t be stored unless adequate insulin is present. Even at a basic level, in a Petri dish in his lab, fat can’t be grown unless a solution of insulin is injected into the fat. Is that overly simplistic? If that’s true, then wouldn’t the consumed fat be excreted rather than stored? I’ve thrown most YT influencer info out the window based on your other videos, but I can’t figure out how his facts jive with your explanation here. Not trying to sound argumentative…just trying to learn so I can make better decisions for myself and my family.
I don't think you need to understand the biology to understand that calories in and calories out is how fat gain and loss works. Calories is energy. It is a function of mass and speed. Speed is a function of distance and time. That's all you need to know. Your body is a machine. There's no magic going on. Biochemical reactions and biological systems obey the laws of physics just like any man made machine. I like to troll low carb zealots on UA-cam and tell them and their subscribers this. It is amazing to me that many of them refuse to believe this. Your channel is very good.
While I agree with your overall point, I do think its critical to educate on the biology, because people already know its a matter of the law of conservation of mass in one way or another, yet you still find many people that still don't believe it, so if they understood it on a biological level, they may be more prone to being convinced of the physics. Thanks, Donald - I'm sure you do have fun with them. :)
High-protein, ketogenic diet, and intermittent fasting have been described as nutritional strategies to reduce appetite in several studies. - Why is that?
First off I don't do keto or believe in it, it is too low protein and 99% of population does not need extremely low carbs. However no one is arguing that fat can be burned without being burned, obviously it has to be burned to actually leave the body except for small amounts your body gets rid of as cholesterol in the digestive system. The problem is your conclusion which implies nutrition partitioning doesn't exist. But nutrition partitioning does exist and is shown in countless studies that a different body composition will occur from eating the same amount of calories with different macros so the whole idea is simply trash. Ancel Keys also put prisoners on a 1570 calorie low fat high carb diet for a year and at the end of the year the result was that no one lost any weight, in fact they gained fat and lost muscle at the same time. Since this is pretty much the exact diet that is recommended today to lose weight, it is kind of preposterous to think that we should take this advice seriously. Now if you cut the calories down to 500 you will lose fat for sure and eventually die, too, but then you may as well fast. If all your body burned was fat and it was in a giant pool, then what you claim is true but neither of those statements is true. When your insulin is high you will burn sugar not fat, it is impossible to get the fat out of the fat cells - and when you eventually run out of sugar you must make it from lean tissue. You can eat all carbs or all fat or all protein for short periods and these are all instructive. If you eat fat only you will lose only fat if you have a calorie deficit, and you will lose some lean tissue too. If you eat only protein you will not lose much lean mass if any, but only fat. If you eat only carbs then you will lose more lean tissue and less fat, which is what some people want say if they have cancer for example. All of these kinds of 'fasting' have been measured and people have used all three of these intentionally to get the results that they are looking for. Eating fat may not magically make you burn more fat but eating carbs does 'magically' make you less able to burn fat and more likely to be burning lean tissue which is not what most people desire.
I feel like you misunderstood the video. The argument made to me is not that " fat can be burned without being burned", but rather, that increased fat burning/oxidation/utilization equals greater fat loss, when that isn't necessarily the case, as explained in the video.
We sound like a hybrid car. Fat stores are our electricity for the electric motor and carbs are our gas for the combustion engine.
An apt description - we truly are a hybrid car - a Porsche 918 Spyder :)
Yeah, but food cravings are stronger on carbs imho
What about fat adaptation ?
Excellent video. I would like to mention, though, that the people I follow who truly understand keto do not make the claim you mentioned, that it is better for burning fat. What is it better at is satiation. You eventually feel less hungry and tend to eat less, which is the ultimate goal: calorie reduction. I have heard some keto proponents say that calories don't matter, but that is clearly not true. In the end, no matter which way of eating you choose, CICO applies. You have to expend more than you ingest if you want to lose weight.
I'm really glad to hear it - sounds like the people you follow have the right idea in mind. I mention that at the end of the video - I completely agree, John!
@@Physionic Ha! I was only about 20 minutes in when I commented. I should have waited until after about 28 minutes in. Thanks for the great content!
Thank you for this video I got to understand that there is no best diet.
My question is how would you compute for daily calorie intake for a person? Any recommeded formula that I should use specific to my age and ethnicity?
Is it safe to assume for macro nutrients percentage would be 33% each? Like 33% Carb, 33% Protein and 33% fat?
Also should I follow the RDA for vitamins and trace minerals as well?
Sorry for many questions.
*****
What about insulin resistance? If it’s all about Calories in calories out, we don’t need to heal insulin resistance to lose weight? The body is so complex lol
It's definitely calorie centric when looking at bodyweight and is the biggest driver of fat loss, but there's certainly more to health than calories, and it is possible to improve insulin resistance without a calorie deficit - for example, low carbohydrate diets (as we've been covering on the channel of late) do a wonderful job.
Interesting :)
Was it all because of ATP?
Can you expand on your question, Yogen?
@@Physionic I'm was doing 72 hours fasting (during last 24hours of fasting I'm being in ketosis) and starts eating whatever I want on remaining 4 days I'm was doing this every week, its been 7weeks, I found I losing 3kgs for 1st week then following weeks there no any changes in my weight(lost 1-2kgs during fast period, regain that weight on refeed days)
So even I'm been ketosis, I'm unable to reduce since I didnt watch my calorie intake. I watched your SNP: hormones or calorie cause fat loss video shows that despite hormones calorie does matter for fat gain/loss
My question is even our body uses fat for fuel by being in ketosis or low insulin, if our body produces enough ATP means we lose nothing, right?
So ATP determines whether losing fat or gaining fat?
@@Physionic Whats up bruh , don't know how to answer?
Its not a matter of if I know how to answer - I get a lot of comments and questions and my time and attention is spread thin.
No, that fat that is liberated in a low insulin state or ketosis is used to generate ATP in other cells, therefor it "disappears" from your fat cells as its broken down by other cells (like muscle) for ATP. ATP must remain relatively constant, so the body continues to draw on fat and carbohydrates, primarily, to supply the cells with sufficient ATP.
@@Physionic Thanks for your reply, what i could understand from your answer muscle requires ATP and to maintain ATP level, our body needs to tap from fat and carbohydrate. Then there no point being in ketosis for fat loss unless if in caloric deficit, right?
New to your channel and enjoy the in-depth content. However, you seem to be stuck on keto/low-carb as a means to lose fat. I have merely found burning fat provides a consistent source of energy without blood sugar spikes and dips, and more importantly - helps to control appetite and eliminates cravings. I can overconsume fat, but it's easier to control my caloric input. One other advantage for someone from a family of diabetics, I am the only one to avoid T2D. For many of us it's not about vanity. It's essential to better metabolic health.
Makes sense. I expect to cover more on other aspects in the future. I have a few on keto and mitochondria and keto and satiety, if you’re interested.
Hi
Sleep for rest and digest
I have a metabolic dysfunction and now on hello fresh and taking a pre probiotic fiber gummies
Hi.
@@Physionic I love this and hope to see more Molecular aspects! I’m studying Neurobiology
@@lmtrevino7 Glad to hear it. Good luck in your studies!
I do OMAD.
Nothing is off the menu.
No restrictions, no kitchen scales no counting.
No food deprivation.
Lost fat and built muscle.
My caveat.
It took me a while to figure out what I could eat to sustain 23 hours of not taking in kcals.
What works for me will not necessarily work for someone else.
Be the lab rat, work out what is best for you.