@@nicknorwitzPhDwould you be prepared to respond to Physionics videos about his assesments of low carb diet being dangerous to cardiovascular health? He seems to be cherry picking studies
I don't care what the paper supposedly proves! I did low fat for 50 years like the "experts told me". Always over weight and struggling to comply. Now at 71 I am maintaining my lowest body fat since 7th grade EFFORTLESSLY ON LOW CARB!!! Finally not struggling.
Cool! 😎 Proof that nutrition studies are pointless! These"experts" at some random university thinks that you should eat low-fat and high carbs.... Yet people are healing themselves and removing body fat percentage by going on low carb and high fat diet. I'm so happy that humans aren't listening to experts at universities
"I don't care what the paper supposedly proves" Same here. They lie to follow the money. Like you, I follow my own experience that matches with scientists like Peter Attier.
Yeah. Since I went ketovore my weight had pretty much stabilized at 187 and I’m happy wearing my slim cut clothes. As long as I don’t eat too much cheese my belly is now pretty much under control! I forgot to mention Intermittent Fasting is very helpful if not essential.
While eating relatively healthy in a mainstream sense, I did extensive aerobic exercise throughout the week and couldn't lose an excess 60 lbs of body fat. But all that weight effortlessly disappeared when I went on a diet that was low-carb, whole foods, nutrient-dense, and animal-based. And entirely without any expectation, my decades of debilitating depression disappeared and never came back, while my energy, alertness, and focus has improved.
might make a good t-shirt but .. shows a larger problem with any study. interpretations that percolate out .. everything has to be course corrected. no one is allowed to be asleep @ the wheel, but that is what medicine has been doing. coasting along with broken knowledge (but thinking it all is perfect). 154 years of letting people consume margarine … (since 1869) and counting.
@@coffeemachtspassyep, so many epidemiological "studies" are essentially just paid infomercials at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some unscented Oxyclean for getting potential stains out of synthetic athletic gear but most of the As Seen on TV products are complete garbage, yet still presented with magic. It's way easier to make a knife look sharp if you can present the competitor's products as dull AF in comparison via relative risk or any other metric that achieves a similarly desirable effect. It's all in the magician's showcase.
Keto diet was the only diet that gave me back my life. I wasn’t terribly overweight, 145 lbs at 5’5’, though I did lose 25 lbs. My primary reason for trying low carb was poor physical and mental health. Keto diet helped me reverse symptoms of several debilitating autoimmune conditions including SLE, significantly improved my thyroid function, as well as mental health and cognition (depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, retention. The migraine headaches are less intense and less frequent. My sleep patterns have also improved to the point that I can wake up and feel refreshed, as opposed to needing 2 giant cups of coffee to just get out of the bed. I’m no longer on any medications for autoimmune conditions. 3 years free of symptoms and counting. Keto worked for me, however, I recognise that everyone is different. Last important point, I ate low carb but none of the processed low carb products you can find in grocery stores like bars, bread, pastas, keto shakes. Just real food. Namely grass-fed meat, clarified butter, eggs, kefir, wild caught fish and a few other things.
Glad you found something that worked so well for you! While this study was about weight/calories, keto is so much more than that! Not only to I believe you, but I lived it too...
@@nicknorwitzPhD Hi Nick. Is it getting rid of the carbs and processed food in the SAD that causes significant or even radical improvement in mental health, or do you think ketones also play a key role in that? Or both?
Hi Nick, thank you for all you do! I doing a carnivore diet for the last 9 months lost 40 lbs, now I'm down to 120.. choles 8.5, triglycerides 0.64, A1C 5.7 from pre diabetes 6.4. My doctor wants to give me stains, I refused and offering me the meds 4x during our conversation, 4X I refused.. he said he will refer me to a lipid doctor.. HE said I should not have that high cholesterol.. I said before my cholesterol was 2.4 because of statin and my triglycerides is 1.98.. I stopped taking statins because of muscle cramps. I told him just put on my record that I refused the statin meds..
Getting off nuts and other oxylate heavy plants like spinach was where the depression finally lifted for me (and no vegetable oils which are in many canned nuts may help). Mostly beef, eggs, chicken, pork, butter, cream and cheese. Brain clarity is so much better. No more brain fog. Things said to be healthy are almost always the opposite.
I'm so glad I found the Carnivore way of eating. I'm a better person inside and out for eating this way. Never eating the standard American Diet or plants again.
You need a "wash-in" as well otherwise the first low carb arm follows on from the habitual high carb modest fat diet (or a high carb run-in diet in some studies). Send the participants an Atkins book to follow for 2 weeks before they turn up. Without this every low carb period is immediately following a high carb one, but the high carb diet that occurs first in the sequence follows a very long high carb period.
I agree... the study had several flaws. We focus on one, which I thing was the biggest and misrepresented in the original study re looked for and didn't find diet carryover effects. Also, see the original paper supplement for diet design... you may be surprised...
I am sure the serious flaw in this study was no accident, but a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome. The establishment does not like the low carb diet for reasons unrelated to its actual effectiveness.
It's hard to know where "accident" and "intentional oversight" and bias design crossover -- see what I did there ;). In anywise, best to focus on the scientific arguments, which do not bend in the favor of the original study's conclusions.
The data is good and should not be thrown away because of poor interpretation, so allowing an opportunity to re-analyse and re-publish seems to be the best way to go.
That's an opinion. I think it could be workable were it very clear that the initial conclusions are incorrect. We have, in fact, provided a re-anlaysis with what in my opinion are more legitimate conclusions. Granted, it's quite obvious I'd hold an opinion in favor of our analysis because ... "duh" . You are of course at liberty to go as far down the rabbit hole as you want and come to your own conclusions. That's the point of open science
@nicknorwitzPhD your reanalysis is sound, I'm just thinking a retraction and reanalyais, which presumably would agree with your findings, may get a bigger circulation due to further exposure to the original audience. Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
This is all very interesting, because, Chris Macaskill gushed all over this report. At first not interested in it, he then pivoted when he saw Kevin Halls as first author, proclaiming that "He is pretty good"! Then, the second look exposed the " no wash out period " mistake and everyone was scambling. You are missing the point! Like Chris Gardner , the whole objective here is to get the paper out, with the authoritive headline,, ( appeal to authority), so that news outlets will run with the story. Opps, we can apologize later, AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE! Its a form of click bait. So, why isn't anyone pointing at the willful publication of the study, without catching this in review ,BEFORE RELEASE? Because, it serves the plant based biased agenda!
With respect, I don't think you appreciate the dynamics at play. Mistakes do happen. What's important now is to acknowledge the mistake and do the right thing. Professor Willett argues (and I agree) the original paper should be retracted. You'd be surprised how much a move like that can send a message. It would be no small thing. I will let you message stand, but please consider what it adds - or does not - to the conversation. Let's focus on the actual issues at hand and what can be done moving forward. Thanks.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Although it may get retracted, how much of a chance do you believe that retraction will get the media coverage that the original conclusion did?
Nic, thank you. I guess the fact that Chris got you and Walter Willet together is a very positive movement. You might take a look at Plantchompers latest offering on film about feeding the world Iin the future, seemed like some talking points there?
incredible: "impossible to believe." ... believe it... logic beats public perception of an individual's ideology. I call that a "W" for science and integrity
Willett also authored a metanalysis saying that an egg a day didn't have any health harms. He went into the study thinking it would cause health problems, and actually changed his mind. I think he has "some" integrity
interesting hypothesis... I do think there was bias in the design... but perhaps not that kind, explicitly... best to focus on the scientific arguments first before speculating in this way... please and thank you. Trust me, more productive...
@@nicknorwitzPhD just read some older Cochrane stuff and this accusation wouldn't surprise you. The science is full of paid research that has parametrics and cherry picked data designed for a predetermined conclusion. If they can't seemingly prove their hypothesis, the studies and data just get buried. It's just that most researchers and highly educated people in general hold biases and defense mechanisms that keep them from seeing the bigger picture. It's hard to accept the fact that you were trained by a corrupt self-serving system. Then there is the fact that most whistleblowers don't end up well.
Boom! You nailed it! Just like the three scientists out of Harvard that did a study saying that sugar was good for you and that you should reduce saturated fat... Look at what the f*** they did to America.. I think if we taught Americans the truth about sugar and saturated fat then we wouldn't have so many heart problems
Nick I went on Carnivore in desperation to deal with pain. It worked. I have nurse friends who said "Oh no honey you need carbs. I reintroduced carbs and now my pain level is back. Im going back to Carnivore and Ill keep monitoring my health.
I had the same experience. I have bad back issues. I can't sit on hard surfaces, I can't lift heavy object and bending over with throw my back out. I went carnivore and it was a few months before I notice my back hadn't bothered me. Then I didn't think about, maybe it was just a break, I thought. I had one cheat, it was a non carnivore hot dog, and within 2 days, threw my back out. I also became depressed, tired, irritable, couldn't sleep and other issues. I was crying the entire next day for no reason! It got better over the next week and it took that time to realize, that's how I always felt before going carnivore. So it wasn't just my back. My back, which usually takes a month to get over, took 5 days and I was fully functioning. So there is something to this way of eating.
Had the same when am old friend & I wanted to meet but the only place with a table was a pizza place. The next day I was back to being crippled with arthritis head to foot, something I had been freed from on carnivore. I was shocked as I thought a single meal would not be such a massive fail. It took a week to get back to "normal".
I've been teaching logic for 3 decades... many people complain that 'arguments don't actually change minds', and that's true for the most part. But that's because, for the most part, arguments are weak, or they have equally strong counter arguments. Nick is having success with arguments because his premises are powerful and clear, and he listens to counter arguments and has concessions ready when appropriate. Good faith listeners respect that, and so his arguments actually change minds... or at least pry them open.
Yes, precisely, as with many things in life, the 'how' can be more important than the 'what' or 'why'. Your approach often determines whether or not the adjacent party is going to be listening 'in good faith', often more so than their own preconceived notions. The hard part is staying consistent in your messaging, tone, and clarity; we are all only human after all, so let's hope the messaging of the work being conducted stays as on point as the science itself.
People don't read the old books. Viljamur Steffanson, the famous Arctic explorer in the early 1900s, said it took six months for members of his Arctic expeditions to change from their conventional diet to living off the land. Those who had been in the Arctic less than six months would revert to their original diet if given the opportunity, such as on a whaling ship eating pancakes and syrup in the crew mess, while those over six months in the Arctic had adapted to seal, fish, caribou etc and had no desire to return to their standard diet.
Many people suggest implementing a change for 3 months with the idea that is long enough to establish a new habit. But whether or not that is true in many cases, maybe it's different for diet and particularly for a diet that is highly addictive.
Nice recap. I read the original study when it came out and was surprised by the results. It's a shame that such an expensive study made such a basic mistake -- I get that it's difficult to schedule a washout period, but if you are going through all the trouble of having patients in a metabolic ward, you can't cut corners elsewhere. Even without a washout period they should have done the sort of carryover analysis you folks did later.
Agreed. It was particularly surprising that in the original paper they state they looked for and did not find evidence of diet carryover effects, but did not substantiate the claim with any tests. They have since tried to claim they were talking about "within subject diet carryover effects" vs between group. But, as explained in the video, this is nonsensical
100%. I was like, great discussion, but why are they practically snuggling on the couch and not even looking at each other when they speak. Is it a keto thing?
Peer review isn't perfect. That said, I was surprised the reviewers/journal didn't require inclusion of tests supporting the claim that they looked for and didn't find diet carryover effects. Clearly, this wasn't done properly.
When my wife was diagnosed with cancer I ask the Dr about getting a second opinion. I was shown the diagnosis paper work from the lab it had several signatures agreeing it was cancer. Sorry getting people to agree on something that are on the same team is not an objective second opinion. I have no faith in scientist or doctors. Might as well ad politicians and CEO's. Too much money to be made.
Absolutely! I've been contemplating doing a UA-cam course on scientific literacy and/or mythology... just need to come up with the right set of topics. It would also be great to teach through "cases" like this... thinking it over.
I always found this one perplexing. In working with thousands of people some degree of carb capping has proven to be a remarkable tool in aiding appetite control. Clearly that effect may not extend to everyone, but it’s remarkably consistent.
As an aside, have you seen the diet design of the original study? It did make me giggle that ad lib roasted salted nuts counts as animal based low carb 😂
I remember noticing the ad lib snacking on nuts and thought that could explain the 700 cal difference ..... I also noticed that the vegan group ate a lot more food (in weight) and spent a lot more time eating so the conclusion that vegan food was more satieting did not make any sense to me.@@nicknorwitzPhD
You can’t store fat without insulin. Keto/low carb done right lowers insulin. It unlocks fat stores to be finally used when needed. The higher fat satiates and for longer. It’s hard to screw up a diet that doesn’t make you fight against your addictions and survival mechanisms.
@@nicknorwitzPhD one point that I also noticed is that a lot less food was consumed on the keto diet....so it was more satieting than the plant based diet after all. I bet that the caloric difference was coming from the ad lib snacking on very addictive nuts.
I'll go with the randomised uncontrolled trial that has been conducted over 3,000,000 years with billions of participants showing that man has survived incredibly successfully with a mainly carnivore diet.
We can learn a lot from evolution... I suppose natural selection is a parallel arm RCT of sorts... not saying we have been carny for 3M years though... lol... I know my natural history butter than that
I wonder if the weight lost on the low carb diet from years ago (ref end of the conversation) was fat or muscle (or water). The other issue is sustainability of the diet not just short term results
Fascinating! Thanks Nick. I've seen so much on both sides of low-carb and low-fat diets, but nothing has been able to convince me better than your analyses, explanation of the mechanisms, and logical reasoning. I appreciate your work so much. Cheers!
Some kind of flag - like don’t believe the study because it’s flawed and meaningless . Or just redact the trial and stop the BS attacking low carb diets.
Very insightful vid thank you. At 8:56 was this statistically significant in your reanalysis? Are you aware of any other metabolic ward studies comparing the two diet patterns that were more approriately structured?
Love the diagram explanation, i know that explanation was for people like me 😂 Huge respect now for a washout period in these metabolic studies, well spotted too 👊😎
Exactly. But we're apparently brainwashed and "don't understand." 😂. Fat cals are dense, so having fewer of them, only what's necessary to maintain hormonal function accomplishes a similar task to low carb. Only we're not switching systems. What about those who diet and train? They're getting worse results because they're not keto? I don't think so. Most of keto is water weight coming off, then a fair amount of muscle mass before fat. This isn't even including the LISS vs HIIT cardio information. So many factors that aren't combined or thought about combining. Now I'll end my tangent. 😅
well now 😯... I don't think we can assume intent, and it's certainly hard to prove. The conclusions are misleading, but was it the intent of the team to mislead? I suppose we'll never know. Prison seems a bit "much," no?
I guess if anything that can be usefully gleaned from this paper it is that; if you rapidly switch from low fat to high fat diet, don't expect positive results in the short term.
Especially when then high fat diet is you locked in a ward with unlimited access to roasted salted nuts and a snacking habit built from a high carb diet to which you metabolism is adapted.
“People aren’t corrupted,” but they just always tend to lean towards one way only: against animal-based and for high-carb plant-based diets. What are the statistics on that being the outcome without influence or selective thinking? It seems to be very intentional.
I am not speaking here about the entire body of literature, which does have a bias... I'm talking about one paper that is flawed. But it's am important topic to address nevertheless.
Maybe we have to work on the evidence base so what most people consider "common sense" begins to shift. Right now, common sense based in physiology isn't all the common.
Brilliant work exposing the major errors here, and fantastic seeing a scientist as respected as Willett, who no one could ressonably accuse of being pro-low carb, call the study, and studies like it in general, "worse than useless" Sadly I fear on a mass scale, the damage has been done. That study got a lot of traction, and has been used by very high profile figures to trash low-carb and/or promote low fat. I fear only nutrition nerds like us will see this
That's one perspective. Another would be now is a great time to course correct, highlight the mistakes made and put pressure on "science" to correct the record. You can guess at what "" means.
@@nicknorwitzPhDWell when the reanalysis first came out the shifty powers that be managed to get the mainstream media to repromote the original flawed study instead of promoting the reanalysis. What does this tell us about the ability to course correct on these issues? Yes there were other metrics of engagement that were high regarding the reanalysis through social media but that was entirely through the low carb community not the establishment and legacy media
@@rahvastepaabel Yes... there was a copy and paste job for a comically poorly written cover story to ~28 different news outlets. Possibly engineered to Boost what's called the Altmetric score, for which the reanalysis was about the exceed the original paper -- in the end it did anyway. It's was certainly an "odd" development. Not really meaningful though...
Yeah. There's nobody promoting biased high fat high animal protein diets. Oh wait a minute the meat lobby is one trillion dollar industry, ditto eggs and dairy. The problems with high fat have been known for 60 years and these industries have come up with sweet fa. Asians went from high carb to high animal protein in one generation and diabetes went up five-fold. Rice consumption (carbs) went down. Lots of studies show weight correlates with animal protein. Super carnivore Shawn Baker has put on 20 pounds including 10 pounds of fat and his athletic performance (adjusting for weight gain) has fallen significantly in just five years.
It's in the methods of the original paper in the supplements. Honestly, pretty unappealing looking to me. Breaded chicken on romaine lettuce, broccoli Alfredo, and roast salted nuts were all part of the "animal-based" keto diet... pretty silly.
That's mostly on social media. Those big names I've met IRL, e.g. Walter Willett and also Chris, are absolutely lovely people IRL... I doubt I could say the same of the "Final Vegan Boss" ... if you know, you know.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yes the final vegan boss is beyond reason. So glad to hear that people on the other side of the aisle are willing to engage in polite scientific discussions!
Totally agree with the washout period being a necessity for this type of study. 2 weeks is ridiculous for any nutritional study. Most lay persons that really have no interest in science will understand that premise. Way to go exposing the short-comings of this study!
@Nicholas Norwitz PhD in a 90 day period, what would be an optimal wash out period prior to restarting a new protocol? ie. 90 days strict carnivore then a week relaxed for a week then start a High Protein, Low carb, Low fat diet?
@@nicknorwitzPhD I saw his take your Oreo v. Statin study - it seems like as much as he tries to preach that he's not wedded to ideology but the science... there's definitely some ideological affinity there.
My diet is mainly a dozen eggs a day, white rice, fruit, & a little fatty fish every now & then. Im 47 & been eating like this over 15 years. Im relatively high fat & high carb😅
If it works for you, who am I or anyone else to tell you differently? I'm not here to say "you should." I'm here to make you say "Oh, well that's interesting?" ... that's my main mission :)
My weight would be up because I'd be shoveling more and more white rice and fruit after the first helping. Carbs drive carb cravings for me. Unless I just accepted a life of miserable hunger and deprivation. No mention of weight in OP. Or muscle mass.
We don't need more studies, we just need to know which nutrients/toxins in what amounts are in our food supply. How hard is it to get some beef and corn for eg analysed for nutrition content to compare which one is literally more nutritious.
So what? The headlines already went out. The damage is done. The only people who will ever see the corrections are the tiny minority that are already open towards low carb eating. The rest of the masses stay propagandized. I guess we need to grass-roots harder because the top-down approach seems utterly captured. Share the links.
If you want to follow in X, there are links to the reanalysis and LTE and response to the LTE, here: x.com/nicknorwitz/status/1777721380412232016. This video was about sharing WW's opinion. As for "the damage is done." What if - as Prof WW advocates - the paper is retracted. That sends a very strong message.
@@nicknorwitzPhD It sends a strong message *_to whom?_* Low carb advocates will spread the message among the low carb community which constitutes " preaching to the choir" - we already know these sort of nutritional studies are often notoriously misleading. Do you think that the mega-platforms like the major news outlets are going to publicize the retraction? Of course not. They blast out the headlines but won't touch the news of retraction. Or, if they do, it will come in the form of an unannounced note being added to the written versions of the story. Using low-carb eating I've reversed my prediabetes, dropped 65lbs of fat, brought my blood markers into ideal ranges, and broken through chronic depression but my mom is still worried about me and sends me the headlines from CNN claiming that what I am doing is going to make my heart explode. The propaganda is so effective that it overrides her actual sensory input; she can see that my body has gone through a total recomposition but the significance of it cannot penetrate. It wears me out. Anyway, I'm in a bad mood. Probably shouldn't be commenting in this state of mind. I'm gonna' go do some sprints or something. Keep up the good work, homie.
What would a washout period entail? I mean, after the initial two weeks.. what should have happened or been done to make the next phase legitimate? My thinking is both groups would have eaten whatever they wanted for a couple weeks, and then restart the on LCD or LFD course?
There should have been a run-in period with some dietary control, then a longer LCD or LFD arm then probably a several week / > month washout before the next diet phase, which - again- should have been >2 weeks.
Dr Norwitz.... Love your insight! Regardless of they push plant based diet, what really matters is..... How does this affect the body. It goes beyond weight. Right? When it's been proven that ketogenic diet has a positive effect on brain function.... how is that disputable? And then there is the visceral fat angel. There is so much to calculate into everything.
You're right. There is more to keto than weight. However, in any given study there is a main outcome you're studying. In this case, the conclusions regarding the main outcome were misleading. Our re-analysis corrects the record.
I've been toying with a Keto diet, mainly in a likely doomed effort to boost a lukewarm IQ. Stumbled upon a method to up my fat intake; double cream with everything, I down around four tubs per week or 5000 calories, my weight after a year of this is ... unchanged. Aside from an often failed attempt to eat less cake I still eat plenty of other stuff. Dunno if I'm in ketosis or not, and I'm likely as stoopid as ever, my main point is that eating calorie dense food, ie fat, don't necessarily make you fat.
First off- major kudos to dr norwitz to even get an interview with dr willet. And then to gently pin his ears back a bit on the results of this study. Dr. Willet and Dr. Hall had a video when this first came out making it sound like this study was the final word. Nice to see dr. Willet actually took a second look and changed his opinion.
Yes he was very clear… “worse than useless” … I’ve found the X dialogue around this study increasingly disappointing. But I’m glad Professor Willett not only sees reason on this matter but was willing to go public and be clear about his stance
it's nice that they were able to run a pretty robust RCT. but two week periods back-to-back? it almost seems so badly designed it must have been intentionally so. Poor WW is probably gonna get railed for this, I wonder if some "clarification statement" blaming Nick for taking him out of context or something will be forthcoming.
I think Mitochondria take more then a day to most efficiently “change gears” in extracting energy from significantly different macro nutrient ration in diet. Is this why a wash out period is needed at the metabolic level?
Yes. There was then a back and forth with a letter to the editor by the original team and a response. The final of the re-analysis was released in the April issue of Journal of Nutrition. It seems more and more people are coming around and realizing just how flawed and misleading the original study was... x.com/nicknorwitz/status/1778748154101252314
Might be this: I had to rerecord the intro bit on my Rode mics and I think I didn't change stereo to mono, which means it might be coming out of one side... so if that side if faulty it might lead to overall decreased sound. Sorry. I have new tech I'm getting used to. Sadly, I can't make adjustments to audio after posting. As this channel matures, will haver fewer little blips like this. All still very new to me.
Ha. Well having peer reviewed a fair few papers, I can tell you it's not a perfect process. But, yes, I'd hope Nature Medicine can generally do better/find better reviewers who wouldn't let what slipped by in this case slip by. Nevertheless, there will never be a perfect process...
Do you publish these on rumble as well? Rumble has a drive mode so I can listen as a podcast without my screen on my phone being on. UA-cam charges a premium for this feature.
Use identical twins in each cohort, after a set (preceding) baseline diet. Could leave it there, but to elaborate more on diet cross-over & wash-out period effects, repeat the original study process with these twins. But how would this 2nd arm contribute to the broader "real-world" topic of specific macro-nutrient diets (LC vs LF) on weight (loss or gain) & overall human health? Maybe a little with dietetic advice re. switching from one extreme macro nutrient diet to another, ie short-term effects, but otherwise very little. But these metabolic ward studies were never designed to be used in isolation, are targeted on the mechanistics, & combined with many other fields on nutrition and metabolic health, contribute to the totality of knowledge.
@@nicknorwitzPhD It's 10 sets of twins (20 participants ) doing 28 days on a single diet, not 14 days. Yet using the exact amount of resources. That's the difference. From memory, I think the metabolic ward facilities have room for two participants (maybe three?) per day. So the data collection phase is not a trial running for 28 days, but over 10 months. Now think of the extra days & costs involved if adding a washout period, sandwiched between two separate diets. How many days before participants reached baseline again? Could the costs be justified? The original study was not research on crossover RCTs, but a RCT with a crossover. Yeah, it would be interesting, & may be beneficial at an academic level (& for setting trial standards), but that's a hell of a lot more days & costs involved with running the metabolic ward.
Yep… a discussion of nuance…. Something 99% of the internet just will not get…. Your opinion may be that Willet is wrong about red meat (me too) but that does not make him a bad person….
Absolutely. Also there's greater nuance here as we would need to define what one means by "bad?" Bad in what respect? For health, in general? Then - yes - we may not see entirely eye to eye. On conservation/planetary matters I'll admit he's far more informed than I am. And that's not a matter about which I'm flippant. But topic for another time. I'm actively learning in that arena, even if it's not something I teach about publicly. But it's important. And - yes - in all my interactions he's been very polite, respectful, and overall pleasant.
There are a lot of issues in farming and agriculture and I view neither being better than the other. I live in NZ where the raising of livestock is almost 100% grass based and that raises issues about methane (oh boy is that a topic for another day!), however, with industrial scale cropping the issue is monocultural crops that deplete the soil and kill many, many small animals and insects…. So trade offs abound!!
@@nicknorwitzPhD Keep up the great work Nick! I predict You, Dave and your other collaborators will be worthy of a NOBEL prize for taking on the establishment 🫡
The thing that bothers me the most is that the need for washout is well understood, so specific analysis would be required to say that the lack of washout in this study didn't effect the results. How did both the authors AND the reviewers miss what the re-analysis found? Lots of poor quality science and poor reviewing in the journals unfortunately.
@@nicknorwitzPhD exactly -- I would think the original reviewer in the peer review process should say "you made a claim with no backup as far the lack of a washout period. Provide evidence." This was peer reviewed, right? Who were the reviewers that missed this?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Doing this interview, and saying what he said, given his history, shows he is a true person of science. Kudos to him for doing it, and kudos to Nick for producing this video. I'm glad there are people in world that do the right thing.
"Ate food containing chemical bonds that are broken in metabolic processes to yield ATP, directly, and indirectly via generated electron carriers (NADH and FADH2) that pass electrons into CI and CII of the ETC in the mitochondrial membrane to generate energy through chemiosmosis." ... better?
@Miraak186 This is the problem when people like you can't differentiate between colloquial communication and communication that is more technical. The word ''calories'' is a great word because it gets the point across and it's a word that people can easily understand. This is not a sign of Nick not knowing what he talks about, it's a sign of him trying to make things easy to understand for his viewers. Starting to see the problem?
Lost 40lb in 4 months easy with low carb leaning carnivore and not really restricting calories that's a huge part of it, sans calorie restriction.... Better energy all day, leaner than I've ever been, supplementing lots of fish oil and MCT oil and bulletproof coffee too
I'd add another point. Whatever one thinks of carbs, it's without a doubt that not all fatty acids are the same. Even within a single category like PUFAs, there is great diversity of effects between canola oil and fish oil. I once came across a short but fascinating video. Someone caught Walter Willett admitting that seed oils were unhealthy. His only qualification was that he thought animal fats and saturated fats were worse. But he didn't further qualify that some saturated animal fats are proven healthy (e.g., stearic acid). Still, that was an amazing admission. I've rarely come across plant-based advocates who will openly and honestly state such a basic point. I'd love it if we could finally get to the point where everyone would at least agree that seed oils are harmful.
@@Charity-l5g Religion operates on faith, not data. By definition a religion doesn't require data and faith can be cited over data if it fits the world view.
@@nicknorwitzPhD "Religion operates on faith, not data." Yeah. That's exactly how the food pyramid fits itself into "religion". But the owners of the food pyramid also owns the wealth so created.
Sorry to be so honest. But there is something about Walter Willett that my soul does not trust. He may be famous, intelligent, established and respected and I would guess wealthy but I do not trust his opinion. Sorry Walter, maybe you could explain to me and others why I feel that way?
maybe it's because he's a militant anti-meat, plant-based proselytizer who's received funding from vegetarian groups and pharmaceutical companies. or maybe you're just biased against him...
I think it's important to recognize that big names are often caricaturized by headlines. I don't agree with Professor Willett on everything, but we certainly align on the opinion that - in the case of this study - a methodological flaw makes the original conclusions invalid. In other words, the prior claim based on these data that eating low-fat plant-based leads to less energy intake and more weight loss than a low-carb diet is misleading. I wonder if you agree?
Why do you think cultists can explain their religious beliefs? Cultists are cultists because they do not know they are cultists, or they do not understand their own theology. A high priest of veganism cult can explain their beliefs without gaslighting you or misleading you? It’s impossible. It’s just how cults work, any of them. No one wants to be in a cult, it’s just they do not know they are in a cult.
@@chuckleezodiac24 What if I told you he - rarely - eat red meat, but eats it nonetheless? I don't think he's ever claimed to be vegan. He does have opinions with which you may not agree. That's fine. But why don't we focus on the arguments at hand with respect to this trial and re-analysis. Here, Prof Willett is stating that a study promoting the energy balance model and a plant-based diet was flawed and he calls for retraction. The question is, based on the arguments presented, do you agree or not?
Timestamped summary The study comparing low-fat and low-carb diets was fundamentally flawed and should be retracted due to potential carryover effects and misleading results. 📉 00:00 The study comparing low-fat and low-carb diets was fundamentally flawed and should be retracted. 🔍 01:25 Eating less on a low-fat diet led to more weight loss than on a low-carb diet, contradicting the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity, and a study on low-carb vs low-fat diets was found to have significant flaws upon reexamination. Expand 🥦 03:15 One diet can affect the intervention that follows, and this study did not include a wash out period, leading to potential diet carryover effects. 🔍 03:57 The low-carb vs low-fat study was invalidated due to a flaw in not accounting for potential carryover effects between diets, which the speaker finds nonsensical and not informative. Expand 📊 06:15 The reanalysis of the low-carb vs low-fat study shows that the low-fat diet was effectively stealing credit from the low-carb diet. 🔍 07:55 The order in which low carb and low fat diets are introduced has a larger impact than the diets themselves, with the low carb diet showing a trend of eating fewer calories after adaptation, making the results of the study misleading and invalidating. Expand 🚩 10:20 Retraction and reanalysis of the study is necessary due to fundamental flaws and red flags in the literature, highlighting the importance of scientific correction processes. Expand 📉 12:10 Low-fat diets may result in short-term weight loss, but longer-term studies show that the weight loss is not sustained, making the investment in this kind of study useless and even misleading.
I'm not sure if this was generated with AI? It's an okay summary, but not perfect. For now, I will leave it in case some find it useful. But if it appears to be creating confusion on a few points on which the wording is imprecise, I may opt to remove to prompt people to watch the video. I already have timestamps anyway. But - for now - I will leave it.
Fabulous. I love how you get into the nooks and crannies of how carbs and low fat are being protected. Please do much more of this! ❤❤❤
I’ll do what I think is productive. This was.
@@nicknorwitzPhDwould you be prepared to respond to Physionics videos about his assesments of low carb diet being dangerous to cardiovascular health? He seems to be cherry picking studies
@@robgrantham911 I've been on his channel already. Have a listen to that episode. Is there a specific video you'd like me to review?
I don't care what the paper supposedly proves! I did low fat for 50 years like the "experts told me". Always over weight and struggling to comply. Now at 71 I am maintaining my lowest body fat since 7th grade EFFORTLESSLY ON LOW CARB!!! Finally not struggling.
Happy to hear it. In this case, the "revision" of the science would align with your experience
Cool! 😎 Proof that nutrition studies are pointless!
These"experts" at some random university thinks that you should eat low-fat and high carbs....
Yet people are healing themselves and removing body fat percentage by going on low carb and high fat diet.
I'm so happy that humans aren't listening to experts at universities
"I don't care what the paper supposedly proves" Same here. They lie to follow the money. Like you, I follow my own experience that matches with scientists like Peter Attier.
Yeah. Since I went ketovore my weight had pretty much stabilized at 187 and I’m happy wearing my slim cut clothes. As long as I don’t eat too much cheese my belly is now pretty much under control! I forgot to mention Intermittent Fasting is very helpful if not essential.
While eating relatively healthy in a mainstream sense, I did extensive aerobic exercise throughout the week and couldn't lose an excess 60 lbs of body fat. But all that weight effortlessly disappeared when I went on a diet that was low-carb, whole foods, nutrient-dense, and animal-based. And entirely without any expectation, my decades of debilitating depression disappeared and never came back, while my energy, alertness, and focus has improved.
Thanks! Good quote: "Worse than useless; misleading"
Strong words. But accurate in my opinion
I think the same of nutritional epidemiology start to finish. “Worse than useless; misleading, yet EXTRAORDINARILY profitable for food manufacturers.”
might make a good t-shirt
but .. shows a larger problem with any study. interpretations that percolate out .. everything has to be course corrected.
no one is allowed to be asleep @ the wheel, but that is what medicine has been doing. coasting along with broken knowledge (but thinking it all is perfect).
154 years of letting people consume margarine … (since 1869) and counting.
@@coffeemachtspassyep, so many epidemiological "studies" are essentially just paid infomercials at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some unscented Oxyclean for getting potential stains out of synthetic athletic gear but most of the As Seen on TV products are complete garbage, yet still presented with magic.
It's way easier to make a knife look sharp if you can present the competitor's products as dull AF in comparison via relative risk or any other metric that achieves a similarly desirable effect. It's all in the magician's showcase.
Keto diet was the only diet that gave me back my life. I wasn’t terribly overweight, 145 lbs at 5’5’, though I did lose 25 lbs. My primary reason for trying low carb was poor physical and mental health. Keto diet helped me reverse symptoms of several debilitating autoimmune conditions including SLE, significantly improved my thyroid function, as well as mental health and cognition (depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, retention. The migraine headaches are less intense and less frequent. My sleep patterns have also improved to the point that I can wake up and feel refreshed, as opposed to needing 2 giant cups of coffee to just get out of the bed. I’m no longer on any medications for autoimmune conditions. 3 years free of symptoms and counting.
Keto worked for me, however, I recognise that everyone is different. Last important point, I ate low carb but none of the processed low carb products you can find in grocery stores like bars, bread, pastas, keto shakes. Just real food. Namely grass-fed meat, clarified butter, eggs, kefir, wild caught fish and a few other things.
Glad you found something that worked so well for you! While this study was about weight/calories, keto is so much more than that! Not only to I believe you, but I lived it too...
@@nicknorwitzPhD Hi Nick. Is it getting rid of the carbs and processed food in the SAD that causes significant or even radical improvement in mental health, or do you think ketones also play a key role in that? Or both?
Hi Nick, thank you for all you do! I doing a carnivore diet for the last 9 months lost 40 lbs, now I'm down to 120.. choles 8.5, triglycerides 0.64, A1C 5.7 from pre diabetes 6.4. My doctor wants to give me stains, I refused and offering me the meds 4x during our conversation, 4X I refused.. he said he will refer me to a lipid doctor.. HE said I should not have that high cholesterol.. I said before my cholesterol was 2.4 because of statin and my triglycerides is 1.98.. I stopped taking statins because of muscle cramps. I told him just put on my record that I refused the statin meds..
Getting off nuts and other oxylate heavy plants like spinach was where the depression finally lifted for me (and no vegetable oils which are in many canned nuts may help). Mostly beef, eggs, chicken, pork, butter, cream and cheese. Brain clarity is so much better. No more brain fog. Things said to be healthy are almost always the opposite.
What a bully! I would never be able to trust that "doctor" again. @@thelmamendoza1147
I'm so glad I found the Carnivore way of eating. I'm a better person inside and out for eating this way. Never eating the standard American Diet or plants again.
I'm happy you're happy :)
As always. Appreciate your perspective. Going low-carb changed my life for the better.
Glad to hear it :)
You need a "wash-in" as well otherwise the first low carb arm follows on from the habitual high carb modest fat diet (or a high carb run-in diet in some studies). Send the participants an Atkins book to follow for 2 weeks before they turn up. Without this every low carb period is immediately following a high carb one, but the high carb diet that occurs first in the sequence follows a very long high carb period.
I agree... the study had several flaws. We focus on one, which I thing was the biggest and misrepresented in the original study re looked for and didn't find diet carryover effects. Also, see the original paper supplement for diet design... you may be surprised...
@@nicknorwitzPhD indeed. They also failed to maintain weight in the LF arm presumably due to the indigestible nature of the foods.
Good job Nick keep up the good work
Appreciate you. Will do!
I am sure the serious flaw in this study was no accident, but a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome. The establishment does not like the low carb diet for reasons unrelated to its actual effectiveness.
It's hard to know where "accident" and "intentional oversight" and bias design crossover -- see what I did there ;). In anywise, best to focus on the scientific arguments, which do not bend in the favor of the original study's conclusions.
The data is good and should not be thrown away because of poor interpretation, so allowing an opportunity to re-analyse and re-publish seems to be the best way to go.
That's an opinion. I think it could be workable were it very clear that the initial conclusions are incorrect. We have, in fact, provided a re-anlaysis with what in my opinion are more legitimate conclusions. Granted, it's quite obvious I'd hold an opinion in favor of our analysis because ... "duh" . You are of course at liberty to go as far down the rabbit hole as you want and come to your own conclusions. That's the point of open science
@nicknorwitzPhD your reanalysis is sound, I'm just thinking a retraction and reanalyais, which presumably would agree with your findings, may get a bigger circulation due to further exposure to the original audience. Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
This is all very interesting, because, Chris Macaskill gushed all over this report. At first not interested in it, he then pivoted when he saw Kevin Halls as first author, proclaiming that "He is pretty good"! Then, the second look exposed the " no wash out period " mistake and everyone was scambling. You are missing the point! Like Chris Gardner , the whole objective here is to get the paper out, with the authoritive headline,, ( appeal to authority), so that news outlets will run with the story. Opps, we can apologize later, AFTER THE DAMAGE IS DONE! Its a form of click bait. So, why isn't anyone pointing at the willful publication of the study, without catching this in review ,BEFORE RELEASE? Because, it serves the plant based biased agenda!
With respect, I don't think you appreciate the dynamics at play. Mistakes do happen. What's important now is to acknowledge the mistake and do the right thing. Professor Willett argues (and I agree) the original paper should be retracted. You'd be surprised how much a move like that can send a message. It would be no small thing. I will let you message stand, but please consider what it adds - or does not - to the conversation. Let's focus on the actual issues at hand and what can be done moving forward. Thanks.
Yes, this is all by design. The powers that be 'must' demonize keto & elevate plant-based propaganda. They knew what they were doing. It's digusting.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Although it may get retracted, how much of a chance do you believe that retraction will get the media coverage that the original conclusion did?
Nic, thank you. I guess the fact that Chris got you and Walter Willet together is a very positive movement. You might take a look at Plantchompers latest offering on film about feeding the world Iin the future, seemed like some talking points there?
So even Walter Willett of all people is literally saying the Kevin Hall paper is so bad _it should be retracted?_ That is incredible.
incredible: "impossible to believe." ... believe it... logic beats public perception of an individual's ideology. I call that a "W" for science and integrity
Willett also authored a metanalysis saying that an egg a day didn't have any health harms. He went into the study thinking it would cause health problems, and actually changed his mind. I think he has "some" integrity
It wasn't a mistake. They arrived at the conclusion that they were paid to find.
interesting hypothesis... I do think there was bias in the design... but perhaps not that kind, explicitly... best to focus on the scientific arguments first before speculating in this way... please and thank you. Trust me, more productive...
@@nicknorwitzPhD just read some older Cochrane stuff and this accusation wouldn't surprise you. The science is full of paid research that has parametrics and cherry picked data designed for a predetermined conclusion. If they can't seemingly prove their hypothesis, the studies and data just get buried. It's just that most researchers and highly educated people in general hold biases and defense mechanisms that keep them from seeing the bigger picture. It's hard to accept the fact that you were trained by a corrupt self-serving system. Then there is the fact that most whistleblowers don't end up well.
@@nicknorwitzPhD agree they can say the same thing about our position, better stay focused on the arguments and evidence.
Boom! You nailed it! Just like the three scientists out of Harvard that did a study saying that sugar was good for you and that you should reduce saturated fat... Look at what the f*** they did to America..
I think if we taught Americans the truth about sugar and saturated fat then we wouldn't have so many heart problems
@@nicknorwitzPhD that's a shockingly ignorant reply
Nick I went on Carnivore in desperation to deal with pain. It worked. I have nurse friends who said "Oh no honey you need carbs. I reintroduced carbs and now my pain level is back. Im going back to Carnivore and Ill keep monitoring my health.
Her claim goes against physiology and your experience. So...
"I reintroduce carbs and the pain is back". I have the same experience. People may lie. My own experience on my own pain doesn't lie.
I had the same experience. I have bad back issues. I can't sit on hard surfaces, I can't lift heavy object and bending over with throw my back out. I went carnivore and it was a few months before I notice my back hadn't bothered me. Then I didn't think about, maybe it was just a break, I thought. I had one cheat, it was a non carnivore hot dog, and within 2 days, threw my back out. I also became depressed, tired, irritable, couldn't sleep and other issues. I was crying the entire next day for no reason! It got better over the next week and it took that time to realize, that's how I always felt before going carnivore. So it wasn't just my back. My back, which usually takes a month to get over, took 5 days and I was fully functioning. So there is something to this way of eating.
I bad one cheat too. My peripheral neuropthy immediately came back with a vengeance.
Had the same when am old friend & I wanted to meet but the only place with a table was a pizza place. The next day I was back to being crippled with arthritis head to foot, something I had been freed from on carnivore. I was shocked as I thought a single meal would not be such a massive fail. It took a week to get back to "normal".
I've been teaching logic for 3 decades... many people complain that 'arguments don't actually change minds', and that's true for the most part. But that's because, for the most part, arguments are weak, or they have equally strong counter arguments. Nick is having success with arguments because his premises are powerful and clear, and he listens to counter arguments and has concessions ready when appropriate. Good faith listeners respect that, and so his arguments actually change minds... or at least pry them open.
❤ love this ❤
Yes, precisely, as with many things in life, the 'how' can be more important than the 'what' or 'why'. Your approach often determines whether or not the adjacent party is going to be listening 'in good faith', often more so than their own preconceived notions. The hard part is staying consistent in your messaging, tone, and clarity; we are all only human after all, so let's hope the messaging of the work being conducted stays as on point as the science itself.
Hey, what do you mean when you say you teach logic?
"Arguments don't change kinds." You are so right. But what change minds other than "following the money" ?
Your OWN experience in Keto is your best Arguments. I buy your experience.
People don't read the old books. Viljamur Steffanson, the famous Arctic explorer in the early 1900s, said it took six months for members of his Arctic expeditions to change from their conventional diet to living off the land. Those who had been in the Arctic less than six months would revert to their original diet if given the opportunity, such as on a whaling ship eating pancakes and syrup in the crew mess, while those over six months in the Arctic had adapted to seal, fish, caribou etc and had no desire to return to their standard diet.
Many people suggest implementing a change for 3 months with the idea that is long enough to establish a new habit. But whether or not that is true in many cases, maybe it's different for diet and particularly for a diet that is highly addictive.
Nice recap. I read the original study when it came out and was surprised by the results. It's a shame that such an expensive study made such a basic mistake -- I get that it's difficult to schedule a washout period, but if you are going through all the trouble of having patients in a metabolic ward, you can't cut corners elsewhere. Even without a washout period they should have done the sort of carryover analysis you folks did later.
Agreed. It was particularly surprising that in the original paper they state they looked for and did not find evidence of diet carryover effects, but did not substantiate the claim with any tests. They have since tried to claim they were talking about "within subject diet carryover effects" vs between group. But, as explained in the video, this is nonsensical
make no mistake, they wanted a certain outcome
I had the wrong glasses on, and at first, thought you two were sitting right next to each other 😂
Split screen is a lovely thing. He's like 6'3 or 6'4" though so thankfully we weren't ;).
@@nicknorwitzPhD Imagine talking with Dr Shawn Baker!
@@chargermopar Similar height. Much "wider"
100%. I was like, great discussion, but why are they practically snuggling on the couch and not even looking at each other when they speak. Is it a keto thing?
@@nicknorwitzPhD Then there is me 6'6" tall and very thin!!!
How does studies like this get past the peer review process? Are they just rubber stamped by their colleagues?
Peer review isn't perfect. That said, I was surprised the reviewers/journal didn't require inclusion of tests supporting the claim that they looked for and didn't find diet carryover effects. Clearly, this wasn't done properly.
When my wife was diagnosed with cancer I ask the Dr about getting a second opinion. I was shown the diagnosis paper work from the lab it had several signatures agreeing it was cancer. Sorry getting people to agree on something that are on the same team is not an objective second opinion. I have no faith in scientist or doctors. Might as well ad politicians and CEO's. Too much money to be made.
Another video to use with our students re diet research methodology. Thank you to both Nick and Walter for the illuminating discussion.
Absolutely! I've been contemplating doing a UA-cam course on scientific literacy and/or mythology... just need to come up with the right set of topics. It would also be great to teach through "cases" like this... thinking it over.
Keep holding their feet to the fire, Nick! You are making an important contribution and a tremendous difference.
I always found this one perplexing. In working with thousands of people some degree of carb capping has proven to be a remarkable tool in aiding appetite control. Clearly that effect may not extend to everyone, but it’s remarkably consistent.
As an aside, have you seen the diet design of the original study? It did make me giggle that ad lib roasted salted nuts counts as animal based low carb 😂
I remember noticing the ad lib snacking on nuts and thought that could explain the 700 cal difference ..... I also noticed that the vegan group ate a lot more food (in weight) and spent a lot more time eating so the conclusion that vegan food was more satieting did not make any sense to me.@@nicknorwitzPhD
You can’t store fat without insulin. Keto/low carb done right lowers insulin. It unlocks fat stores to be finally used when needed. The higher fat satiates and for longer. It’s hard to screw up a diet that doesn’t make you fight against your addictions and survival mechanisms.
@@nicknorwitzPhD one point that I also noticed is that a lot less food was consumed on the keto diet....so it was more satieting than the plant based diet after all. I bet that the caloric difference was coming from the ad lib snacking on very addictive nuts.
🤔
Great work! Clear, concise, and articulate. Keep pushing Nick, - the dam WILL break!
Much appreciated!
I'll go with the randomised uncontrolled trial that has been conducted over 3,000,000 years with billions of participants showing that man has survived incredibly successfully with a mainly carnivore diet.
We can learn a lot from evolution... I suppose natural selection is a parallel arm RCT of sorts... not saying we have been carny for 3M years though... lol... I know my natural history butter than that
@@nicknorwitzPhD It's 3 million
@@nicknorwitzPhDFreudian slip or pun? Butter than that?😂
@@douglaslegvold9215 intentional pun ;) sorry... I didn't think I'd need to clarify
@@douglaslegvold9215 Pun obviously... didn't think I'd need to clarify ;)
When I heard eat 2 or 3 bowls of cereal for dinner. I'm done listening to Big Fat Pharma!!
Lol... ya... absurd... and that FDA post celebrating sticking Pizza in a plate of Nutella... ummm... excuse me!?
I wonder if the weight lost on the low carb diet from years ago (ref end of the conversation) was fat or muscle (or water). The other issue is sustainability of the diet not just short term results
On sustainable... I wouldn't have wanted to eat the keto diet used for this study for more than a day, lol! But hey, that's me....
@@nicknorwitzPhD what did they have to eat?
Fascinating! Thanks Nick. I've seen so much on both sides of low-carb and low-fat diets, but nothing has been able to convince me better than your analyses, explanation of the mechanisms, and logical reasoning. I appreciate your work so much. Cheers!
Im not rocket scientist but this was obvious to me. More bad food science.
Well seems we share a POV
Some kind of flag - like don’t believe the study because it’s flawed and meaningless . Or just redact the trial and stop the BS attacking low carb diets.
Very insightful vid thank you. At 8:56 was this statistically significant in your reanalysis? Are you aware of any other metabolic ward studies comparing the two diet patterns that were more approriately structured?
Love the diagram explanation, i know that explanation was for people like me 😂
Huge respect now for a washout period in these metabolic studies, well spotted too 👊😎
Glad you liked it. It was a labor of love by a friend (not me) who wishes to remain anon. Thank you Mr *******
We should add more two flips and see what happens. This will verify the former results and see consistencies of transitions in both ways.
I feel better on a low fat diet
Exactly. But we're apparently brainwashed and "don't understand." 😂.
Fat cals are dense, so having fewer of them, only what's necessary to maintain hormonal function accomplishes a similar task to low carb.
Only we're not switching systems.
What about those who diet and train? They're getting worse results because they're not keto? I don't think so.
Most of keto is water weight coming off, then a fair amount of muscle mass before fat.
This isn't even including the LISS vs HIIT cardio information. So many factors that aren't combined or thought about combining.
Now I'll end my tangent. 😅
I don’t think the paper be retracted I think the authors should go to prison. I think anyone that misleads should go to prison.
well now 😯... I don't think we can assume intent, and it's certainly hard to prove. The conclusions are misleading, but was it the intent of the team to mislead? I suppose we'll never know. Prison seems a bit "much," no?
Well given Harvard's record lately. Who cares.
marriage to ideas, a balanced truthfull mind is a rare experience
They didn't talk about blood sugar in that study.
I agree, too!! I suppose a lot of poorly designed studies are to some extent driven by the publish or perish culture of academia
📝🪦
I guess if anything that can be usefully gleaned from this paper it is that; if you rapidly switch from low fat to high fat diet, don't expect positive results in the short term.
Especially when then high fat diet is you locked in a ward with unlimited access to roasted salted nuts and a snacking habit built from a high carb diet to which you metabolism is adapted.
So many flaws! 😢
@@jellybeanvinkler4878 indeed
“People aren’t corrupted,” but they just always tend to lean towards one way only: against animal-based and for high-carb plant-based diets. What are the statistics on that being the outcome without influence or selective thinking? It seems to be very intentional.
I am not speaking here about the entire body of literature, which does have a bias... I'm talking about one paper that is flawed. But it's am important topic to address nevertheless.
@@nicknorwitzPhD thanks for your work. Really do appreciate it.
whether or not the study is retracted will be a profound statement on the integrity of the authors.
It's not up to the authors.
When the studies go against common sense then question the study
Maybe we have to work on the evidence base so what most people consider "common sense" begins to shift. Right now, common sense based in physiology isn't all the common.
My experience is that common sense is the least common of all the senses.
Brilliant work exposing the major errors here, and fantastic seeing a scientist as respected as Willett, who no one could ressonably accuse of being pro-low carb, call the study, and studies like it in general, "worse than useless"
Sadly I fear on a mass scale, the damage has been done. That study got a lot of traction, and has been used by very high profile figures to trash low-carb and/or promote low fat. I fear only nutrition nerds like us will see this
That's one perspective. Another would be now is a great time to course correct, highlight the mistakes made and put pressure on "science" to correct the record. You can guess at what "" means.
@@nicknorwitzPhDWell when the reanalysis first came out the shifty powers that be managed to get the mainstream media to repromote the original flawed study instead of promoting the reanalysis.
What does this tell us about the ability to course correct on these issues?
Yes there were other metrics of engagement that were high regarding the reanalysis through social media but that was entirely through the low carb community not the establishment and legacy media
@@nicknorwitzPhDafter reanalysis got published this original study got big push in the media once again for some reason….
@@rahvastepaabel Yes... there was a copy and paste job for a comically poorly written cover story to ~28 different news outlets. Possibly engineered to Boost what's called the Altmetric score, for which the reanalysis was about the exceed the original paper -- in the end it did anyway. It's was certainly an "odd" development. Not really meaningful though...
Yeah. There's nobody promoting biased high fat high animal protein diets. Oh wait a minute the meat lobby is one trillion dollar industry, ditto eggs and dairy. The problems with high fat have been known for 60 years and these industries have come up with sweet fa. Asians went from high carb to high animal protein in one generation and diabetes went up five-fold. Rice consumption (carbs) went down. Lots of studies show weight correlates with animal protein. Super carnivore Shawn Baker has put on 20 pounds including 10 pounds of fat and his athletic performance (adjusting for weight gain) has fallen significantly in just five years.
Thanks for being here to call out badly conducted studies! I would have loved to see the specific foods provided to participants.
It's in the methods of the original paper in the supplements. Honestly, pretty unappealing looking to me. Breaded chicken on romaine lettuce, broccoli Alfredo, and roast salted nuts were all part of the "animal-based" keto diet... pretty silly.
Have the low fat high fat tested in Prisoners for 5 to 10 years
Ugh… ethics don’t work like that anymore
I applaud your willingness to engage with the vegan/vegetarian folks… hopefully they will stop being so hostile to keto/carnivore
That's mostly on social media. Those big names I've met IRL, e.g. Walter Willett and also Chris, are absolutely lovely people IRL... I doubt I could say the same of the "Final Vegan Boss" ... if you know, you know.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Yes the final vegan boss is beyond reason. So glad to hear that people on the other side of the aisle are willing to engage in polite scientific discussions!
@@mmarkandaya 😁
I find it difficult to believe that this was an accidental ommision.
No comment...
Wow... this is brilliant, Nick. Clear and persuasive.
All I needed to do is ask a few questions... and sit and let "the Professor" say what he was going to say... one of the easiest videos ever for me :).
Thanks for the video. Keep up the good work!
I will try! Thanks for watching!
Totally agree with the washout period being a necessity for this type of study. 2 weeks is ridiculous for any nutritional study. Most lay persons that really have no interest in science will understand that premise. Way to go exposing the short-comings of this study!
@Nicholas Norwitz PhD in a 90 day period, what would be an optimal wash out period prior to restarting a new protocol? ie. 90 days strict carnivore then a week relaxed for a week then start a High Protein, Low carb, Low fat diet?
I'm surprised Layne hasn't come after you yet...
He’s tried…
@@nicknorwitzPhD I saw his take your Oreo v. Statin study - it seems like as much as he tries to preach that he's not wedded to ideology but the science... there's definitely some ideological affinity there.
My diet is mainly a dozen eggs a day, white rice, fruit, & a little fatty fish every now & then. Im 47 & been eating like this over 15 years. Im relatively high fat & high carb😅
If it works for you, who am I or anyone else to tell you differently? I'm not here to say "you should." I'm here to make you say "Oh, well that's interesting?" ... that's my main mission :)
My weight would be up because I'd be shoveling more and more white rice and fruit after the first helping. Carbs drive carb cravings for me. Unless I just accepted a life of miserable hunger and deprivation.
No mention of weight in OP. Or muscle mass.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Absolutely. It was interesting. Im glad it popped into my feed.
@@d3xm3x :)
We don't need more studies, we just need to know which nutrients/toxins in what amounts are in our food supply. How hard is it to get some beef and corn for eg analysed for nutrition content to compare which one is literally more nutritious.
Great and very informative discussion. Thanks.
Thanks for listening and considering.
👍
As always super interesting and we'll presented.
Thank you very much :) :)
Thank you.
Welcome :)
And on another note…. You have a fabulous mustache.
Who? Me?
So what?
The headlines already went out.
The damage is done.
The only people who will ever see the corrections are the tiny minority that are already open towards low carb eating.
The rest of the masses stay propagandized.
I guess we need to grass-roots harder because the top-down approach seems utterly captured.
Share the links.
If you want to follow in X, there are links to the reanalysis and LTE and response to the LTE, here: x.com/nicknorwitz/status/1777721380412232016. This video was about sharing WW's opinion. As for "the damage is done." What if - as Prof WW advocates - the paper is retracted. That sends a very strong message.
@@nicknorwitzPhD It sends a strong message *_to whom?_*
Low carb advocates will spread the message among the low carb community which constitutes " preaching to the choir" - we already know these sort of nutritional studies are often notoriously misleading.
Do you think that the mega-platforms like the major news outlets are going to publicize the retraction? Of course not.
They blast out the headlines but won't touch the news of retraction. Or, if they do, it will come in the form of an unannounced note being added to the written versions of the story.
Using low-carb eating I've reversed my prediabetes, dropped 65lbs of fat, brought my blood markers into ideal ranges, and broken through chronic depression but my mom is still worried about me and sends me the headlines from CNN claiming that what I am doing is going to make my heart explode.
The propaganda is so effective that it overrides her actual sensory input; she can see that my body has gone through a total recomposition but the significance of it cannot penetrate.
It wears me out.
Anyway, I'm in a bad mood.
Probably shouldn't be commenting in this state of mind.
I'm gonna' go do some sprints or something.
Keep up the good work, homie.
What would a washout period entail? I mean, after the initial two weeks.. what should have happened or been done to make the next phase legitimate? My thinking is both groups would have eaten whatever they wanted for a couple weeks, and then restart the on LCD or LFD course?
There should have been a run-in period with some dietary control, then a longer LCD or LFD arm then probably a several week / > month washout before the next diet phase, which - again- should have been >2 weeks.
Dr Norwitz.... Love your insight! Regardless of they push plant based diet, what really matters is..... How does this affect the body. It goes beyond weight. Right? When it's been proven that ketogenic diet has a positive effect on brain function.... how is that disputable? And then there is the visceral fat angel. There is so much to calculate into everything.
You're right. There is more to keto than weight. However, in any given study there is a main outcome you're studying. In this case, the conclusions regarding the main outcome were misleading. Our re-analysis corrects the record.
I've been toying with a Keto diet, mainly in a likely doomed effort to boost a lukewarm IQ. Stumbled upon a method to up my fat intake; double cream with everything, I down around four tubs per week or 5000 calories, my weight after a year of this is
... unchanged. Aside from an often failed attempt to eat less cake I still eat plenty of other stuff. Dunno if I'm in ketosis or not, and I'm likely as stoopid as ever, my main point is that eating calorie dense food, ie fat, don't necessarily make you fat.
No it does not... if you watch some of my prior videos you'll gather my opinion on Calories In Calories Out...
First off- major kudos to dr norwitz to even get an interview with dr willet. And then to gently pin his ears back a bit on the results of this study. Dr. Willet and Dr. Hall had a video when this first came out making it sound like this study was the final word. Nice to see dr. Willet actually took a second look and changed his opinion.
Yes he was very clear… “worse than useless” … I’ve found the X dialogue around this study increasingly disappointing. But I’m glad Professor Willett not only sees reason on this matter but was willing to go public and be clear about his stance
it's nice that they were able to run a pretty robust RCT. but two week periods back-to-back? it almost seems so badly designed it must have been intentionally so. Poor WW is probably gonna get railed for this, I wonder if some "clarification statement" blaming Nick for taking him out of context or something will be forthcoming.
I think it's pretty in context... it's pretty much just the straight chat in split screen.
Nick if you are friends with chompers how can he still believe that Ancel Keys was a brilliant scientist when it comes to the ldl hypothesis?
Not relevant to this video in the slightest. But I could also answer your question with a question. Do you agree with your friends on all issues?
I think Mitochondria take more then a day to most efficiently “change gears” in extracting energy from significantly different macro nutrient ration in diet. Is this why a wash out period is needed at the metabolic level?
There are probably several reasons, but that's a plausible one.
Wasn't this issue brought up several months ago? I seem to remember reading a post that pointed out this issue.
Yes. There was then a back and forth with a letter to the editor by the original team and a response. The final of the re-analysis was released in the April issue of Journal of Nutrition. It seems more and more people are coming around and realizing just how flawed and misleading the original study was... x.com/nicknorwitz/status/1778748154101252314
Is it just my laptop or is the introduction part barely able to hear what is said? The audio is fine after the intro.
Might be this: I had to rerecord the intro bit on my Rode mics and I think I didn't change stereo to mono, which means it might be coming out of one side... so if that side if faulty it might lead to overall decreased sound. Sorry. I have new tech I'm getting used to. Sadly, I can't make adjustments to audio after posting. As this channel matures, will haver fewer little blips like this. All still very new to me.
What do you think of the formula: Tri/HDL to measure IR?
I think if your TG/HDL ratio is really out of whack, it's something to look into...
Aren't these studies meant to be peer reviewed? If so what do they do when reviewing it?
Ha. Well having peer reviewed a fair few papers, I can tell you it's not a perfect process. But, yes, I'd hope Nature Medicine can generally do better/find better reviewers who wouldn't let what slipped by in this case slip by. Nevertheless, there will never be a perfect process...
Do you publish these on rumble as well? Rumble has a drive mode so I can listen as a podcast without my screen on my phone being on. UA-cam charges a premium for this feature.
Sorry, I don't publish on rumble
@@nicknorwitzPhD give it a try. They'll even cross post it for you.
Use identical twins in each cohort, after a set (preceding) baseline diet. Could leave it there, but to elaborate more on diet cross-over & wash-out period effects, repeat the original study process with these twins.
But how would this 2nd arm contribute to the broader "real-world" topic of specific macro-nutrient diets (LC vs LF) on weight (loss or gain) & overall human health? Maybe a little with dietetic advice re. switching from one extreme macro nutrient diet to another, ie short-term effects, but otherwise very little.
But these metabolic ward studies were never designed to be used in isolation, are targeted on the mechanistics, & combined with many other fields on nutrition and metabolic health, contribute to the totality of knowledge.
A lot I could reply to here... but I will say finding 10 sets of identical twins isn't easy... also not needed in a proper crossover RCT...
@@nicknorwitzPhD It's 10 sets of twins (20 participants ) doing 28 days on a single diet, not 14 days. Yet using the exact amount of resources. That's the difference.
From memory, I think the metabolic ward facilities have room for two participants (maybe three?) per day.
So the data collection phase is not a trial running for 28 days, but over 10 months.
Now think of the extra days & costs involved if adding a washout period, sandwiched between two separate diets. How many days before participants reached baseline again?
Could the costs be justified? The original study was not research on crossover RCTs, but a RCT with a crossover.
Yeah, it would be interesting, & may be beneficial at an academic level (& for setting trial standards), but that's a hell of a lot more days & costs involved with running the metabolic ward.
Yep… a discussion of nuance…. Something 99% of the internet just will not get…. Your opinion may be that Willet is wrong about red meat (me too) but that does not make him a bad person….
Absolutely. Also there's greater nuance here as we would need to define what one means by "bad?" Bad in what respect? For health, in general? Then - yes - we may not see entirely eye to eye. On conservation/planetary matters I'll admit he's far more informed than I am. And that's not a matter about which I'm flippant. But topic for another time. I'm actively learning in that arena, even if it's not something I teach about publicly. But it's important. And - yes - in all my interactions he's been very polite, respectful, and overall pleasant.
There are a lot of issues in farming and agriculture and I view neither being better than the other. I live in NZ where the raising of livestock is almost 100% grass based and that raises issues about methane (oh boy is that a topic for another day!), however, with industrial scale cropping the issue is monocultural crops that deplete the soil and kill many, many small animals and insects…. So trade offs abound!!
AWESOME WORK!!!
Thanks 😊
Mic 🎤 drop 😐
;)
@@nicknorwitzPhD Keep up the great work Nick! I predict You, Dave and your other collaborators will be worthy of a NOBEL prize for taking on the establishment 🫡
@@scottshort262 I do like Stockholm... last time I was there had great Belgian waffles with Nutella! Granted, that was pre-keto Nick :)
@@nicknorwitzPhD Def NOT keto!! 😅
@@scottshort262 Trolls can find the photo on the black market of me eating Nutella waffles and try to blackmail me... bring it!
The thing that bothers me the most is that the need for washout is well understood, so specific analysis would be required to say that the lack of washout in this study didn't effect the results. How did both the authors AND the reviewers miss what the re-analysis found? Lots of poor quality science and poor reviewing in the journals unfortunately.
I don’t know how it was missed on first pass
@@nicknorwitzPhD exactly -- I would think the original reviewer in the peer review process should say "you made a claim with no backup as far the lack of a washout period. Provide evidence." This was peer reviewed, right? Who were the reviewers that missed this?
@@az10sbum1 The review is not open, i.e. I don't know who they are. I agree, it was an oversight.
That’s one uncomfortable looking professor!
Fair play to him though for being objective
I agree... points... I did put him "on the spot." I thought he handled himself really well: respectful but direct and fair.
@@nicknorwitzPhD Doing this interview, and saying what he said, given his history, shows he is a true person of science. Kudos to him for doing it, and kudos to Nick for producing this video. I'm glad there are people in world that do the right thing.
Biggest problem in “science” is that most of it was done well, very unscientifically to get a desired conclusion not a true conclusion.
Yes, keto/Atkins/low carb studies do that all the time.
I have a hard time refuting this claim
Why not interview tim noakes who is well versed on this topic. You get the answer easily for most population.
I know Tim... he's a bit further away...
Good to see hear this. Thanks
You're welcome!
👍
Thank you!
You’re welcome!
Wow.
😮
Nick says the subjects in the study, "ate calories". My question is how do we eat calories, and what does the human body do with the "eaten calories"?
"Ate food containing chemical bonds that are broken in metabolic processes to yield ATP, directly, and indirectly via generated electron carriers (NADH and FADH2) that pass electrons into CI and CII of the ETC in the mitochondrial membrane to generate energy through chemiosmosis." ... better?
@Miraak186 This is the problem when people like you can't differentiate between colloquial communication and communication that is more technical. The word ''calories'' is a great word because it gets the point across and it's a word that people can easily understand. This is not a sign of Nick not knowing what he talks about, it's a sign of him trying to make things easy to understand for his viewers. Starting to see the problem?
@@andreasmelkersson3592 Yes, I agree with you. I am an ignoramus.
@@nicknorwitzPhD I have NO idea what you are talking about.
@@Miraak1868 So I guess my point was made ;-)
The high fat Carnivore diet saved my life and that's a fact
I'm glad you're feeling well!
Anecdotal.
Did you do keto before the carnivore? And how much grams of meat do you eat a day?
@@2006evita yes I did but the nuts the veggies, counting macro.... didn't work for me, I normally eat around 500 gr a day or
Intentionally misleading to enforce profits for the study funders. Aka propaganda.
I got sick and obese on low fat. Also insulin resistant. Every thing solved on high fat keto.
Lost 40lb in 4 months easy with low carb leaning carnivore and not really restricting calories that's a huge part of it, sans calorie restriction.... Better energy all day, leaner than I've ever been, supplementing lots of fish oil and MCT oil and bulletproof coffee too
Low to no carb is the way to go people! Im carnivore and healthier than ever.
Very good, commenting for algorithm
Ha... don't mind this at all :)
I'd add another point. Whatever one thinks of carbs, it's without a doubt that not all fatty acids are the same. Even within a single category like PUFAs, there is great diversity of effects between canola oil and fish oil.
I once came across a short but fascinating video. Someone caught Walter Willett admitting that seed oils were unhealthy. His only qualification was that he thought animal fats and saturated fats were worse. But he didn't further qualify that some saturated animal fats are proven healthy (e.g., stearic acid).
Still, that was an amazing admission. I've rarely come across plant-based advocates who will openly and honestly state such a basic point. I'd love it if we could finally get to the point where everyone would at least agree that seed oils are harmful.
Lmao. What? I eat seed oils and have perfect bloods. So do millions of others.
How many anecdotes before it’s not anecdotal anymore. I’ll also quote a T-shirt I just bought “Science that can’t be questioned is religion.”
Yay! Yah... that's a best seller... I wonder why... ;)
"Whatever that can't be questioned is religion" You are right. But what is a RELIGION?
@@Charity-l5g Religion operates on faith, not data. By definition a religion doesn't require data and faith can be cited over data if it fits the world view.
@@nicknorwitzPhD "Religion operates on faith, not data." Yeah. That's exactly how the food pyramid fits itself into "religion". But the owners of the food pyramid also owns the wealth so created.
Sorry to be so honest. But there is something about Walter Willett that my soul does not trust. He may be famous, intelligent, established and respected and I would guess wealthy but I do not trust his opinion. Sorry Walter, maybe you could explain to me and others why I feel that way?
maybe it's because he's a militant anti-meat, plant-based proselytizer who's received funding from vegetarian groups and pharmaceutical companies.
or maybe you're just biased against him...
I think it's important to recognize that big names are often caricaturized by headlines. I don't agree with Professor Willett on everything, but we certainly align on the opinion that - in the case of this study - a methodological flaw makes the original conclusions invalid. In other words, the prior claim based on these data that eating low-fat plant-based leads to less energy intake and more weight loss than a low-carb diet is misleading. I wonder if you agree?
Why do you think cultists can explain their religious beliefs? Cultists are cultists because they do not know they are cultists, or they do not understand their own theology. A high priest of veganism cult can explain their beliefs without gaslighting you or misleading you? It’s impossible. It’s just how cults work, any of them. No one wants to be in a cult, it’s just they do not know they are in a cult.
@@chuckleezodiac24 What if I told you he - rarely - eat red meat, but eats it nonetheless? I don't think he's ever claimed to be vegan. He does have opinions with which you may not agree. That's fine. But why don't we focus on the arguments at hand with respect to this trial and re-analysis. Here, Prof Willett is stating that a study promoting the energy balance model and a plant-based diet was flawed and he calls for retraction. The question is, based on the arguments presented, do you agree or not?
My soul does not trust what you're saying. Can you explain why I feel this way?
Timestamped summary
The study comparing low-fat and low-carb diets was fundamentally flawed and should be retracted due to potential carryover effects and misleading results.
📉
00:00 The study comparing low-fat and low-carb diets was fundamentally flawed and should be retracted.
🔍
01:25 Eating less on a low-fat diet led to more weight loss than on a low-carb diet, contradicting the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity, and a study on low-carb vs low-fat diets was found to have significant flaws upon reexamination. Expand
🥦
03:15 One diet can affect the intervention that follows, and this study did not include a wash out period, leading to potential diet carryover effects.
🔍
03:57 The low-carb vs low-fat study was invalidated due to a flaw in not accounting for potential carryover effects between diets, which the speaker finds nonsensical and not informative. Expand
📊
06:15 The reanalysis of the low-carb vs low-fat study shows that the low-fat diet was effectively stealing credit from the low-carb diet.
🔍
07:55 The order in which low carb and low fat diets are introduced has a larger impact than the diets themselves, with the low carb diet showing a trend of eating fewer calories after adaptation, making the results of the study misleading and invalidating. Expand
🚩
10:20 Retraction and reanalysis of the study is necessary due to fundamental flaws and red flags in the literature, highlighting the importance of scientific correction processes. Expand
📉
12:10 Low-fat diets may result in short-term weight loss, but longer-term studies show that the weight loss is not sustained, making the investment in this kind of study useless and even misleading.
thanks!
I'm not sure if this was generated with AI? It's an okay summary, but not perfect. For now, I will leave it in case some find it useful. But if it appears to be creating confusion on a few points on which the wording is imprecise, I may opt to remove to prompt people to watch the video. I already have timestamps anyway. But - for now - I will leave it.