This guy took 18 minutes to say a diet has to be high in sugar, carbs and fat to cause obesity, it can't just be high in sugar and it can't just be high in fat. It has to be both. They did a study in rats where they had 3 groups, 1 on high sugar and rat food, 1 on high fat and rat food and 1 control on just rat food. The ones on high sugar ate a lot of the sugar food, but ate less rat food, substituting it for the sweet food and didn't gain weight. The group on high fat didn't over eat and didn't gain weight, the control obviously didn't gain weight. Then they combined the sugar and fat and offered that to the rats and they loved it and grew very fat.
@@tomeditz9192 Sure, you won't but that's an ideal scenario. You most probably do have fat in your food (like most people) and therefore that fat and your sugar will act together to deteriorate your health and make you fat. Also, sugar is not just bad from a fattening perspective, it's bad for many more serious reasons and should be eliminated from diet.
I don't know ... in the late 80s and almost the entire 90s, I ate low-fat, high carb, and I really struggled with my weight. I was in my twenties and thirties in the 90s, forced myself to drink nonfat milk, ate mostly chicken breast when I did eat meat, chose the low-fat sauce alternatives with pasta, steamed vegetables ... and kept gaining. In the late 90s, I discovered Atkins, and the weight came off. I then ate moderately low-carb for a while, but peri-menopause came along, and I had to cut the carbs more. I don't do Keto, but I do a low-carb diet high in protein and fat, plus intermittent fasting (16/8, two meals per day), and that has worked. Low-carb can be difficult to do long-term, but the IF helps. I lost 30 pounds in 2020 and have kept it off relatively easily.
@@tomeditz9192 You're less likely to gain weight, and if you do, it will probably be to a small degree. Sugary foods on its own aren't necessarily hyperpalatable. It usually requires some combination of salt, fat, and maybe sugar, to be hyperpalatable. Think of potato chips, not pixie sticks.
Stephan helped me realize that even a diet consisting of healthy whole foods can be fattening if the brain/neurochemistry of overeating is not addressed.
I love Stephan Guyenet and enjoyed his book. I think he didn't make the argument as concise and clear as he could have here. Modern junk foods hit all these reward centers in our brain. salt ratios that are dialed to perfect ratios of deliciousness. Creamy fats and all kinds of textures with varying levels of sweetness thrown in is a LOT more compelling for our brains than the one-note song of sweet, sweet, sweet. I get sick of sugar cubes nearly instantly, but if the sugar is mixed with fatty cocoa and salt I can eat a hell of a lot more of it in any sitting, even if I wasn't hungry when I sat down.
Should have been titled, " stephen is a condscending , hostile guest, who treats gary like shit" . worst show to date. I LOVE JRE. But this was awful .
@@SeraphsWitness they are both correct which is why I can barely hold my weight steady eating barely 7-800 calories per day. That is zero sugar and under 20 net carbs daily. Anything over and I am gaining...😒 My only argument for Gary, and against little snot Stephen, is that the LCHF diet of 800 cal is WAY less sufferable than the FDA pyramid SAD diet of 800 calories.
@@jellybeanvinkler4878 You're consuming 700-800 calories per day and not losing weight? Are you tracking your calories reliably? Do you have some kind of metabolic disease? Because otherwise, frankly, that seems highly unlikely.
I'm Italian, at least in southern italy, we eat a pastry with coffee in the morning, a huge lunch, a 1+ hour nap aka siesta, wake up 4 or 5pm, some of us return to work until 8 or p pm. Then we go home go the piazza and hang out, walk around, talk and eat a small snack, pizza, panini or pastries, and drink espresso. Go home go to sleep and wake up 6 or 7 am and do it all over again. Very few fat southern Italians, unless they are old or don't get outside. And, generally eat less junk food and eat fresher food.
I don't know why Joe had such difficulties at 14:03 . The concept is simple. The typical supermarket diet is much more fattening in animals than just a sugar/starch diet.
Rogan being able to understand that concept depends on his ability to acknowledge fat as potentially fattening. Which he has trouble doing, so to him its hard to comprehend.
@@butterf1sh And there are other factors. Salt is a very important factor. Additional factors include: low fiber content; low water content; mixing salt, sugar, and fat in certain combinations (along with flavor); food variety; and so on.
"Let me finish. Let me finish" Sure, we don't want him to interrupt, but get to the f*ckin point already. On and on isn't a debate - it's a speech. How about how much processed fried foods versus paleo, low oil intake diets?
fried foods generally have higher calories than natural foods so paleo will give better weight lose results anyway. That's what he would say and i think data backs him up.
This is why the guest needs to be Ted Naiman, someone who's a doctor with an engineering background; he's smart and really knows how to simplify and break things down and really doesn't care about the argument side of things, his points just universally make sense to any sensible person.
I want to say to Gary, there's no point arguing with a narcissistic person, because the narcissistic approach is to provoke emotional responses rather than logically debate about the subject.
Summary: (sugar+fat) makes you fatter and that is also quicker than (only sugar) or (only fat) diets!! Between (only fat) and (only sugar) diets, there's no statistically significant difference! Therefore, you cannot claim that (only sugar) makes you fat. Also you cannot claim that you can eat as much as (only fat) and won;t get fat!! Ultimately, for most people, (IN THE CONTEXT OF FAT LOSS), the main driver is the calory in calory out model, not the carb-insulin model!!
insulin.produced.when.sugar.enters.your.system.causes.fat.procuction....you.also.crave.more.sugar...you.don't.crave.fat.so.you'll.eat.less.of.it.and.you'll.burn.fat.when.ketonic.you'll.burn.fat.in.you.r.fat.cells.and.you'll.burn.ingested.fat...end.of.conversation...sugar.is.poison. n.
Someone would've made that last bit easier if they just said "this is the definition of junk food and this is the definition of other simple carb foods that are not 'junk'"
Not true. There's junk food that's all fat, that's all sugar and there's junk food that contains fat and sugar. Those junk foods that contain both sugar and fat are the ones that cause the most weight gain at the fastest rate.
Was excited to see Gary Taubes was back on, but couldn't watch live and the full podcast still isn't published. Too bad this is so far condescending nonsense.
He's right. I've never seen anybody getting fat eating just fruit, or eating pixie sticks or rock candy. It just doesn't happen. People that get fat on "carbs" are eating things like baked goods, that have alot of added fat to make them more palatable. Without them, these cookies and pastries would be as hard as hockey pucks.
Joe doesn't realize that junk food is not just sugar. Its usually a combo of sugar fat and salt. So when stephan explains that you cant replicate the massive weight gain in these experiments by just adding sugar.. I don't think he realizes that common parlance "sugar" is synonymous with "junk food" but its incorrect. Many junk foods people consume are high in fat as well and that is what creates that reward value and habitual consumption. Donuts are tastier than candy corn.
Correct, all he had to say was combination of carbs and polyunsaturated vegetable oils are the leading cause of fatty liver, obesity and heart disease. Would have saved everyone 17 minutes.and also he should have specified that it is vegetable oils not animal fats that have the greater effect in the body.
Usually fat sugar combos and fat salt combos. Those combos don't occur in nature and basically hijack our brain chemistry. That's this video in a nutshell with less scientific terminology.
Salted nuts are also another food that's also capable of being hyperpalatable, but to a lesser degree (the fiber helps reduce the amount of calories you can extract from them). Nuts are healthy, but it's best to have only the unsalted ones, if you eat them.
If he's saying that eating fat with sugar is worse than eating fat by itself, it's true. But Dr. Robert Lustig has already said that, more eloquently, and without the jackassery.
Lustig's more useful. This guy's entire point is that it's mostly governed by the brain and changing carb intake won't do anything - it's about the calories in/cal out balance. He's not wrong about the brain involvement it's just that that info really doesn't help much, you still need to adjust the mechanism that packs the fat on and he leads the reader down the wrong path for that.
Get your macros and micronutrients drink lots of water and be active . Don’t over eat stay at a caloric deficit not by a huge margin but a little bit . Sleep at least 7 hours a day do H.I.I.T training and intermittent fasting when you wake up and if you’re the kind of person that has energy in the morning maybe 15 minutes of fasted cardio (light jog) . There’s how you lose fat and stay healthy the fastest way possible . It’s hard and takes time that’s why people don’t do it .
I think Joe has been overdoing it a little with the Podcasts lately. He seems off his game and slow to follow. Noticed that already on the Pete Hortez episode.
I don't think that the evidence presented by Guyenet proves much of anything. Yes, we all agree that an industrial diet is awful for us, but is it the mix of fat and carbs or is it the type of fats and carbs we are eating? Indigenous populations that eat carbs in high quantity usually eat tubers and fruits, not processed sugar and flour. Same goes for vegetable oils vs animal fats (and fat from animals in industrial systems and pastured animals). Also a study of 3 weeks? What if to trigger insulin mechanisms you need more than 3 weeks of eating carbs? A lot of people can eat junk stuff for many years before they get fat. I think there are still many questions that nobody has bothered to ask or answer, and Guyenet is does not even seem to be considering alternatives.
Thought Joe was smart.. he isn't I guess. Most fattening junk food is high in carbs AND fat. Example: ice cream, pizza, cake, cookies, chocolate bars, milk shakes, donuts, burgers. Most of these can have up to 40-50% calories from fat. I could eat 3000-4000 calories in one sitting eating these foods. Easily. Now try giving me 30 two-liter Coca colas or a kilogram of sugar (both have 3000-4000 calories). It's much much harder to consume that much in just high sugar/zero fat foods. Because fat has an effect on bypassing the hunger/fullness signaling system which is why it's easier to binge on them.
What hes saying is carbs AND fat combine result in obesity. Thats why when u eat high fat low carb AND high carb but very low fat, its hard for a person to be obese. Well at least thats how i undersrand it lol
Mel Ry exactly! Take a donut for example. It has roughly 45-65 percent of its calories from fat but we see it as a carb. I can’t believe people are still arguing about this stuff.
Eat high carb low fat and tell me how hungry you are, I did and I binged on sugar. If you eat low carb high fat you are satiated and as a result your body gets used to burning fat, your fat.
I think I'm the only one who thinks Stephen is obviously more qualified and prepared to educate. I don't understand what's condescending about him. He's literally giving the data, complete with sources.
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е The reason we look for a scientific consensus is so that we don't have to rely on anecdotes. Anecdotes don't do a good job at controlling for other factors.
@@limitisillusion7 You lost us dude. If you're fine agreeing with what the scientists decided their money should come from, it's on you. You're implying that you're comparing two different kinds of evidence. An anecdote is evidence and can be used e.g. to refute a theory. You can only appeal to authority with a consensus.
I think that speaks more to your "intelligence", if you will, than his. Gary has no clue, Stephan does, and Joe just haphazardly follows whatever he's fed from one "expert" to the next.
1. Why would an alien focus on "tires" when analyzing vehicle speed? 2. I seem to get hungry primarily when the physical state of my body requires food. I am rarely "hungry" when I am filled with food that (typically) meets my physical needs. 3. Can you build muscle tissue eating only carbs? 4. Can you run a marathon fueled only by protein?
I agree with him that the brain has a lot to do with how we store fat but to fob everything off genetics is another out that fat people don't need. As a former fat person I totally agree that I am famine resistant, I default to fat storage and that is totally due to my genes. I also fixed it by following Gary's advice and going Keto which reset my insulin resistance and helped me lose the weight along with exercise, my results speak for themselves and I changed my mindset. I was 130kg(286lb) and I'm 80kg(176lb) now, for numbers that actually matter.
Dan Toland it’s almost like you should understand what the dude is saying. Genes cause people to have hunger related responses to different dietary situations. Whether or not you gain or lose weight is calories in vs calories out. Eating low carb can be one effective way to restrict calories and lose weight for some people. Taubes, on the other hand, claims that calories in vs calories out is incorrect and that overeating isn’t the problem.
@@evaneugenescott I doubt that genes are the cause of obesity, as I know mine haven't changed, but my hunger cravings have. When I was on a high carb diet I was constantly hungry, now on the carnivore diet I have no appetite for at least 24 hours and eat one very large meal a day which when calculated has about 3200+ calories of protein and fat. I still managed To lose 60 lb and gain muscle at the same time just doing my regular routine with no external exercising. I think genes play and more important part in the shape of your body and where it stores the fat first, but not food cravings as mine have definitely changed. Same person, same genes.
@@evaneugenescott It is incorrect, fat contains way more calories than carbs but when eaten in excess doesn't make you fat. It goes against the laws of thermodynamics but I can't dispute my results. If I ate the same amount of calories in carbs I'd get fat and I know I would because it's how I got fat in the first place, try it and see...
Wow long winded is an understatement. For most of the population its all about eating healthy and drinking water and excersing. If you want to lose weight you need a caloric deficit to make sure your burning more calories when you work out than what you put in your body. This guy seems to know what he talking about but why make losing weight so complicated?
(Sorry in advance for the rant). This type of rapport between researchers seems to be, from my point of view, precisely why many fields in science could progress much faster than they are now. In two words: overspecialization blindness. And Guyenet illustrates this problem marvelously with his "aliens analyzing the speed of cars" analogy. Some cars don't go faster than others JUST because of their tires OR their engine. Put a 90 year old person in a brand new Ferrari, on an icy road, with summer tires (one of which is flat). Then put this person in a race against a professional rally driver in an old beat up pickup truck with studded tires. See the result. Then before a second race, send the rally driver deeply tragic information about his family that completely messes him up psychologically, give him a horse dose of the strongest anti psychotic drug, and a bottle of whisky. See the old man now win the race while the rally drivers spins donuts, crying. These people can't even realize that they both hold pieces of a puzzle, and they're too proud to even try to see how they fit together. And I wouldn't be surprised if they'd argue which psychologists, anthropologists, biologists specialized on the effects of climate adaptation, and, dare I say, parapsychologists and shamans, ALL holding other pieces of the puzzle. All of these fields are causally interrelated. No science is NOT holistic. The resistance they have against other people's field and theories is so counterproductive... it baffles me that those obtuse yet VERY ABLE minds can't see past their idiotic belief that only their view, their angle is valid. ... and I don't even have a high school diploma. Jeez. COOPERATE, IDIOTS!
I get that sciences shouldn't be regarded as the end all be all framework to understand something but to say that every claim is a valid piece of the puzzle is way to outlandish.
Because it's not big deal, it's just sugar that has a higher concentration of fructose. There's nothing magical or uniquely nefarious about hfcs as uneducated, biochemically-ignorant morons claim. It's just fcking fructose bro.
@@charliemcneilson4211 There is a bit of a difference when it comes to cravings which supposedly glucose sating cravings faster, but in terms of energy they are more or less the same.
5 років тому+2
@@charliemcneilson4211 It's only marginally worse than sugar due to having slightly more fructose, that's literally all there is to it. It's bizarrely demonized by online nutrition gurus who are dumb as shit, it's a fake, manufactured boogeyman.
17 minutes and this boring Bozo couldn't make his point. The point he is trying to get across is it's okay to eat a plain baked potato by itself and it does not make you fat. Now if you take the same potato and fry it in polyunsaturated fats (vegatable oils) then it becomes the leading cause of fatty liver, heart disease and diabetes. He needs to specify also that he's talking about PUFA oils, and NOT saturated meat fats. In other words a baked potato with butter is good, and french fries are slow death. Also lack of exercise is not the cause of obesity. You can't out exercise a bad diet. Just by going keto I've lost 60 lbs in 6 months and my doctor was very ecstatic that my A1C blood sugar went from over 8 down to 5.7 even after quitting all my metformin and injections, with no exercise whatsoever. As a type 2 diabetic I will never be able to eat even healthy carbs without excess insulin and fat storage. For a healthy individual his advice might work, but for those of us who have already damaged our bodies it will not.
This guy doesn't listen, given he doesn't understand Joe's lack of understanding. One diet has junk food with sugar, carbs and fat (which creates greatest obesity) the other test diet only has extra sugar abd carbs increased (not fat like junk food) it also causes weight gain but not as much. Lowering fat makes a difference with respect to a junk food diet. BUT BOTH ARE BAD! The other guest wanted to discuss calorie intake but never got a chance!
If you have fat in combination with high carbs you will gain more fat... because the excess insulin (nutrient shuttling hormone) from the carbs shuttles what’s in your blood to mainly muscle or fat. If you aren’t training, it goes into the fat. So Stephan is wrong again, always defeating his own arguments.
B C carbs are non essential. Essential means the body can not produce it and therefore needs to ingest it from a good source. You have essential fatty acids(fats), essential amino acids (protein), but there is no such thing as an essential carb because your body can synthesize carbs from other things in the body.
Jake Vitullo you start by saying that carbs aren’t essential , and then say how the body synthesizes things into carbs . Meaning your cells need it otherwise they wouldn’t synthesize anything . Getting carbs right from the source is preferred obviously . You can and should be eating carbs .
Sthepan younger dude is factually right and a proper scientist. He is smart for real but also in a smug way :)) . Well deserved because he will do a lot of good to humanity by dedicating his life to science. Garyyyyyyy you seem nice but please stop with the crap man because it's not helping people.
Stephen seems oblivious of the simple evidence that Type 1 Diabetes Patients can control their weight by reducing the amount of insulin, proving that insulin is a major factor in fat or weight gain. I think Gary was far to unprepared to discuss this subject Joe needs to have Jason Fung come on and explain the evidence of industrialization of sugar and refined carbohydrates impact to society and the correlation on increased incidence of diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
Guyenet is not remotely nor has he ever been a vegan or vegan diet advocate. He's in the Paleo sphere. He recommends meat, fish, vegetables, and *moderate* carbs from Paleo carb sources in those who tolerate carbs well--OR low carb Paleo type diets for those who feel better on them. His only argument with Taubes is that the science does not agree with his simplified notion that insulin is the primary factor in body fatness.
@@DoritoWorldOrder He doesn't answer why tho. He only points at some studies but we all know there can be everything wrong with them, it's a mess. Not even from the execusion perspective. Anyone who's ever touched the subject of the philosophy of science knows that. Unless he suggests another mechanism of HOW the calories matter. It's hard to take him seriously when he argues insulin isn't fattening
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е Taubes makes a lot of great points and he reinvigorated this field of inquiry with his books by poking a lot of holes in the orthodoxy in pointing out the lack of solid evidence for many assumptions in the prevailing model. But then when he proposed his own heterodox thesis, which he's very confident in, he doesn't hold himself to remotely as high an evidentiary standard as he holds his opponents. His thesis is supported primarily by two things: the historical record and plausible mechanistic deduction based on our existing knowledge of human physiology and our existing but incomplete knowledge of human endocrinology and biochemistry. He didn't have any actual human studies to directly support the "carbohydrate-insulin theory of obesity" (which is no surprise because the scientific research establishment tends not to dedicate much money or attention to studies that want to test hypotheses outside the prevailing consensus, giving him little to draw on from the extant medical literature) but he had mapped out a plausible mechanism of action for the disease process, and that was enough for him to have firm confidence in his thesis - ironically putting him in the same posture as Ancel Keys, a physiologist, back when he first put forth the diet-heart hypothesis which ultimately led us down the primrose path of our deranged fixation on saturated fat and cholesterol and low-fat dietetics. However, Gary went on to co-found NuSI, a dietetics and medical research group set up to raise money to run the very human studies that the establishment refused to run and which would test and confirm this neglected hypothesis that he had reinvigorated interest in with his books, and they raised a LOT of money, and then they ran their big studies which were carefully designed to avoid the pitfalls of establishment research methodology on the topic up until that point, and their results showed almost *no difference* in metabolic or weight loss outcomes between patients fed a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet. The results were so underwhelming and failed so miserably to spark the revolution of science that had been promised by implication, that the star-studded advisory board of NuSI all pulled out one by one and fundraising fell off and eventually they just canned the whole project. So despite the fact that Gary went out and founded a well funded and staffed research organization to run the human studies that would validate the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, and which then utterly failed to do so despite very well designed studies for which *they* had control over methodology, he still seems to carry an irrational confidence in the hypothesis to this day, to the point of rudeness and arrogance towards other researchers who engage with him to challenge him on it with valid counter-points. Taubes' theory relies on several logical leaps that we not only lack direct evidence for but that in many cases we have direct evidence against - perhaps most importantly that because type 2 diabetics (and to some extent pre-diabetics, sufferers of metabolic syndrome / obesity / insulin resistance) have lost their ability to tolerate carbohydrates, and restricting carbohydrates resolves their symptoms and often alleviates the need for exogenous insulin, that chronically elevated insulin caused by excessive dietary carbohydrate *must have caused* the disease state of insulin resistance to begin with. This *feels* intuitively obvious at some level, but there are several glaring examples of studies with findings that fly in the face of this assumption. For one, Walter Kempner as far back as the 1940's and 50's fed thousands of morbidly obese (300+lb) and diabetic patients with renal disease a very-high-carb, very-low-fat, very-low-protein diet consisting of white rice, fruit juice, jam/jelly, and also pure refined white sugar - without explicit caloric restriction and including 200-300 grams per day of dietary sugar, and a majority of these patients had seemingly miraculous results including extreme weight loss from morbid obesity back to normal BMI, apparent resolution of their kidney disease, and apparent resolution of their diabetes - and these were lasting effects that allowed these patients to return to eating a normal diet without weight gain or the return of diabetic symptoms even years after they had left the metabolic ward. How is this possible if carbohydrate-driven hyperinsulinism is the cause of insulin resistance? Surely feeding obese, diabetic patients a diet of pure sugar and starch should have accelerated their weight gain and disease process and ultimately killed them, no? Clearly there is a deeper nuance to this set of issues. We can know the orthodox models are wrong without necessarily needing to immediately buy into the opposing pet theory of the person who woke us up to the fact that they are wrong. Kempner's experimental diet was apparently *curative* of insulin resistance, which is important to understand in comparison to low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets; while the latter are often discussed by their advocates as "reversing" type-2 diabetes because they ultimately alleviate the need for insulin treatment if patients adhere strictly to them in an indefinite manner, this style of dieting does little to address the underlying disease state or restore normal function to carbohydrate metabolism - it merely switches people over to a different energy substrate and absolves the systems involved in normal carbohydrate metabolism from *needing* to function; it's well known anecdotally (almost a universal experience) that in both diabetics and weight-loss dieters even after long periods of time adapted to a ketogenic diet, they feel horrible immediately and all their symptoms return when they break the diet and reintroduce any significant level of carbohydrates, with the diabetics needing to go right back on insulin treatment. It's like if you had a hybrid gasoline-electric car and the gasoline engine started to have major problems so you decided to switch over to running it in 100% electric mode for a while - you've restored the ability to drive the vehicle around, but you haven't *fixed the vehicle* by taking this step. As researchers like Chris Masterjohn have pointed out in a very rigorous manner, there are many populations including those on ancestral diets who are disease-free even with diets very high in total carbohydrate, and systemic insulin resistance (as associated with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes) is best understood as an adaptive signaling process that occurs as a result of *energy overload* at the cellular level, rather than as a result of carbohydrate per se. Cells need to protect themselves from the damage that occurs when they have too many energy-bearing molecules floating around unutilized inside them for too long a time, whether glycation damage from sugar uptake in excess of what the cell can burn in the short term, or peroxidation damage from lipid uptake in excess of what the cell can burn in the short term. Glucose and lipid uptake at the cellular level are governed by different signaling dynamics, so it's easy to become myopically fixated on one or the other, but they both contribute to "energy overload" at the cellular level, and both are known to contribute to the downregulation of insulin signaling - excess glucose directly by reducing the expression of insulin receptors at the surface of the cell, and excess lipids indirectly by interfering with the function of those receptors. 1/2
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е "Energy overload" is when the cell has reached its *metabolic headroom* and can't take on any more glucose or lipids without beginning to become damaged and ultimately diseased, and even if the environment around it is chronically perfused with an abundance of such energy-bearing molecules, it does everything it can to shut down the uptake of more of these molecules because it is *already at capacity* - which in the case of glucose then causes a feedback loop where the pancreas has to create even more insulin to take all that excess glucose being refused entry to the muscle, neural, and organ cells, and clear it from the circulatory system (where it will also cause dangerous levels of glycation damage if it hangs around too long) and get it into the fat cells where it can be stored in a non-volatile state, and the pancreas ultimately becomes fatigued, exhausted, and damaged from working overtime if this continues in a chronic manner. So the question then becomes, what modulates (increases or decreases) the metabolic headroom of cells? Well, energy expenditure is one obvious answer as far as increasing it - and there is zero doubt that regular exercise is associated with lower rates of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease. However it's not profound enough in impact to explain the modern landscape of metabolic disease. Then we might ask, what could be *decreasing* metabolic headroom at the cellular level? What if there is some novel factor in our environment or in modern diets that was actually slowing or damaging the cell's ability to burn glucose and lipids for energy, making it that much more prone to signal energy overload with smaller and smaller perfusions of additional energy molecules entering the circulation postprandially? There are many chemicals in our modern environment that can be damaging to our mitochondria in large enough doses, but we aren't typically exposed to them in big enough doses that it's plausible for any of them to be the main culprit - but there is one novel dietary factor, which represents the most recent and most profound change in human diets ever, bigger than the introduction of grain-based diets with the advent of organized agriculture, bigger than the advent of white flour or purified sugar, and which we're *ALL* eating huge and growing amounts of since the mid 20th century even if we typically avoid processes foods, white flour, and added sugar - and that is the *linoleic acid* from industrial seed oils or "vegetable oils" which has supplanted traditional animal fats, dairy fats, and 'fruit-oils' like olive oil, in our food supply. While the medical research orthodoxy has convinced us these linoleic acid-rich seed oils are good for us because of their cholesterol-lowering effects, it's known unequivocally in animal models that feeding a high linoleic acid diet absolutely destroys mitochondrial function to the point where you can induce heart failure and death in rodents in just 6 weeks with such a diet. We also know that the introduction of these oils into our diet over the course of the 20th century tracks much more closely with the explosion of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, and cancer than does any other dietary factor including saturated fat (of which consumption was much higher *prior* to the modern CVD epidemic, and has fallen significantly while CVD continued to rise and ultimately plateaued), or sugar consumption. We also have lots of emerging evidence that excess linoleic acid is similarly toxic to mitochondrial function in humans, and consistent correlations between the level of linoleic acid present in the adipose tissue of different human populations and the rates of disease in those populations known to have an element of mitochondrial dysfunction driving them, such as macular degeneration. We know that cardiolipin, the phospholipid that makes up the mitochondrial membrane, relies on small amounts of dietary linoleic acid (it is, after all, an essential fatty acid), but that it can become pathologically remodeled and dysfunctional if an excess of this delicate, oxidation-prone fatty acid elsewhere in the body draws our limited endogenous antioxidant resources away from keeping that linoleic acid protected and intact where it's needed for its structural role in cardiolipin for normal mitochondrial function. And, we know that the Kempner diet which somehow cured obesity and diabetes by bombing patients with starch and sugar would have inadvertently restricted dietary linoleic acid by way of restricting all fat, and would have accelerated the turnover of excess linoleic acid stored in the adipose tissue by inducing essential fatty acid deficiency in those patients, more rapidly lowering the amount of linoleic acid in their system than would simple dietary restriction of this fatty acid alone, thus (potentially, if this mechanism is correct) rapidly restoring normal mitochondrial function and increasing metabolic headroom at the cellular level to ultimately restore normal insulin signaling. In my mind, a chronic, toxic excess of dietary linoleic acid (understood almost like diseases of hypervitaminosis, but in this case replacing 'way too much' of an essential vitamin for our physiology to contend with, with 'way too much' of an essential fatty acid) proffers a far more plausible and compelling explanation for what is driving the modern epidemic of pathologic insulin resistance and the resulting chronic disease states. If we're constantly eating something that damages mitochondrial function, it follows that we'd end up in a constant state of "energy overload" at the cellular level while also not actually *generating* much energy at the cellular level and thus experiencing low levels of subjective felt energy, both in terms of mental energy and physical energy, making exercise more difficult, exhausting, and unrewarding, and increasing hunger signals as we experience "energy starvation" at the cellular level despite being replete with energy intake (unless we hack the hunger problem with ketosis). Excess linoleic acid is also known to stroke the endocannabinoid receptors in the brain responsible for hunger signaling, compounding the problem. And furthermore, linoleic is preferentially stored in our adipose tissue, giving it a half-life of up to 680 days - or a net residency of *2-5 years* - which would explain why all the orthodox medical literature on dietary interventions featuring increased linoleic acid can so easily tout the supposed "cholesterol lowering benefits" of these oils while conveniently finding no negative metabolic consequences or association with diabetes even in relatively long-term human trials ranging out to 1-2 year time frames, where the intervention diets could (plausibly) actually lead to profound metabolic dysfunction and related chronic disease states if continued over longer periods of time as linoleic acid accumulates to higher and higher levels in the adipose tissue - and on the flip side why interventions restricting dietary linoleic acid don't seem to show any metabolic or weight loss benefit, because it would take up to 5 or more years to meaningfully lower concentrations of stored linoleic acid and begin to see the resulting improvements to metabolic function and insulin signaling. 2/2
Gary Taubby is a researcher who wants fat to be OK. Well I'M a researcher too, and I'll tell the truth that will set you free of the Diet Matrix... once and for all.
Stephan is so smug for someone who's never actually had to enact what he's proposing. I have. I did the research before it was all nicely compiled like it is now. The fact of the matter is that Stephan's logic only works if you are the type with a few pounds to lose or were fit most of your life and just recently started adding the pounds. If you have had a lifelong battle with serious obesity (metabolic disorder) his book offers little to no hope. The fact of the matter is I don't give a rat's ass whose right. I don't care. I don't have a political point, or a reputation, or anything else. I care about what continues to help me drop weight. That's all. Because it was/is life or death for me. I assure Stephan, that a diet just high in carbs, for that matter healthy carbs, will in fact continue to put weight on me. He won't believe me because that shit eating grin has a book to sell. He would say that I didn't log my stuff properly or wasn't getting enough exercise. But I have more years in this than he does and denial doesn't change fact. The lower my carbs, the more I lose, the easier it is to maintain the weight loss. And if he had all the answers why am I still being studied by the NWCR?
No one gets fat eating fruits, veggies, nuts, legumes, and whole grains, sorry. This applies to you too. But add salt or sugar to the fatty nuts and you fail. Get overzealous with a fatty salad dressing or salty croutons, and you fail. Remove the fibrous carbs and you fail. You should eat twice as many fibrous carbs as starchy carbs if you're active. If you're not active, you should reduce the starchy carbs even further. If you're not active, you should get active. Stop combining excess salt and sugar with fat and or starchy carbs and you have nothing to worry about. Those are the combos that hijack your brain chemistry.
@@limitisillusion7 What can I say? Years at it and over 250lbs lost says you're just wrong. I can't help it if some people are invested for whatever reason in what they believe. But you're just wrong. At least in regards to some of us. Active? Don't get me wrong, exercise is awesome for so many reasons but weight loss is not one of them unless you count the mental health effects. But that's ok, you keep believing what you like and imma keep this weight off and do what I do. (Ah, croutons. I remember croutons. I haven't had a salad with croutons since 2013, lol)
@@dawgsmycopilot Don't conflate the effects of processed carbs (which usually have tons of fat) with whole be foods. The scientific consensus is that high fiber, plants based diets lead to the longest lifespans. Ignore that evidence of you want, it's your body. I can only do so much. Brandolinis law has taken this conversation out of my hands.
Yes there is more than one way to skin a caribou, but the simplest way is some times the best especially when you're out in the elements. and it's just that simple gentlemen.@@danfc3s
Sorry having PHD from neuroscience and want to show off by pointing to research which didn't explain too much, about obesity, He tries to see the whole thing from his perspective and knowledge he got, but central claim he making is wrong from start, that's the brain dictates everything. Endocrine systems dictate to brain how to operates not another way. Feeding rats or other animals food rich in carbs which they are designed to consume is the first problem, for example, to put rat in ketosis you need to push up to 95% fat , meaning they mainly carb driven animals, we know if you feed them standard chow they not overeat, just fine grid the grains and form it pellets feed this the control group and rats start overeating, because speed digesting will increase, amount of energy absorbed jump up, insulin response will be higher, making rat to store most of it and when insulin drops he will feed again. Second to build insulin intolerance you need a long time, and to do that in rats normally consuming a higher percentage of energy in carb form is simply not produce the same fattening effect, its opposite effect as you try to slim down sea lion, forcing on him full-fat diet, rich in protein and fat, its system is different than ours. There is a neurologic process playing role in all of this but not in degree as he claimed, color packaging adverts, food availability and effects of loaded carbs in each meal pushes those boundaries each time bit harder, but endocrine system is dictating the rhythm, that's why all Low Carb diets work so well, and others do not,
These two sound like two kids fighting in the back of a station wagon, on a cross country drive.
Daniel Tosh is funny, but he's a real jerk.
This guy took 18 minutes to say a diet has to be high in sugar, carbs and fat to cause obesity, it can't just be high in sugar and it can't just be high in fat. It has to be both. They did a study in rats where they had 3 groups, 1 on high sugar and rat food, 1 on high fat and rat food and 1 control on just rat food. The ones on high sugar ate a lot of the sugar food, but ate less rat food, substituting it for the sweet food and didn't gain weight. The group on high fat didn't over eat and didn't gain weight, the control obviously didn't gain weight. Then they combined the sugar and fat and offered that to the rats and they loved it and grew very fat.
So you say if I only eat sugar I will not gain weight?
@@tomeditz9192 Sure, you won't but that's an ideal scenario. You most probably do have fat in your food (like most people) and therefore that fat and your sugar will act together to deteriorate your health and make you fat. Also, sugar is not just bad from a fattening perspective, it's bad for many more serious reasons and should be eliminated from diet.
@@tomeditz9192 you may, though, develop a fatty liver and possibly a fatty pancreas...
I don't know ... in the late 80s and almost the entire 90s, I ate low-fat, high carb, and I really struggled with my weight. I was in my twenties and thirties in the 90s, forced myself to drink nonfat milk, ate mostly chicken breast when I did eat meat, chose the low-fat sauce alternatives with pasta, steamed vegetables ... and kept gaining. In the late 90s, I discovered Atkins, and the weight came off. I then ate moderately low-carb for a while, but peri-menopause came along, and I had to cut the carbs more. I don't do Keto, but I do a low-carb diet high in protein and fat, plus intermittent fasting (16/8, two meals per day), and that has worked. Low-carb can be difficult to do long-term, but the IF helps. I lost 30 pounds in 2020 and have kept it off relatively easily.
@@tomeditz9192 You're less likely to gain weight, and if you do, it will probably be to a small degree. Sugary foods on its own aren't necessarily hyperpalatable. It usually requires some combination of salt, fat, and maybe sugar, to be hyperpalatable. Think of potato chips, not pixie sticks.
I'm watching this while eating 3 slices of pizza
You didn't forget a Coke to wash it down, did you?
@@nickb3968 switched to regular coke since sugar has no effect on fat accumulation:-)
Not te
2012NWFF not even joking so am I and I had 3 left when I saw your comment 👀
Me too lmao
Is he trolling?? You can literally hear him perfectly fine lmao
😂
Keto Joe trying to rattle a non-carbophobist
He is not complaining about volume.
Hey can you just get closer to the Mike? Yep more, ok good
It’s not “Steph-fawn” it’s “Steph-in”. Proceeds to call him “Steph-fawn” for the next 2 hours 🤣🤣🤣
Stephan helped me realize that even a diet consisting of healthy whole foods can be fattening if the brain/neurochemistry of overeating is not addressed.
I love Stephan Guyenet and enjoyed his book. I think he didn't make the argument as concise and clear as he could have here. Modern junk foods hit all these reward centers in our brain. salt ratios that are dialed to perfect ratios of deliciousness. Creamy fats and all kinds of textures with varying levels of sweetness thrown in is a LOT more compelling for our brains than the one-note song of sweet, sweet, sweet. I get sick of sugar cubes nearly instantly, but if the sugar is mixed with fatty cocoa and salt I can eat a hell of a lot more of it in any sitting, even if I wasn't hungry when I sat down.
Should have been titled, " stephen is a condscending , hostile guest, who treats gary like shit" . worst show to date. I LOVE JRE. But this was awful .
Condescending or not, he makes a far better argument.
The condescension comes from their past relationship. But Stephan is correct.
@@SeraphsWitness they are both correct which is why I can barely hold my weight steady eating barely 7-800 calories per day. That is zero sugar and under 20 net carbs daily. Anything over and I am gaining...😒
My only argument for Gary, and against little snot Stephen, is that the LCHF diet of 800 cal is WAY less sufferable than the FDA pyramid SAD diet of 800 calories.
@@jellybeanvinkler4878 You're consuming 700-800 calories per day and not losing weight? Are you tracking your calories reliably? Do you have some kind of metabolic disease?
Because otherwise, frankly, that seems highly unlikely.
So why are there more obese people in America than Europe we have the same ancestors. Its the abundance of processed food that we consume.
I'm Italian, at least in southern italy, we eat a pastry with coffee in the morning, a huge lunch, a 1+ hour nap aka siesta, wake up 4 or 5pm, some of us return to work until 8 or p pm. Then we go home go the piazza and hang out, walk around, talk and eat a small snack, pizza, panini or pastries, and drink espresso. Go home go to sleep and wake up 6 or 7 am and do it all over again. Very few fat southern Italians, unless they are old or don't get outside. And, generally eat less junk food and eat fresher food.
@@WOLVERINE5000 That sounds amazing🍷
@@WOLVERINE5000 I want this life
I was into Taubes theory until I watched, and re-watched this debate. Stephan is a master here, despite indications of not yet being media savvy.
you mean bc he's an arrogant prick?
I don't know why Joe had such difficulties at 14:03 . The concept is simple. The typical supermarket diet is much more fattening in animals than just a sugar/starch diet.
Rogan being able to understand that concept depends on his ability to acknowledge fat as potentially fattening. Which he has trouble doing, so to him its hard to comprehend.
I also found this mind boggling... Joe didn’t seem to understand that junk food is high in all sorts of fats...
@@butterf1sh And there are other factors. Salt is a very important factor. Additional factors include: low fiber content; low water content; mixing salt, sugar, and fat in certain combinations (along with flavor); food variety; and so on.
It's the combo of over consuming both fat and sugar that is the worst for rapid weight gain.
Do drugs your whole life and then try to understand a simple sentence.
This guy said nothing for 17 mins.
because you are too dumb to grasp it
"Let me finish. Let me finish" Sure, we don't want him to interrupt, but get to the f*ckin point already. On and on isn't a debate - it's a speech. How about how much processed fried foods versus paleo, low oil intake diets?
fried foods generally have higher calories than natural foods so paleo will give better weight lose results anyway. That's what he would say and i think data backs him up.
Joe "come closer to the mic" Rogan
This is why the guest needs to be Ted Naiman, someone who's a doctor with an engineering background; he's smart and really knows how to simplify and break things down and really doesn't care about the argument side of things, his points just universally make sense to any sensible person.
Is this full interview still available? Can't seem to find it now, I'd like to rewatch the whole thing.
Spotify
@@Patrick-ou6wb thanks
Spotify has it
I want to say to Gary, there's no point arguing with a narcissistic person, because the narcissistic approach is to provoke emotional responses rather than logically debate about the subject.
Nothing he said was narcissistic, but you in this comment are trying to provoke emotion. You didn’t even give a simple example.
Dude in black seemed very argumentative and gate keepy
@@SD-ip2wb The irony lmao
Summary:
(sugar+fat) makes you fatter and that is also quicker than (only sugar) or (only fat) diets!! Between (only fat) and (only sugar) diets, there's no statistically significant difference! Therefore, you cannot claim that (only sugar) makes you fat. Also you cannot claim that you can eat as much as (only fat) and won;t get fat!! Ultimately, for most people, (IN THE CONTEXT OF FAT LOSS), the main driver is the calory in calory out model, not the carb-insulin model!!
insulin.produced.when.sugar.enters.your.system.causes.fat.procuction....you.also.crave.more.sugar...you.don't.crave.fat.so.you'll.eat.less.of.it.and.you'll.burn.fat.when.ketonic.you'll.burn.fat.in.you.r.fat.cells.and.you'll.burn.ingested.fat...end.of.conversation...sugar.is.poison.
n.
If you eat too much fat on a low carb keto diet you will simply shit it out :) So it's much safer than doing a low fat high carb diet.
Someone would've made that last bit easier if they just said "this is the definition of junk food and this is the definition of other simple carb foods that are not 'junk'"
Not true. There's junk food that's all fat, that's all sugar and there's junk food that contains fat and sugar. Those junk foods that contain both sugar and fat are the ones that cause the most weight gain at the fastest rate.
The way scientists get test mice fat is to feed them pellets of carbohydrates and fat.
Years ago Scivation had a diet where they specified breaking up meal into carbs+protein or protein+fat, and advocated against combining fat+carbs
Fuck it. I´m gone! could only managed to stay awake for 13 minutes.
How about: Pure, White and Deadly - John Yudkin???
Listening to this guy talk is like having my teeth ground down
Listening to these two girls fight nearly the entire episode I just couldn't take them seriously lol
At least he warned he'd be long winded but goddamn I almost fell asleep three times
Joe Rogan doesn’t understand that junk food is high in fat FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!
Joe did a poor job moderating this, they should be able to respond to each individual point. Not both talk for 10 mins at a time.
Was excited to see Gary Taubes was back on, but couldn't watch live and the full podcast still isn't published. Too bad this is so far condescending nonsense.
Spotify
Wtf is the debate about here? Junk food is bad?
Gary got destroyed in this debate.
He's right. I've never seen anybody getting fat eating just fruit, or eating pixie sticks or rock candy. It just doesn't happen. People that get fat on "carbs" are eating things like baked goods, that have alot of added fat to make them more palatable. Without them, these cookies and pastries would be as hard as hockey pucks.
horrible analogy , using the tire on a car .
He said you'll get fatter eating carbs and fats than eating just carbs plus the added bonus of diabetes and heart disease.
These guys would be great at a party I bet...
cant find the full 1267 podcast just a lot of cuts.
Joe doesn't realize that junk food is not just sugar. Its usually a combo of sugar fat and salt. So when stephan explains that you cant replicate the massive weight gain in these experiments by just adding sugar.. I don't think he realizes that common parlance "sugar" is synonymous with "junk food" but its incorrect. Many junk foods people consume are high in fat as well and that is what creates that reward value and habitual consumption. Donuts are tastier than candy corn.
Correct, all he had to say was combination of carbs and polyunsaturated vegetable oils are the leading cause of fatty liver, obesity and heart disease. Would have saved everyone 17 minutes.and also he should have specified that it is vegetable oils not animal fats that have the greater effect in the body.
Usually fat sugar combos and fat salt combos. Those combos don't occur in nature and basically hijack our brain chemistry. That's this video in a nutshell with less scientific terminology.
Salted nuts are also another food that's also capable of being hyperpalatable, but to a lesser degree (the fiber helps reduce the amount of calories you can extract from them). Nuts are healthy, but it's best to have only the unsalted ones, if you eat them.
What a filibuster...
If he's saying that eating fat with sugar is worse than eating fat by itself, it's true. But Dr. Robert Lustig has already said that, more eloquently, and without the jackassery.
Lustig is an advocate of the carbohydrate-insulin model, which has been thoroughly and decisively disproven.
Lustig's more useful. This guy's entire point is that it's mostly governed by the brain and changing carb intake won't do anything - it's about the calories in/cal out balance. He's not wrong about the brain involvement it's just that that info really doesn't help much, you still need to adjust the mechanism that packs the fat on and he leads the reader down the wrong path for that.
Body builders have known how to get lean for years & years.
DNA Guyenet
Oh the arrogance from this man is crazy.
Gary taubs is a great man.
Who’s here after Weinstein
stephen could not dumb it down enough for Joe.
First! You the best Joe Rogan keep it going!
I love Joe
Vargas
Get your macros and micronutrients drink lots of water and be active . Don’t over eat stay at a caloric deficit not by a huge margin but a little bit . Sleep at least 7 hours a day do H.I.I.T training and intermittent fasting when you wake up and if you’re the kind of person that has energy in the morning maybe 15 minutes of fasted cardio (light jog) . There’s how you lose fat and stay healthy the fastest way possible . It’s hard and takes time that’s why people don’t do it .
I think Joe has been overdoing it a little with the Podcasts lately. He seems off his game and slow to follow. Noticed that already on the Pete Hortez episode.
Weed and psychedelics taking their toll?
I don't think that the evidence presented by Guyenet proves much of anything. Yes, we all agree that an industrial diet is awful for us, but is it the mix of fat and carbs or is it the type of fats and carbs we are eating? Indigenous populations that eat carbs in high quantity usually eat tubers and fruits, not processed sugar and flour. Same goes for vegetable oils vs animal fats (and fat from animals in industrial systems and pastured animals). Also a study of 3 weeks? What if to trigger insulin mechanisms you need more than 3 weeks of eating carbs? A lot of people can eat junk stuff for many years before they get fat. I think there are still many questions that nobody has bothered to ask or answer, and Guyenet is does not even seem to be considering alternatives.
Evolution is usually an appeal to weakness.
Thought Joe was smart.. he isn't I guess. Most fattening junk food is high in carbs AND fat. Example: ice cream, pizza, cake, cookies, chocolate bars, milk shakes, donuts, burgers. Most of these can have up to 40-50% calories from fat. I could eat 3000-4000 calories in one sitting eating these foods. Easily. Now try giving me 30 two-liter Coca colas or a kilogram of sugar (both have 3000-4000 calories). It's much much harder to consume that much in just high sugar/zero fat foods. Because fat has an effect on bypassing the hunger/fullness signaling system which is why it's easier to binge on them.
WHY NO CAPTIONS 😢😭 ?!
What hes saying is carbs AND fat combine result in obesity. Thats why when u eat high fat low carb AND high carb but very low fat, its hard for a person to be obese. Well at least thats how i undersrand it lol
Mel Ry exactly! Take a donut for example. It has roughly 45-65 percent of its calories from fat but we see it as a carb. I can’t believe people are still arguing about this stuff.
Eat high carb low fat and tell me how hungry you are, I did and I binged on sugar.
If you eat low carb high fat you are satiated and as a result your body gets used to burning fat, your fat.
Correct!
I think I'm the only one who thinks Stephen is obviously more qualified and prepared to educate. I don't understand what's condescending about him. He's literally giving the data, complete with sources.
No, I'm completely with you. He is way better prepared and makes a much better case.
I'm so glad this guy isn't likeable
Sugar isn’t a problem for athletes
@SavageBoi that isn't true entirely.
Look up Dr Tim Noakes. Catches up even with athletes, eventually.
Great, you found one example....
@@limitisillusion7 Great, it's enough to refute a theory.
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е The reason we look for a scientific consensus is so that we don't have to rely on anecdotes. Anecdotes don't do a good job at controlling for other factors.
@@limitisillusion7 You lost us dude. If you're fine agreeing with what the scientists decided their money should come from, it's on you.
You're implying that you're comparing two different kinds of evidence. An anecdote is evidence and can be used e.g. to refute a theory. You can only appeal to authority with a consensus.
Was listening to the podcast on this and this Guy lost me the second he tried to the analogy of aliens looking at car tires to gauge speed.
communications major right here^
I think that speaks more to your "intelligence", if you will, than his. Gary has no clue, Stephan does, and Joe just haphazardly follows whatever he's fed from one "expert" to the next.
1. Why would an alien focus on "tires" when analyzing vehicle speed?
2. I seem to get hungry primarily when the physical state of my body requires food. I am rarely "hungry" when I am filled with food that (typically) meets my physical needs.
3. Can you build muscle tissue eating only carbs?
4. Can you run a marathon fueled only by protein?
He's talking specifically about obesity, dude. Not muscle gain or energy for exercise.
I agree with him that the brain has a lot to do with how we store fat but to fob everything off genetics is another out that fat people don't need.
As a former fat person I totally agree that I am famine resistant, I default to fat storage and that is totally due to my genes.
I also fixed it by following Gary's advice and going Keto which reset my insulin resistance and helped me lose the weight along with exercise, my results speak for themselves and I changed my mindset.
I was 130kg(286lb) and I'm 80kg(176lb) now, for numbers that actually matter.
Dan Toland it’s almost like you should understand what the dude is saying. Genes cause people to have hunger related responses to different dietary situations. Whether or not you gain or lose weight is calories in vs calories out. Eating low carb can be one effective way to restrict calories and lose weight for some people. Taubes, on the other hand, claims that calories in vs calories out is incorrect and that overeating isn’t the problem.
@@evaneugenescott I doubt that genes are the cause of obesity, as I know mine haven't changed, but my hunger cravings have. When I was on a high carb diet I was constantly hungry, now on the carnivore diet I have no appetite for at least 24 hours and eat one very large meal a day which when calculated has about 3200+ calories of protein and fat. I still managed To lose 60 lb and gain muscle at the same time just doing my regular routine with no external exercising. I think genes play and more important part in the shape of your body and where it stores the fat first, but not food cravings as mine have definitely changed. Same person, same genes.
@@evaneugenescott
It is incorrect, fat contains way more calories than carbs but when eaten in excess doesn't make you fat.
It goes against the laws of thermodynamics but I can't dispute my results.
If I ate the same amount of calories in carbs I'd get fat and I know I would because it's how I got fat in the first place, try it and see...
What @@descargaelbano said too...
Wow long winded is an understatement. For most of the population its all about eating healthy and drinking water and excersing. If you want to lose weight you need a caloric deficit to make sure your burning more calories when you work out than what you put in your body. This guy seems to know what he talking about but why make losing weight so complicated?
(Sorry in advance for the rant).
This type of rapport between researchers seems to be, from my point of view, precisely why many fields in science could progress much faster than they are now. In two words: overspecialization blindness. And Guyenet illustrates this problem marvelously with his "aliens analyzing the speed of cars" analogy. Some cars don't go faster than others JUST because of their tires OR their engine. Put a 90 year old person in a brand new Ferrari, on an icy road, with summer tires (one of which is flat). Then put this person in a race against a professional rally driver in an old beat up pickup truck with studded tires. See the result. Then before a second race, send the rally driver deeply tragic information about his family that completely messes him up psychologically, give him a horse dose of the strongest anti psychotic drug, and a bottle of whisky. See the old man now win the race while the rally drivers spins donuts, crying.
These people can't even realize that they both hold pieces of a puzzle, and they're too proud to even try to see how they fit together. And I wouldn't be surprised if they'd argue which psychologists, anthropologists, biologists specialized on the effects of climate adaptation, and, dare I say, parapsychologists and shamans, ALL holding other pieces of the puzzle. All of these fields are causally interrelated. No science is NOT holistic. The resistance they have against other people's field and theories is so counterproductive... it baffles me that those obtuse yet VERY ABLE minds can't see past their idiotic belief that only their view, their angle is valid.
... and I don't even have a high school diploma. Jeez. COOPERATE, IDIOTS!
I get that sciences shouldn't be regarded as the end all be all framework to understand something but to say that every claim is a valid piece of the puzzle is way to outlandish.
17 minutes of nothing
Sugar, refine carb not fattening. WHAT?
THIS guy is obviously bought & paid for by the sugar industry.
It's the amount.
Why is nobody bring up high-fructose corn syrup?
Because it's not big deal, it's just sugar that has a higher concentration of fructose.
There's nothing magical or uniquely nefarious about hfcs as uneducated, biochemically-ignorant morons claim. It's just fcking fructose bro.
@ Wouldn't that still have somewhat of an effect since it's high concentrated sugar?
@ But maybe just thinking too much into it.
@@charliemcneilson4211
There is a bit of a difference when it comes to cravings which supposedly glucose sating cravings faster, but in terms of energy they are more or less the same.
@@charliemcneilson4211 It's only marginally worse than sugar due to having slightly more fructose, that's literally all there is to it. It's bizarrely demonized by online nutrition gurus who are dumb as shit, it's a fake, manufactured boogeyman.
YOu need to have Jason Fung, MD and Peter Attia, MD on the show on this topic, not these knuckleheads
Fung is the biggest charlatan in the industry.
Never heard of them, I've read Gary's book though, I now fit into my BMI window.
Vegetable oil
Tosh.0 has come a Long way in this video
17 minutes and this boring Bozo couldn't make his point. The point he is trying to get across is it's okay to eat a plain baked potato by itself and it does not make you fat. Now if you take the same potato and fry it in polyunsaturated fats (vegatable oils) then it becomes the leading cause of fatty liver, heart disease and diabetes. He needs to specify also that he's talking about PUFA oils, and NOT saturated meat fats. In other words a baked potato with butter is good, and french fries are slow death. Also lack of exercise is not the cause of obesity. You can't out exercise a bad diet. Just by going keto I've lost 60 lbs in 6 months and my doctor was very ecstatic that my A1C blood sugar went from over 8 down to 5.7 even after quitting all my metformin and injections, with no exercise whatsoever. As a type 2 diabetic I will never be able to eat even healthy carbs without excess insulin and fat storage. For a healthy individual his advice might work, but for those of us who have already damaged our bodies it will not.
Omg. I need ice cream.
This guy doesn't listen, given he doesn't understand Joe's lack of understanding. One diet has junk food with sugar, carbs and fat (which creates greatest obesity) the other test diet only has extra sugar abd carbs increased (not fat like junk food) it also causes weight gain but not as much. Lowering fat makes a difference with respect to a junk food diet. BUT BOTH ARE BAD! The other guest wanted to discuss calorie intake but never got a chance!
Danan Butler fats are not bad your body 100% needs fat on your body and in your food
If you have fat in combination with high carbs you will gain more fat... because the excess insulin (nutrient shuttling hormone) from the carbs shuttles what’s in your blood to mainly muscle or fat. If you aren’t training, it goes into the fat.
So Stephan is wrong again, always defeating his own arguments.
Jake Vitullo you shouldn’t be cutting out any nutrient
B C carbs are non essential. Essential means the body can not produce it and therefore needs to ingest it from a good source.
You have essential fatty acids(fats), essential amino acids (protein), but there is no such thing as an essential carb because your body can synthesize carbs from other things in the body.
Jake Vitullo you start by saying that carbs aren’t essential , and then say how the body synthesizes things into carbs . Meaning your cells need it otherwise they wouldn’t synthesize anything . Getting carbs right from the source is preferred obviously . You can and should be eating carbs .
Sthepan younger dude is factually right and a proper scientist. He is smart for real but also in a smug way :)) . Well deserved because he will do a lot of good to humanity by dedicating his life to science. Garyyyyyyy you seem nice but please stop with the crap man because it's not helping people.
Nonsense
Oof we got another one loose from the pin
@@theancientsam pin?
@@emailvonsour is been so long i don't know what this comment was about but lose from the pin would be like an animal escaped
Stephen seems oblivious of the simple evidence that Type 1 Diabetes Patients can control their weight by reducing the amount of insulin, proving that insulin is a major factor in fat or weight gain. I think Gary was far to unprepared to discuss this subject Joe needs to have Jason Fung come on and explain the evidence of industrialization of sugar and refined carbohydrates impact to society and the correlation on increased incidence of diabetes, heart disease and obesity.
That's Anton Yelchin from star trek
He dead
Rip
I'm your biggest fan!
This is a desperate attempt to make a vegan diet better than a carnivore diet.
Guyenet is not remotely nor has he ever been a vegan or vegan diet advocate. He's in the Paleo sphere. He recommends meat, fish, vegetables, and *moderate* carbs from Paleo carb sources in those who tolerate carbs well--OR low carb Paleo type diets for those who feel better on them. His only argument with Taubes is that the science does not agree with his simplified notion that insulin is the primary factor in body fatness.
@@DoritoWorldOrder He doesn't answer why tho. He only points at some studies but we all know there can be everything wrong with them, it's a mess. Not even from the execusion perspective. Anyone who's ever touched the subject of the philosophy of science knows that. Unless he suggests another mechanism of HOW the calories matter. It's hard to take him seriously when he argues insulin isn't fattening
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е
Taubes makes a lot of great points and he reinvigorated this field of inquiry with his books by poking a lot of holes in the orthodoxy in pointing out the lack of solid evidence for many assumptions in the prevailing model. But then when he proposed his own heterodox thesis, which he's very confident in, he doesn't hold himself to remotely as high an evidentiary standard as he holds his opponents. His thesis is supported primarily by two things: the historical record and plausible mechanistic deduction based on our existing knowledge of human physiology and our existing but incomplete knowledge of human endocrinology and biochemistry. He didn't have any actual human studies to directly support the "carbohydrate-insulin theory of obesity" (which is no surprise because the scientific research establishment tends not to dedicate much money or attention to studies that want to test hypotheses outside the prevailing consensus, giving him little to draw on from the extant medical literature) but he had mapped out a plausible mechanism of action for the disease process, and that was enough for him to have firm confidence in his thesis - ironically putting him in the same posture as Ancel Keys, a physiologist, back when he first put forth the diet-heart hypothesis which ultimately led us down the primrose path of our deranged fixation on saturated fat and cholesterol and low-fat dietetics.
However, Gary went on to co-found NuSI, a dietetics and medical research group set up to raise money to run the very human studies that the establishment refused to run and which would test and confirm this neglected hypothesis that he had reinvigorated interest in with his books, and they raised a LOT of money, and then they ran their big studies which were carefully designed to avoid the pitfalls of establishment research methodology on the topic up until that point, and their results showed almost *no difference* in metabolic or weight loss outcomes between patients fed a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet. The results were so underwhelming and failed so miserably to spark the revolution of science that had been promised by implication, that the star-studded advisory board of NuSI all pulled out one by one and fundraising fell off and eventually they just canned the whole project.
So despite the fact that Gary went out and founded a well funded and staffed research organization to run the human studies that would validate the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, and which then utterly failed to do so despite very well designed studies for which *they* had control over methodology, he still seems to carry an irrational confidence in the hypothesis to this day, to the point of rudeness and arrogance towards other researchers who engage with him to challenge him on it with valid counter-points.
Taubes' theory relies on several logical leaps that we not only lack direct evidence for but that in many cases we have direct evidence against - perhaps most importantly that because type 2 diabetics (and to some extent pre-diabetics, sufferers of metabolic syndrome / obesity / insulin resistance) have lost their ability to tolerate carbohydrates, and restricting carbohydrates resolves their symptoms and often alleviates the need for exogenous insulin, that chronically elevated insulin caused by excessive dietary carbohydrate *must have caused* the disease state of insulin resistance to begin with. This *feels* intuitively obvious at some level, but there are several glaring examples of studies with findings that fly in the face of this assumption. For one, Walter Kempner as far back as the 1940's and 50's fed thousands of morbidly obese (300+lb) and diabetic patients with renal disease a very-high-carb, very-low-fat, very-low-protein diet consisting of white rice, fruit juice, jam/jelly, and also pure refined white sugar - without explicit caloric restriction and including 200-300 grams per day of dietary sugar, and a majority of these patients had seemingly miraculous results including extreme weight loss from morbid obesity back to normal BMI, apparent resolution of their kidney disease, and apparent resolution of their diabetes - and these were lasting effects that allowed these patients to return to eating a normal diet without weight gain or the return of diabetic symptoms even years after they had left the metabolic ward. How is this possible if carbohydrate-driven hyperinsulinism is the cause of insulin resistance? Surely feeding obese, diabetic patients a diet of pure sugar and starch should have accelerated their weight gain and disease process and ultimately killed them, no? Clearly there is a deeper nuance to this set of issues. We can know the orthodox models are wrong without necessarily needing to immediately buy into the opposing pet theory of the person who woke us up to the fact that they are wrong.
Kempner's experimental diet was apparently *curative* of insulin resistance, which is important to understand in comparison to low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets; while the latter are often discussed by their advocates as "reversing" type-2 diabetes because they ultimately alleviate the need for insulin treatment if patients adhere strictly to them in an indefinite manner, this style of dieting does little to address the underlying disease state or restore normal function to carbohydrate metabolism - it merely switches people over to a different energy substrate and absolves the systems involved in normal carbohydrate metabolism from *needing* to function; it's well known anecdotally (almost a universal experience) that in both diabetics and weight-loss dieters even after long periods of time adapted to a ketogenic diet, they feel horrible immediately and all their symptoms return when they break the diet and reintroduce any significant level of carbohydrates, with the diabetics needing to go right back on insulin treatment. It's like if you had a hybrid gasoline-electric car and the gasoline engine started to have major problems so you decided to switch over to running it in 100% electric mode for a while - you've restored the ability to drive the vehicle around, but you haven't *fixed the vehicle* by taking this step.
As researchers like Chris Masterjohn have pointed out in a very rigorous manner, there are many populations including those on ancestral diets who are disease-free even with diets very high in total carbohydrate, and systemic insulin resistance (as associated with metabolic syndrome, obesity, and diabetes) is best understood as an adaptive signaling process that occurs as a result of *energy overload* at the cellular level, rather than as a result of carbohydrate per se. Cells need to protect themselves from the damage that occurs when they have too many energy-bearing molecules floating around unutilized inside them for too long a time, whether glycation damage from sugar uptake in excess of what the cell can burn in the short term, or peroxidation damage from lipid uptake in excess of what the cell can burn in the short term. Glucose and lipid uptake at the cellular level are governed by different signaling dynamics, so it's easy to become myopically fixated on one or the other, but they both contribute to "energy overload" at the cellular level, and both are known to contribute to the downregulation of insulin signaling - excess glucose directly by reducing the expression of insulin receptors at the surface of the cell, and excess lipids indirectly by interfering with the function of those receptors.
1/2
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е
"Energy overload" is when the cell has reached its *metabolic headroom* and can't take on any more glucose or lipids without beginning to become damaged and ultimately diseased, and even if the environment around it is chronically perfused with an abundance of such energy-bearing molecules, it does everything it can to shut down the uptake of more of these molecules because it is *already at capacity* - which in the case of glucose then causes a feedback loop where the pancreas has to create even more insulin to take all that excess glucose being refused entry to the muscle, neural, and organ cells, and clear it from the circulatory system (where it will also cause dangerous levels of glycation damage if it hangs around too long) and get it into the fat cells where it can be stored in a non-volatile state, and the pancreas ultimately becomes fatigued, exhausted, and damaged from working overtime if this continues in a chronic manner.
So the question then becomes, what modulates (increases or decreases) the metabolic headroom of cells? Well, energy expenditure is one obvious answer as far as increasing it - and there is zero doubt that regular exercise is associated with lower rates of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease. However it's not profound enough in impact to explain the modern landscape of metabolic disease. Then we might ask, what could be *decreasing* metabolic headroom at the cellular level? What if there is some novel factor in our environment or in modern diets that was actually slowing or damaging the cell's ability to burn glucose and lipids for energy, making it that much more prone to signal energy overload with smaller and smaller perfusions of additional energy molecules entering the circulation postprandially? There are many chemicals in our modern environment that can be damaging to our mitochondria in large enough doses, but we aren't typically exposed to them in big enough doses that it's plausible for any of them to be the main culprit - but there is one novel dietary factor, which represents the most recent and most profound change in human diets ever, bigger than the introduction of grain-based diets with the advent of organized agriculture, bigger than the advent of white flour or purified sugar, and which we're *ALL* eating huge and growing amounts of since the mid 20th century even if we typically avoid processes foods, white flour, and added sugar - and that is the *linoleic acid* from industrial seed oils or "vegetable oils" which has supplanted traditional animal fats, dairy fats, and 'fruit-oils' like olive oil, in our food supply.
While the medical research orthodoxy has convinced us these linoleic acid-rich seed oils are good for us because of their cholesterol-lowering effects, it's known unequivocally in animal models that feeding a high linoleic acid diet absolutely destroys mitochondrial function to the point where you can induce heart failure and death in rodents in just 6 weeks with such a diet. We also know that the introduction of these oils into our diet over the course of the 20th century tracks much more closely with the explosion of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, and cancer than does any other dietary factor including saturated fat (of which consumption was much higher *prior* to the modern CVD epidemic, and has fallen significantly while CVD continued to rise and ultimately plateaued), or sugar consumption. We also have lots of emerging evidence that excess linoleic acid is similarly toxic to mitochondrial function in humans, and consistent correlations between the level of linoleic acid present in the adipose tissue of different human populations and the rates of disease in those populations known to have an element of mitochondrial dysfunction driving them, such as macular degeneration. We know that cardiolipin, the phospholipid that makes up the mitochondrial membrane, relies on small amounts of dietary linoleic acid (it is, after all, an essential fatty acid), but that it can become pathologically remodeled and dysfunctional if an excess of this delicate, oxidation-prone fatty acid elsewhere in the body draws our limited endogenous antioxidant resources away from keeping that linoleic acid protected and intact where it's needed for its structural role in cardiolipin for normal mitochondrial function. And, we know that the Kempner diet which somehow cured obesity and diabetes by bombing patients with starch and sugar would have inadvertently restricted dietary linoleic acid by way of restricting all fat, and would have accelerated the turnover of excess linoleic acid stored in the adipose tissue by inducing essential fatty acid deficiency in those patients, more rapidly lowering the amount of linoleic acid in their system than would simple dietary restriction of this fatty acid alone, thus (potentially, if this mechanism is correct) rapidly restoring normal mitochondrial function and increasing metabolic headroom at the cellular level to ultimately restore normal insulin signaling.
In my mind, a chronic, toxic excess of dietary linoleic acid (understood almost like diseases of hypervitaminosis, but in this case replacing 'way too much' of an essential vitamin for our physiology to contend with, with 'way too much' of an essential fatty acid) proffers a far more plausible and compelling explanation for what is driving the modern epidemic of pathologic insulin resistance and the resulting chronic disease states. If we're constantly eating something that damages mitochondrial function, it follows that we'd end up in a constant state of "energy overload" at the cellular level while also not actually *generating* much energy at the cellular level and thus experiencing low levels of subjective felt energy, both in terms of mental energy and physical energy, making exercise more difficult, exhausting, and unrewarding, and increasing hunger signals as we experience "energy starvation" at the cellular level despite being replete with energy intake (unless we hack the hunger problem with ketosis). Excess linoleic acid is also known to stroke the endocannabinoid receptors in the brain responsible for hunger signaling, compounding the problem. And furthermore, linoleic is preferentially stored in our adipose tissue, giving it a half-life of up to 680 days - or a net residency of *2-5 years* - which would explain why all the orthodox medical literature on dietary interventions featuring increased linoleic acid can so easily tout the supposed "cholesterol lowering benefits" of these oils while conveniently finding no negative metabolic consequences or association with diabetes even in relatively long-term human trials ranging out to 1-2 year time frames, where the intervention diets could (plausibly) actually lead to profound metabolic dysfunction and related chronic disease states if continued over longer periods of time as linoleic acid accumulates to higher and higher levels in the adipose tissue - and on the flip side why interventions restricting dietary linoleic acid don't seem to show any metabolic or weight loss benefit, because it would take up to 5 or more years to meaningfully lower concentrations of stored linoleic acid and begin to see the resulting improvements to metabolic function and insulin signaling.
2/2
Is that Steven Crowder?
Gary Taubby is a researcher who wants fat to be OK. Well I'M a researcher too, and I'll tell the truth that will set you free of the Diet Matrix... once and for all.
Sheldon Cooper wins, easily.
Rogan's own biases doesn't let him understand that junk food contains more than just carbs and sugar
Stephan is so smug for someone who's never actually had to enact what he's proposing.
I have. I did the research before it was all nicely compiled like it is now. The fact of the matter is that Stephan's logic only works if you are the type with a few pounds to lose or were fit most of your life and just recently started adding the pounds. If you have had a lifelong battle with serious obesity (metabolic disorder) his book offers little to no hope. The fact of the matter is I don't give a rat's ass whose right. I don't care. I don't have a political point, or a reputation, or anything else. I care about what continues to help me drop weight. That's all. Because it was/is life or death for me. I assure Stephan, that a diet just high in carbs, for that matter healthy carbs, will in fact continue to put weight on me. He won't believe me because that shit eating grin has a book to sell. He would say that I didn't log my stuff properly or wasn't getting enough exercise. But I have more years in this than he does and denial doesn't change fact. The lower my carbs, the more I lose, the easier it is to maintain the weight loss. And if he had all the answers why am I still being studied by the NWCR?
No one gets fat eating fruits, veggies, nuts, legumes, and whole grains, sorry. This applies to you too. But add salt or sugar to the fatty nuts and you fail. Get overzealous with a fatty salad dressing or salty croutons, and you fail. Remove the fibrous carbs and you fail. You should eat twice as many fibrous carbs as starchy carbs if you're active. If you're not active, you should reduce the starchy carbs even further. If you're not active, you should get active. Stop combining excess salt and sugar with fat and or starchy carbs and you have nothing to worry about. Those are the combos that hijack your brain chemistry.
@@limitisillusion7 What can I say? Years at it and over 250lbs lost says you're just wrong. I can't help it if some people are invested for whatever reason in what they believe. But you're just wrong. At least in regards to some of us. Active? Don't get me wrong, exercise is awesome for so many reasons but weight loss is not one of them unless you count the mental health effects. But that's ok, you keep believing what you like and imma keep this weight off and do what I do.
(Ah, croutons. I remember croutons. I haven't had a salad with croutons since 2013, lol)
@@dawgsmycopilot Don't conflate the effects of processed carbs (which usually have tons of fat) with whole be foods. The scientific consensus is that high fiber, plants based diets lead to the longest lifespans. Ignore that evidence of you want, it's your body. I can only do so much. Brandolinis law has taken this conversation out of my hands.
@@limitisillusion7 You lost us when you mentioned the 'scientific consensus'. You're done.
@@фанатКуплинова-ь1е Maybe I lost you. But I didn't lose most people.
Body fatness?
😂
Stephan*
*Steve-Ann
Nice, I’m the first! You’re the best joe
Simple answer, people like to eat, some people eat more than other's.
Nope, not that simple.
Yes there is more than one way to skin a caribou, but the simplest way is some times the best especially when you're out in the elements. and it's just that simple gentlemen.@@danfc3s
Sorry having PHD from neuroscience and want to show off by pointing to research which didn't explain too much, about obesity, He tries to see the whole thing from his perspective and knowledge he got, but central claim he making is wrong from start, that's the brain dictates everything. Endocrine systems dictate to brain how to operates not another way.
Feeding rats or other animals food rich in carbs which they are designed to consume is the first problem, for example, to put rat in ketosis you need to push up to 95% fat , meaning they mainly carb driven animals, we know if you feed them standard chow they not overeat, just fine grid the grains and form it pellets feed this the control group and rats start overeating, because speed digesting will increase, amount of energy absorbed jump up, insulin response will be higher, making rat to store most of it and when insulin drops he will feed again.
Second to build insulin intolerance you need a long time, and to do that in rats normally consuming a higher percentage of energy in carb form is simply not produce the same fattening effect, its opposite effect as you try to slim down sea lion, forcing on him full-fat diet, rich in protein and fat, its system is different than ours.
There is a neurologic process playing role in all of this but not in degree as he claimed, color packaging adverts, food availability and effects of loaded carbs in each meal pushes those boundaries each time bit harder, but endocrine system is dictating the rhythm, that's why all Low Carb diets work so well, and others do not,
His eyes are shifty and I don't like his tin tin hair cut. Don't trust him. Haha
@S J. as in am I a child who rapes or am I the raper of children? I'm neither. Just not a fan of his tin tin face.
Nice to be first
Gary is a horrible bully ....
Eat way less fat, oil and more fruit, vegetables and starchy carbohydrates
Ditch all carbs and eat meat to satiety.
PASTURE FUCKING RAISED ORGANIC MEATS CAN DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER
I know I'm going to live way longer than Ross...
@@IvorMektin1701 fuck yes
@@danfc3s Maybe... but you will still be fat
Total narcissist I can't even listen to him