Experts are wrong about Calories. [Science Explained]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 тра 2023
- JOIN THE PHYSIONIC INSIDERS [PREMIUM CONTENT]
Join the Physionic Insiders [Standard Tier]: bit.ly/PhysionicInsiders2
Join the Physionic Insiders [Pro Tier]: bit.ly/PhysionicInsidersPro
Standard Tier: Access to the Premium Video Library, Full Study Analyses (+ Summaries), Insider Podcast, , Research Reviews, and More
Pro Tier: All benefits of the Standard Tier + Live Sessions with Me, Consulting Lite, and More
HEALTH AUTONOMY [COURSE]
Learn to Analyze & Apply Studies for Yourself: bit.ly/healthautonomy
JOIN THE COMMUNITY
Join my Community [It’s Free!]: bit.ly/PhysionicCommunity2
EMAIL LIST
One Weekly Email of Value: bit.ly/2AXIzK6
HIRE ME FOR CONSULTING:
Consulting: bit.ly/3dmUl2H
DONATIONS FOR A SCIENCE BASED CAUSE
Patreon: bit.ly/PhysionicPatreon
OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram: bit.ly/2OBFe7i
Created with Biorender
[1] DOI:10.1007/s10540-005-2885-6
#caloriescount #scienceeducation #nutritionfacts
*******CRITIQUES, RULES, AND NOTES*******
Critiques of my work are welcome! Please be aware of the following notes & rules before submitting critique:
Be mindful that this content is not all encompassing on the subject at hand and is self-limited for brevity to reach a wider audience. Also be aware that I receive hundreds of UA-cam comments per day, so the only way your critique can be considered is if you follow the steps outlined below. Finally, UA-cam auto-deletes links, so I do not see most comments with links attached.
RULES:
If your comment is rude, you will be banned without warning.
If your comment is not about the studies/topics at hand (i.e. extending to other outcomes not discussed) or offers critique with no scientific basis, your comment will be ignored.
If you can follow these rules, I will try to address your critique and if there is merit, I will add an AMENDMENT to the content in question and pin it so everyone can see it.
Please use the following link to submit your critique: bit.ly/PhysionicCritique
Disclaimer: None of the information provided by this brand is a replacement for your physician's advice. This brand is information for the sake of knowledge and the options of choice it provides, not in any way a personalized prescription. Please consult your physician before making any health related changes.
![The Carnivore Diet [Science Explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TIrMgU1y2E/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve seen a number of repeated comments I’d like to address so I don’t have to keep replying individually:
*1. Digestion of food differs.* (17:20 - 17:51)
Yes, foods are digested differently, some being absorbed less fully (fiber rich, as one example), some requiring more caloric input to break down the food (protein, for example). As I mentioned near the end of the video, there are many considerations to getting nutrients past the intestines into the blood stream, and while these considerations are important, they complicate the message of the video (calories are all equal) as they discuss nutrient differences, not calories.
*2. The health of food differs.* (11:57 , 12:39, 15:52)
Again, I mentioned this multiple times in the video (11:57 , 12:39, 15:52) - this is a discussion of the biochemistry and physiology of calories, not of nutrients, although they are closely related. We need to separate the nutrient from the calorie for us to have a discussion about each. I acknowledge that consuming certain foods (made of set nutrients) can worsen or better health in the context of the totality of a diet; however, this is again extending the video message beyond what it is - this is also why I added a mention that this isn’t an all-encompassing education on nutrients, I’m simply trying to extract the definition of “calorie” from the concept of “nutrients”.
*3. If calories matter, why are there calories in wood, motor oil, etc.?*
All things have calories, but only a certain subset of things in this world can we extract the calories through our bodily metabolic processes. If you consume motor oil, other than the fact that you will die, you will also not absorb said motor oil, so it will not end up at the site of cellular absorption (beyond the intestine) - additionally, even if it did, your cells have no metabolic systems to extract the calories (by turning motor oil into ATP) like they do for carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins.
*4. Are you saying calorie counting is the superior way to diet?* (12:30 - 13:23)
No. I'm saying a calorie deficit is foundational to fat loss, but there are many ways to achieve that calorie deficit that could have more or less merit for you (i.e. a diet that is more satiating at the same calorie deficit, etc.).
*5. X diet is better for satiety and X diet sucks.* (12:30 - 13:23 , 15:52)
All well and good, but these are matters of nutrients, not calories. They matter, but they aren't the point of this particular video.
*6. Nutrition labels and Calories.*
I've seen some people mention that nutrition label calories (calories in food) are determined by burning the food and therefor do not represent what happens in the body. Food calories are determined by a bomb calorimeter, where scientists input a known amount of heat and then measure the difference in heat output - it is a highly controlled circumstance. Obviously, this invites the idea that it doesn't apply to us, but in reality, scientists do the same thing with humans - we don't burn them alive, but we put a person in an insulated room that is sensitive to heat changes through the conductance in an intricate water system surrounding the room; the difference in heat between the person not being in the room (baseline) and the person being in the room (quietly, usually lying down) is a direct measure of resting metabolism and is known as 'direct calorimetry'. So, while not all of the food may be absorbed exactly as its packaged, we tend to absorb a vast majority of the nutrients (90% or more) we consume (except in special circumstances, like fiber), and therefor we utilize those nutrients to generate similar amounts of energy/calories.
thank You. can You please made a video about all the hormones that are stimulated by fat-consumption? regards.
"1. Digestion of food differs.
Yes, foods are digested differently, some being absorbed less fully (fiber rich, as one example), some requiring more caloric input to break down the food (protein, for example). As I mentioned near the end of the video, there are many considerations to getting nutrients past the intestines into the blood stream, and while these considerations are important, they complicate the message of the video (calories are all equal) as they discuss nutrient differences, not calories. "
and that where you are wrong, it's BECAUSE of that that 'Calories sources' are not EQUAL in the metabolism. They don't 'complicate' the message, they EXPLAIN why the messages is USELESS, might as well be FALSE.
That like saying "the Density make thing float or sink, therefore nothing heavier than air can fly"... you would start to talk about aerodynamism of airplane and I would reply, "that only complicate thing, density is all that matter in the message, therefore Plane is not a thing !
Well - that's the end of my SAE30 motor oil salad dressing 🥴🚫
If you don't put misleading titles on things you won't have to keep addressing the same points. I live in Australia, if all calories were equal I'd make my fortune with 'the beer only diet'. So make the title "biochemically all calories are equal - and this offers no guidance to what you should eat".
@@evanhadkins5532 - I did the Beer Diet for a while ... 🍺🥴
Thank you for the education. From my personal experience I have lost weight from calorie counting and there is no doubt that if you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight, wherever those calories come from. But for me it only really worked when I started to find out what effect different foods had on me and adjusted my diet accordingly. Rather than just thinking “if I cut my calories I’ll lose weight” and within 2 weeks I was so hungry I’d eat anything you put in front of me. I changed my diet to whole foods, less carbs and cut out nearly all sugar. I found it really curbed my hunger and I could sustainably lose weight and keep it off. So I agree all calories are equal but what you actually eat makes a massive difference to how you feel.
Absolutely, Roboo. No doubt one needs to find the foods that agree with them best, even if taking calories into account.
Exactly, you have to look at the bigger picture. I also only lost weight when I counted calories, because it became more obvious what I could eat and not eat and still reach my goal.
It is just a heuristic for the concept that two 500-calorie *meals* are not equal, in terms of their effect on the body: nutrition, satiety, blood glucose, sustained energy, etc.
1200 calories of chips and candy is miserable compared to 1200 calories of real food.
We would all agree that a kilowatt generated by a tire fire is the same as a kilowatt generated by a windmill. We would also agree that this doesn't mean there is nothing to choose between them.
If only people defined how they speak like you did, Jessica. People who are discussing nutrients should say the word nutrients and not calories (they are often interchanged, incorrectly, and lead to significant confusion).
Very well put, Jessica. I really like Nicolas. I also like the people that he has a pet peeve about. They are benefiting society as does Nicolas. I hope for all of them to keep up the good work.
@@Physionic and that's the problem with the calorie in = calorie out people, they tell you cut your calorie and you will lose weight.. no matter the nutrient.
Fung and other say, select your calorie type and you will do BETTER.
@@moestietabarnak Fung is not as respectful about it, in my opinion. He's called calorie counting stupid and other childish words. He and others imply that people who don't agree with them are idiots, or that it is actually impossible to lose weight while eating often because of the insulin. That is so easy to disprove! I guarantee you if all you eat is 100 calories of pure sugar 5x a day, unless you are a petite woman, you will lose weight. Might you lose more with no carb? Yes, but that doesn't negate the deficit issue. BTW, I will point out that in Obesity Code, Fung's book,(independently reviewed for scientific accuracy of 31%) he has a 3-meal structure as the between-fasts routine. But so many of his followers talk like that's crazy. Even though Italy and France used to eat like that before American snacking habits invaded. And they eat bread and pasta and potatoes. Used to be two of the slimmest countries in Europe. Other countries were also slim eating snacks and starch aplenty. But a lot fewer calories overall than we eat. However, I acknowledge that Fung can excite people enough that they can finally eat in a way that creates enough of a DEFICIT to lose. If he can point to any of his patients who ate the same number of calories over a week or month's time while following his fasting protocol and still lost weight and reversed their diabetes, I bet it wouldn't account for more than 5%. But I guess if it takes partial truths to get people motivated enough to affect their health, it's better than leaving them wallowing in heavy truth.
@@oolala53 there is a couple of really good studies that show 3 meals a day with no snacks actually improve blood pressure, insulin resistance and some other stuff with no relation to what you are eating, so it might be that the 3-meal structure was doing good regardless of whatever other thing he was recommending
When you explained that calories are the heat released from the phosphate molecule separating from the Adenosine molecule, it all made sense for me. Nice job ✓
This is what has been missing from this whole discussion in the nutrition space
I also appreciate the highly relevant point you made about how nutrients vary widely on human biochemistry via different hormonal responses etc.. 👍
Thanks, XP1!
@@Physionic 😘😘😘😘😘
@Physionic yea people can lose weight by counting "calories" that's totally true, but I think the point these doctors were trying to make is just because foods have the same number of "calories" doesn't make the foods the same!!! So 500 calories of some nutrient dense food isn't gonna be handled by your body the same way as 500 calories of some ultra processed food regardless of if you lose weight on the scale
@@Physionicso yes calories are equal (in a vacum) but human being aren't a vacuum!!! Who's to say that just because you had 100 calories of broccoli that all the down on the molecular level your gonna get the same number of atp as 100 calories of sugar or any other processed food! So again just because something says 100 calories on the label doesn't even actually mean that your body is gonna absorb all 100 calories of said food so in that context calories are irrelevant
Okay, I'm starting to see where you're coming from. Dr. Fung's point about a block of wood stuck with me. Yeah, it might have a hundred calories but you're not going to pull them out through digestion. Your points are foundational though like in philosophy. We can't have a discussion until we're both on the same page about what we're debating. "This therefore that" doesn't work unless we're talking about the same thing. Usually it's stuff like truth and meaning instead of cookies and hotdogs but I guess it applies to everything...lol
I think Dr. Fung is right on that one. I've eaten over 5,000 calories a day (of clean whole foods) and had minimal weight gain. According to calorie calculators I was 2-2500 calories in a surplus. I've been tested for GI problems like celiacs etc and I'm good. I guess my body says no thanks and passes them? From personal experience, CICO is bullshit. Unless you get into semantics and say I'm just burning them off into heat energy or some crap, but if that's the case, what's the point of CICO...
Yes, nuance is a tough cell, I mean sell!
Great channel, replete and articulate explanations of complex topics that cannot be digested in soundbites and celebrity.
I remember seeing a Dr Fung video and he said that calories are important but they are of secondary importance and not of primary importance. The hormonal response that those different nutrients elicits is primary. As a type one diabetic that was just at Disney World this past weekend, I can keenly attest to the marked effect of carbohydrates on my physiology. 😅
HA ! Disneyland will do that ...
I don't think anyone is disputing that carbohydrates have an effect on a type 1 diabetic. Or type 2. Fung's claims have been that CICO isn't applicable to weight loss, and that just isn't true. But different foods may affect CO.
Carbohydrates don't affect your physiology, your body has an inability to process and utilize carbohydrates.
@@canesugar911 What is your evidence for such statements?
@@canesugar911that's not how diabetes works... The problem is that your body does process carbs, but then can't lower blood glucose through insulin...
If you're diabetic or prediabetic, I'd still want to get most of my calories from proteins and fats and I find hard to believe that if you're in a surplus of 1000 calories, that you'd put on same amount amount of fat if those surplus calories came from either sugar or protein.
Fair point, Rico.
It would be super hard to eat 1000kcals of proteins 🤣🥲 I have a hard time finishing 650 and I can eat quite a lot 🤣🥲
Let's rather talk about energy, which is what calories measure, instead of calories.
You'll put on the same amount of weight as long as you are in a caloric surplus.
Test it out. Track everything you eat and track all your gross motor movements.
@@Rafael-ly7hrI can eat 1500 cal of protein and fats with ease.. sadly.. lol
I've just found your videos and am really enjoying your way of explaining how the digestive system works. It's truly amazing!
Thankyou.
Im grateful for your content and precision of subject matter.
It is not semantics. articulated precision is key & sorely wanted.
Yes, a calorie is a calorie, but only AFTER it is absorbed from the digestive tract. I think this point is the key reason for the ongoing disagreement: we are comparing apples to oranges-pun intended 😂
😫 Especially when it's absorbed by our belly ...
Calories are not equal only in respect of how mush are absorbed (piece of wood vs spoonful of sugar, for average human), and more importantly - how much energy (calories) is takes to break down the food molecules to access their calories.
Great stuff! Real my appreciated your attempt to day booth where you are with Fung and where you disagree. Would love an explanation on how different nutrients differential affect basal metabolic rate. Thanks!
To be clear, although the chemical processes for absorbing 500kcal of broccoli and 500kcal of sugar are completely different, AND the resulting ATP is indistinguishable, are both processes equally _efficient_? In other words, is the same percentage of the measured calories of both examples ultimately turned into ATP?
I wanted to test this for myself. I ate only a junk food diet for over 6 months at the exact same calories. My weight and physiology stayed exactly the same. Did I feel like crap and was I hungry a lot of the time, yes, but it proved to me that a calorie is just a calorie.
I am not saying just calories matter because if I ate to satiety in my experiment above I would have over consumed calories.
@@jaghad Didn’t measure the mass. The difference was enough to see that the volume of food each day was much less and I hated that and wanted to stop the experiment many times.
Thank you for your sacrifice for science. Invite me next time. 😉
Your videos are so amazing!! Every aspect of them.
Dr Berry: Engery does not have any mass that we know of
Einstein: m=E/c^2
there is no nuclear reaction in our body, only chemical one.. i think
This is off topic to the video but I wondered if you had any insight. I have inherited a copy of APOE-e4 from each parent and look for nutrition advice online but find contradictory information about low fat vs. Keto diet for this. Can you discuss or make a video?
Thank you for the great content. What is the mechanism by which (anecdotal - in my experience) a calorie deficit (say, from 2500 kcal / day to 1500 kcal / day results in weight loss at first but then slows and weight plateaus at the new lower calorie number.
this is amazing explanation, thank you ;) I beieve it iwll help me com,municate this topic better
you explain this in the best way possible!! impossible to not understand this!!😉👏
A huge number of people seem to be misunderstanding it, unfortunately. Haha. Thanks, Ricky.
One correction: Breaking bonds does not release energy it requires energy. It is when chemical bonds are made that energy is released. Biologists often make this mistake.
What is the caloric difference between 100 calories of olive oil and 100 calories of motor oil? Same amount of energy, but the second option possibly impairs the future energy production by human body.
Similarly, drinking one shot of 3000 calories from concentrated glucose drink will have different effect than 3000 calories from the same glucose but slowly ingested through the whole day. In the first case, the system is overloaded, so the excess glucose must be immediately converted to a storage form. Damages to the system caused by high glucose concentration and effectiveness of storing and releasing the energy from the storage were not considered in the talk.
Surprisingly, I do agree with J. Fung and with Physionic at the same time (apart from the tile). Simply, I applied different assumptions, which for better understanding should be expressed explicitly.
Could You please refer to question how kcal content in food is established? By assessing how many ATP high energy bounds may be charged by 100 grams of e.g. steak or by burning it?
Good points. Time well spent. Thank you 👍🏾😎🙏🏾
Brilliant explanation thank you
Thank you for the lesson, Nic! You've changed my mind, despite much anecdata I've heard that contradicts all calories being equal. Is it fair to value food on a nutrient density or satoety per calorie basis? What's the relationship between nutrients and satiety? I.e. ketones/MCT oil and hunger suppression? Confused. Thanks again!
I’ll need to cover those for you, then, Michael. But, yes, nutrients and nutrient density are of utmost importance.
Dr. Fung is looking at it through the lens of insulin resistance and diabetes. The cookies spike insulin and in diabetic's (type 2) the spike is bigger and lasts longer. The fat stores stay closed. So if I ate 100 calories of cookies only, it could be hours before my body would be able to pull from my fat stores to make up the difference. If I ate more cookies later before the spike ends then I'll be blocked for even more hours, never losing weight. If I ate 100 calories of chicken or broccoli I would have little or no insulin spike and I would start burning fat to make up for the restriction.
I understand It is different for someone healthy trying to lose fat and not insulin resistant, but he is working with a group that has different problems.
Still, I love your content, keep it up!
I come here because I feel like you're presenting real information. Frequently you present what must be stupifyingly complex subjects and reduce it to moderately challenging. This one topic deserves an epic of videos. Do something on weightloss without hunger. Also, when "experts" villify sugar, which form of sugar do they hate? If I recall from org chem, it's not like there's only one. You do the world a favor. Thank you.
Love the biochemistry review! Thanks for the thorough explanation! 👏 👏 👏
Thank you for giving me a much better way to explain this concept of caloric balance to my students.
Thanks for taking us back to the basics.
Fabulous explanations! Thanks!
If I am in a calorie deficit will I lose more weight if i am consuming unhealthy food because my body has to pull more nutrients from my fat to make up for the unhealthy food i am eating vs the same calorie deficit using healthy food?
Your upcoming book about this concept is going to sell 10 million copies.
What about resistant starch which is not digested and therefore passes through the digestive tract without releasing many calories , or am I missing something 😟
As a recovering physicist, the argument that "calories are a physics concept, not a physiology one" never fails to give me a good chuckle. If anyone thinks they have found a mechanism that breaks the laws of physics, please report to your nearest Nobel foundation for a chance at a million+ dollar prize.
Deeply appreciate the information!
I swill wonder.......what if the body decides how much to use depending on many many other factors? How do I know what goes out from the other side?
What kind of T-shirt are you wearing? Where did you buy it? Thanks!
thank you for video and this channel. i always learn here a ton ! i see calories as macro view on metabolism. it defines total outcome not detailed dynamics of body. they can be hard to explain as definition as ammount of heat does not ring a bell nearly to anybody. nevertheless i got a good result when explaing calories via candles and burning rate of flame ( basically simplified version of m. farraday lecture) even to people without degree in physics. they are then amazed how is everything connected.
Great man, as always. And as you said I agree there's space for another video showing how "all the roads lead to Rome", it will be nice to show how the lipid transforms into energy, which is the base for keto diets. It would also be nice to know how much energy is lost in storing and restoring glucose from triglycerides vs the amount of energy loss during the transformation of lipids into energy.
I hope to make it soon for you, Edgar. Thanks!
So if lets say I buy some kind of food, that it listed at 100 calories. Does that mean these calories are part of the food itself, or are they a product of what happens in our body? In other words, are calories calculated outside or inside our bodies? Some sources say they burn a steak in a lab and messure energy, but you're saying its the amount of energy that food adds to the ATP thingy? I'm a bit confused on how calories are ascribed to a certain foods.
And how does pooping relate to all that? Do we poop any calories out? Are there any calories in poop? Do you absorb anything if you ingest poop?
Interesting video, but I believe this message is of lesser importance for someone trying to improve their metabolic health.
One question though, in 'direct calorimetry' testing do all of the following produce the same result over a 24-hour test?
1. 2000 calories of protein.
2. 2000 calories of fat
3. 2000 calories of carbohydrates
4. 2000 calories of glucose
5. 2000 calories of fructose
6. 2000 calories of ethanol
Would there be any differences in the type of protein or fat consumed as I suspect they may be for fructose and ethanol?
100 cal of protein vs 100 cal of carb will produce different amounts of ATP no ? Therefore they are not equal and what use is this heat produced in the breaking of the bonds ? ( beyond the important task of keeping you warm)
The amino acids could go towards protein synthesis in the body, which believe it or not requires ATP. In cases of excess protein there are ketogenic and glucogenic amino acids, which ultimately end up producing ATP. This is a longer process than either glucose or lipid metabolism though and you'd use those before protein. Protein metabolism is also the most energetically demanding and you gain only about 75% of the consumed calories.
Cool video as usual.
Btw couls you take a look at Ca-AKG at some point? It looks promising
Thanks for the tip, Starfox.
Does this mean that when we are in a calorie deficit that serum lipid levels will rise because they are being used for metabolic purposes? And if you take a lipid blood test during lower caloric intake periods one will show elevated triglycerides LDL HDL etc? I agree with you 100% when it comes to being precise about definitions this is a problem in all Fields social, scientific at the everyday level. It's counterproductive.
I think that is correct 🤔
I agree with everything you have said in this video, but, I have seen many videos by Dr. Fung and read in his book were he states that you can’t loose weight without following the rules of thermodynamics, that the amount of calories does in fact matter, it’s just that if you ignore the hormone reactions your missing a large portion of the process out, and that is why fasting is so beneficial. Taken by just this video it seems like he doesn’t believe calories matter, but other videos do. Am I missing a something? ( not trying to be rude, I’m truly curious because I am trying to lose baby weight by intermittent fasting, thank you)
Interesting - I don't know why he contradicts himself. I just watched this video of him and went with it.
Thanks for the pure scientific explanation. Who am i to argue. There are so many variables that may affect the energy output.
I have a question. What happens when some people have a dysfunction in their mitochondria to produce ATP/energy? Does it affect the calorie production between two people: one who is healthy and the other unhealthy.
That's a great question. So, our capacity to generate ATP is not limited to mitochondria, although its typically seen as the main part of our cells. However, lets' assume a drastic situation where mitochondria are all dysfunctional (this would, in the real world, likely be lethal if *all* mitochondria are dysfunctional, but I digress) - the cell requires a certain ratio of ATP to ADP (its lower energy state molecule), so no matter what, the cell *must* maintain a certain ATP level - if not, the cell dies. So, if you are alive (I'm 99% sure people are), then your cells are finding some way to generate the 'normal' levels of ATP (could be through anaerobic glycolysis, ATP recycling systems like Adenylate Kinase, phosphocreatine, etc.). Great question!
Dysfunctional mitochondria also leads to cancer....and probably Alzheimer's.
i would appreciate a video about methylane blue
Dr Mobeen has a video on it's mechanics in cell also touching on mitochondria and autophagy so may be in scope of your interests
Thank you for this. You do a great job in explaining and are extremely clear. Unfortunately, the degree of mis-education and mis-understanding out there is staggering. As soon as we accept certain facts, we realize we have agency over our bodies. A lot of people would prefer a world where this is all a mystery and we have no control, and thus no accountability.
Nicely done. There is no weight loss without Calorie deficit but also there is a difference from a health standpoint between 2000 Calories of Fructose vs 2000 Calories of Broccoli. Something that should be made clear by nutrition pundits.
It's not just a health standpoint. It is true that the body may expend more calories (CO) when eating a fibrous food vs a completely processed one. Maybe that's what you meant by health.
@@oolala53especially since 2000 calories of broccoli is 5.5kg.
@@PablumMcDump Would be chewing all day! And a portion of those calories wouldn't be used for energy. It makes sense that humans need a core of dense calories from some combo of protein, fat and dense carbs; less dense carbs can play a role when in such a calorie-rich environment.
Thanks for the great explanation of the relationship between calories consumed and calories used for production of ATP. Also the excess of calories consumed stored in fat cells explains were the excess caloric energy goes.
Thank you, Jerry. I appreciate it.
Except the explanation is incorrect misinformation.
Why not consume both types of information? . Dr. Fung seems to be highly regarded by the scientific & research community. However, a deeper and more complex explanation of the physiology involved is also very useful. I am subscribed to both of these scientists. 🎆
Please do consume both. I'm not saying you can't listen to him. Some of his information is very valuable.
For Fung, it depends on the community whether he is well-respected. I suspect that some doctors are just amazed that he can get people to go 36 hours (yes, and more) without eating.
There can be a disconnect of reason when one eats fewer calories but doesn't see a weight loss. Are there other critical elements like water and gases that might not be in enough available abundance to restrict fat loss despite an energy deficit?
It now makes sense why I didn't lose weight without drastically eating less. Even when doing omad. My issue was always being fearful of not eating enough, which I could never figure out, since all I ever heard was if you restrict calories too much, ones metabolism slows down. Very confusing. It led me to wonder - how do bariatric surgery patients lose so much weight? Does their metabolism slow down too? This video did help me immensely. But the mtabolism issue still confounds me. If I truly know what to do, I'll do it. Im tired of being fat!!
If you eat less, a variety of metabolic shifts occur leading you to burn fewer calories. Essentially you will become more efficient at using calories in light of the deficit. But you will still lose weight. In other words your calories out will decline by some (probably small) amount, but never as much as your calories in are falling. Is that helpful?
Also, your metabolism slows with weight loss BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS MASS TO MAINTAIN. My sedentary TDEE dropped almost 300 calories per day, not because I “broke” my metabolism by eating at too high of a deficit, but because I lost 50 pounds and consequently burn less per day due to reduced mass. A consistent, steady 500cal deficit/day is sustainable and will get you to your weight loss goals. Make sure to use your *sedentary* tdee, because people overestimate their movement dramatically. Log it separately and don’t eat back more than 50% of exercise calories (to account for overestimated burn).
Way better than all those "doctors" and carnivores who just look like narcissistic exhibitionists. My rebuttal to them would be the likes of Maggie Q (vegan), Maye Musk (Mediterranean), Mika Takishima (balanced soy and plant dominant with chicken and fish), et al. You provide very good explanations in this video.
Thanks, Maria!
I always said the hormone model of obesity incorporates the calories in/out model, aka the calories in/out model is an oversimplification.
Of course even the hormonal model is an over simplification, but alightly more accurate.
Since you are familiar with mitochondria, I'd be curious to know is your thoughts about the F/N ratio on mitochondria and cellular signaling, as spoken of on the hyperlipid blog.
this video doesnt explain what happen to the lipid molecule when you overconsume fat but zero/low carb thus low insulin response
are they stored in the fat cells too?
or the body suddenly raise the BMR because there' s suddenly a surge of energy available?
I rarely heard people talking about that :|
I feel like one of the biggest considerations for people who want to follow a calories in calories out approach to dieting would be protein. Its metabolism into sugars is itself expensive and happens conditionally when total energy is quite low or when protein ratio is overwhelmingly high.
Gluconeogenesis
1. We don't have receptors for calories.
Do we have receptors for other units, like degrees Celsius, Newtons, then? No, so clearly when someone puts you in an oven or squashes you in a compacter you will not be affected.
2. Calories comes from physics so they do not apply.
Sooo....we must live outside of physical space and time then. I never knew.
Or maybe they mean that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to human beings, because we are not closed systems. I guess we cannot apply the second law of thermodynamics to the sun and earth then either and must concluded that in these systems energy CAN be freely created and destroyed, because they are both not closed systems.
3. Different foods have different hormonal reactions.
Clearly this proves calories do not influence hormones at all, not one bit. Replace your water with molten butter people. Calories do not matter, because hormones are influenced only by WHAT (and when) you eat and not at all by calories.
Oh yeah, obviously this last statement proves that sugars, in any form, are evil and only low-carb diets work. Though, in every low-carb and TRE study were calories are not restricted there are always some subjects that did not loss weight or even gained weight, but never mind that. That proves nothing.
This was an excellent and very thoughtful video on this topic. It is not easy in our ego controlled world to make a case/stance about something while simultaneously agreeing with all the key counter arguments. Calories are in a large sense all created equal; it may not matter for the vast majority of people looking to gain or lose weight, but it still seems to be true. Perspective and narrative are everything.
Please review Dr. Fung on sodium!!!!! 🙏
Fantastic vídeo!
How does non-digestible fiber factor into calorie counts? Is it counted as part of the calories or not?
Dr. Bikman has a talk entitled "The Metabolic Advantage" in which he refers to the fact that an individual in ketosis will be wasting ketones from the body during breathing. Of course those lost calories are in some sense -- very definitely your sense too -- if those calories were directly from dietary fat, then they were not fully consumed in the sense of cellular respiration, though they probably did incur a slight metabolic energy deficit.
But there are so many individual factors involved that you can't say, for instance, that 50g of dietary fat will never produce its full caloric energy value. Neither can you say it will always produce that value.
Dietary fat does produce its full energic value other than perhaps a small amount not absorbed. About 3% of fat is used directly as heat when you eat it (thermogenic effect of food). With carbs its 5-10% and protein about 25%. That's "the meat sweats"
Calories are still foundational.
Calories are still foundational to what? 🤔 I find it interesting when CICO points are brought up that take a helpful conversation about health, macronutrient food choices and weight loss, and in comes a scientist that says, "a pound is a pound is a pound!". Yep, 1+1=2 is certainly true, but it seems to be a point bereft of context. Then the CICO scientist says, "Of course macronutrients matter, as does timing of meals, and different food's impact on hormone levels, but those are beside the point that I, a scientist, am trying to make."
Yeah, you just interrupted these other scientists focused on those other topics that are driving better understanding and decisions on foods to eat, with a mostly pointless argument that nobody is really arguing. 😂
Moving on.
I think Bikman's point is that caloric fat intake in excess of expenditure need not be stored, whereas a similar excess taken in carbs will always be stored. The metabolic effects downstream of that are of course not to be casually disregarded.
I tend to follow your arguments but I have one question. How do we measure the calories contained in Food? If we just burn the foods in an oven and measure the energy I would assume that this result is different from the energy Our metabolism is deriving from the same food, right? So, wenn we say 100ml of olive oil has x calories is that really equal to the energy Our body derives from it Wien digested?
It's not heated in an oven, it's shocked and heats up water.
All evidence points to the fact that we use calories in a similar way and a 3500 calorie deficit will lead to a lose of one body of body fat, whether your diet is carbs, fats, protein, or nothing.
Look up calorimeter here on YT about a christmas dinner.
Isn’t satiety hormone triggered by caloric intake?
Ignorant question. Wasn't there a Randall cycle where mitochondria can't utilise simultaneously sugar and fat and there happens something as jamming of mitochondria and no gear engine state when energy is used up for heat?
my question probably is if if there is that other way of spending energy instead of storing it
The Randle Cycle simply illustrates the metabolic flexibility of substrate (glucose or fat), but it doesn't say that mitochondria *can't* use one substrate or another - just that at any given moment, if the mitochondria is using one substrate, it necessitates a reduction in the use of the opposite substrate.
Prof Bart will love this
If I reduce the number of calories in my food, exercising the same, I lose weight. If I increase exercise, ceteris paribus , same thing. Or I can increase calories or decrease exercise and get the opposite effect. My measurement instruments are somewhat crude - data from MyFitnessPal and readings from my Fitbit smartwatch - but the measurements are pretty consistent and long usage has taught me how to adjust. I keep good records, going back years.. This is just the way it works. For an amateur bodybuilder like me, it’s just axiomatic. I’m 76, btw, so I’ve clocked some mileage on this issue. Thanks for your presentations, Nick. You’re one of my go-to guys.🙏
Excellent! Thank you!
Dr. Fung is right and you are right as well Nick. That is why they say that if you want to lose 1lb of fat you have to burn 3500 calories. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Well, it really depends on what you mean.
Physically a calorie is a calorie, so from that perspective they are indeed all the same. But the same amount of calories can have very different effects on things like blood sugar, cholesterol, satiety, etc. For example 100 calories of fat or protein would be much more filling than 100 calories of carbs (because they digest more slowly) so you'd be less likely to eat more.
So from an energy standpoint all calories are equal, but not really from a health standpoint.
Question: how many ATP molecules per Calorie? Looking that up 1 ATP = 7.3 kcals. 1 ATP I believe = 1 electron exchange (T or F ?), which would mean that there are 137 ATP molecules per Calorie (1000 kcal), and by extension the body runs on 3000 X 137 electrons per day ? , or 411,000 electrons per day. That can’t be right, it should be orders of magnitude greater. Where have I gone wrong?
Excellent channel 👍
I've tried many diets and it always comes down to controlling appetite. Whether I eat too many carbs or protein or fat doesn't matter (or don't exercise enough to compensate). If I'm not in a deficit I'm not losing weight. Tough struggle for many of us and probably why the newer anti-appetite drugs like Mounjaro are becoming so popular.
What foods help you feel less hungry? I really struggle with my large appetite
@@rachelbrondel5858 I wish I had the answers Rachel but I don't. I'm T2 with an A1c over 7 so right now my immediate goals are get under 7 so low carb/low sugar and try to stay in a deficit for weight loss. I think extra protein helps but you have to be careful as calories add up fast.
@@rachelbrondel5858I eat raw kidney fat. It gives me wonderful 💩💩💩 AND lots of energy AND it is satiating AF. I eat two meals a day. No need for a third meal because I'm just not hungry.
@@rachelbrondel5858 Meat, butter, full fat dairy, eggs cause satiety. Anything with fructose triggers the 'more' impulse. Having choffles (egg with equal mozzarella cheese in a mini waffle maker) with butter has helped me eat less. They are my bread substitute and seem to keep my carb cravings at bay.
@@lindabirmingham603 Seconding this. Meat, dairy, eggs, good fats, even have some veggies if you like them. If you cut out 99% of sugar that's a start. Carnivore base will absolutely smash that fat. Tie in some extended fasting and OMAD or 2MAD and it will occur even faster. You HAVE to exercise though! Eat your bodyweight in grams of protein. So if you're 180, get 180-200g to build/preserve muscle.
There was no mention of Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), the amount of energy you expend when doing nothing. This is the majority of energy that you expend. We know that reducing calories in leads to a lowering of your BMR, which is why the weight loss in most calories reduction diets stalls after a few months. But, some foods have the same metabolic slowing effect. Fructose (50% of sucrose) gets converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis if your other calorie needs are met. This should get moved to the skin, but can remain in the liver and gum up the processing. Raised insulin from glucose consumption retains the weight of fat, in the skin fat cells, so their potential energy is never released. Calories are a good approximation as to whether you might be "over eating" but the effect on your weight cannot be calculated because of the variables concerning your metabolism. If we consider E=Mc² every gram of food contains approximately 900,000,000,000 calories, so its no wonder we're putting on weight.
Each gram of food can release 900,000,000,000 calories IF it comes into contact with a gram of the same food consisting of anti-particles (positrons and anti protons). That's more energy than even exploding 1 gram of food if you could turn it into a thermonuclear bomb somehow.
Your body does not use the food in a matter/anti matter destruction or even as nuclear energy. It uses mostly the energy in stored chemical bonds which is much less efficient. Example: if you burn a log in the fire place, you're not turning much of the log itself into energy, you're just liberating the chemical bonds in the wood. This is why a log burning releases a fuckton less energy than an equivalent mass of uranium or plutonium in a fission bomb. Same goes for when your car burns diesel fuel, alcohol, or gasoline. It's not destroing the fuel, it's just liberating the chemical bonds. Those atoms are all still there.
Your BMR goes down as you diet because it drops as you weigh less. The less weight you weigh, the less metabolic needs your body has. If you were to exactly eat the same caloies every day and do the same amount of exercise every single day, your weight would asymptotically get close to a certain weight without ever reaching it. Of course, such things never happen in the real world. Even if you ordered the same fast food meal every day to make it easy the calories would vary in the meals slightly (larger pieces of chicken, more french fries, etc.) and you would never get exactly the same amount of exercise in a given day. Even if you religiously followed it and IDK, walked for 16 hours straight and slept exactly 8 hours, temperature variations would also change your calories consumed.
This is such an important distinction. I was keto and carnivore for 6 years, but only recently gained a good understanding of the vital importance of micro nutrients. That has changed the game in my health journey. My main focus is on maximizing vital nutrients now.
waou! 6 years on keto carnivore!! and what kind of foods do you eat now? did you think that it was a mistake doing keto?
@@esther.f.g absolutely not. Keto and carnivore helped my body heal from a myriad of food allergies, leaky gut, ibs, join pain, etc., that I had suffered with since birth. I'm still fairly low carb, but my diet now is about 80% plants, 80% raw and no dairy. The fruits are cleansing my body systems and micronutrients are repairing my body.
@@jaghad oh look at it🙄
Dr. John Berardi (Co-Founder of Precision Nutrition) once had a podcast and started to interview folks like Dr. Fung. That's, people he disagrees with, because he wanted to have these kinds of discussions, question them, find out why/what/how. He asked him several times whether he thinks CiCo works or not, and eventually Dr. Fung admitted that CiCo works. In other podcasts he'd say that it doesn't work, that people who count calories are stupid, that it's all about hormones and insulin and whatnot. So frustrating, especially when you meet people irl who want to lose weight, start to exercise and improve their health, and then they have to face all that misinformation and conflicting information.
Some foods are more addictive than others. Ultra-processed foods are highly palatable and so people tend to eat more. These may have the same calories per ounce as a broccoli salad, but they are easier to overconsume. The food industry loves the saying a calorie is a calorie, which is correct but how it affects hunger is huge, at least for me.
*nutrients (not calories)
@@Physionic sure you are right but they are confounded in those of us that eat. Highly processed foods freely fed tend to be over consumed. The food industry is in part responsible. I cannot trust myself around some foods at all.
Totally fair, Mary. I plan on making content on the topic as soon as I get some other things done.
@@Physionic my daughter is an obesity medicine doctor. She just attended a conference in NYC where the ultra-processed food evidence was discussed. I think that is a wonderful topic to discuss. 👍
@@RandomGuy-qg9xf every one is different. I find controlling my pantry helps me stay fit. The food industry does target palatability when creating new foods. Addiction is hard to measure but if you cannot stop eating certain foods, there is a problem.
is there a difference in thermal cost between broccoli and fructose ?
Definitely, at the level of the gut, but fructose is also a monosaccharide and broccoli is not, so the comparison isn’t equivalent from the start. That said… we’re distinguishing between nutrients, pre-digestion, which certainly matters, but isn’t the point of this video.
the one point the dr mentioned,and i missed it in your rebuttle, is that SOME mass, or calorie intake, is NOT absorbed and passes through without the body using and or storing.
i believe "wood" was the example he used.
so maybe all calories are create dequal, but their delivery mechanism are different.
please address.....since i consume a ton of wood each day :)
Wood has calories, just like anything else in the world has calories, but we don't eat wood, because wood can't be metabolized (there's no 'glycolysis' of wood), but all the foods you eat have metabolic pathways that allow them to be incorporated, unlike wood, steel, plastic, etc.
@@Physionic thanks for replying...humbled that you would.
however, i always understood many things, like insoluble vs soluable fibers, are used or broken down (or not) differently when passing though the gut.
am i using my fibers, or thinking about them, all wrong?
and hey, so my adding powdered oak tree to my dough is not helpng me!!!!
@@Physionic Wood is high in cellulose....and would therefore burn in a bomb calorimeter eliciting a calorie reading...in our bodies, it would pass right through us...eliciting nothing but bowel pain. Food has information.
Pinned comment, Sammy.
Analogy: KiloWatts-hours can be generated by many different ways, Hydro, Solar, Fossil fuels, but KiloWatts-hours are KiloWatts-hours. They are a unit of measure we use to allow comparisons of electrical energy.
So good 👏
Its possible to lose bodyfat and just lose omega 3, and increase fat stored in the liver. Combine that with large loss of lean muscle mass, its a worry. Metabolism adapts, and the person is in a far worse off situation than prior to fat loss. Then they put the weight back on and die. Changing lifestyle to quality food, increasing muscle to fat ratio is much more important than worrying about calories in, calories out.
Thoughts on how toxins can make fat loss extremely difficult as they hold on to fat or slow the fat loss ? This is why many people having toxins exposure are not able to loose fat despite caloric deficit.
By definition if someone is not losing or gaining weight then they are eating their maintenance calories. If they are gaining weight then they are eating what is called a calorie surplus, and if they are losing weight then that is called a calorie deficit. So by the very definitions of the terms, one can not be in a significant calorie deficit for an extended period of time, and not lose weight.
So, if someone is capable of maintaining their weight for long periods of time while eating significantly fewer calories than the calculations suggest, then one of two situations exist. Either 1). that person's body is more efficient at converting food into usable energy than most other people, which begs the question, what kind of "toxins" are these people taking to become more efficient than the rest of us? And of course the follow on questions like, where can we get these "toxins?" Couldn't we end world hunger by shipping these "toxins" along with the wheat and rice? Would these "toxins" be considered performance enhancers by sports organizations? And should things that make us more efficient really be considered "toxins?" So many??????
Or 2). Their ability to account for their intake / expenditure and understand the calculations is roughly the same as their understanding of definitions such as "calorie deficit" and "toxins."
@@Logan4661 That's a really interesting idea and a new way to look at this. I'm gathering evidence on how endocrine disruptors can make you fatter or other toxins. Basically, they are slowing down your metabolism and it's not necessary that this energy-efficient state is the most optimal state for humans to be in, the state that you're referring to with toxins. I'll get back to you with some evidence of it.
Practicing doctors like Jason Fung, Berry have learned via theur onw experience and in practice. What they do works and for the majority, more effective long term.
Great explanation
The problem with CICO approach and why it generally fails in the long term is it ignores the elephant in the room, which is satiety/hunger. The SAD that includes UPF concocted using highly processed starches, added oils, and sugar are engineered to override natural hormonal feedback loops that keep caloric intake in check. It also biases the system to store excess energy as fat rather than burn it.
Totally get that, and I agree, but that's not the core point of the video.
~ I like how Nicholas stays with scientific facts and does not over analyze everything. Nice 👌
• Who said this ? " Calories count - but don't count calories. "
hehe, on the 0:47th second I stopped the video, gave it a like, and, writing this comment now..
It's a topic that is too confusing for many people, but you are right! Can't wait to see the rest of the video
Hmm.. it is worth emphasising the wood concept by Dr Fung. Wood had lots of calories, but we cannot absorb them. So similarly, while the measurement of calories is correct, there must als be an efficiency term in how we absorb calories from different food sources.
I think by 'calories not equal' they usually mean that eating a 100 calories sugar is not equal to eating 100 calories of protein powder. Its not the calories in the food that the 'not equal' refers to but the 'eating', so what the body does with it. And all this in the context of overeating, so when it comes to storing fat.
I wonder if there is a difference in this regard because I'm not sure if the body can convert and store protein with the same efficiency as sugar for example, and this is where this question is rooted I think.
Fung may be right. You may Both be right, just looking at how a calorie is determined. You determine a calorie to be a unit of Energy derived from breakdown of APT WITHIN the body. how is caloric content within the food determined? if it is determined the way Fung says-by stuff being burnt in a laboratory-setting and the amount of heat produced measured-then He is also right because like He says, not all the caloric content of a food may be absorbed by the intestine, it will depend on the type of food+various other factors. but the entire content is burnt within laboratory-setting during the procedure, no? regards.
Fung says in that interview (or another) that you can’t get away from the physics ie., it’s correct - you need to create a deficit. Whatyou have presented very well just supports what Fung says imho.
Also, the effect of the Gut Microbiome. These have been show to raise or lower BMR and promote or retard fat gain from the same ingested calories. So, foods that benefit or degrade the gut microbiome can have you gain weight or lose weight from identical number of calories. I'm in the "energy is not weight" camp. Every time you breathe in you "ingest" a load of Oxygen. When you breathe out you lose a load of CO2 and water and Ketones. You sweat, wee and poo. The amount of food you eat has to fit into this complex equation.
Thats why I kept telling people there's no need to count calories. Just rhat I couldn't explain it well enough. But now I think I can, tnx to you.
I've lost 20kg in less then 6 months by implementing autophagy, supplements & lighter diet (less junk food). So no need for counting calories or using a kitchen scale.
I get that removing calories from diet causes energy to be pulled from fat, but it also deprives your body of the nutrients that are also in that food. Since things like b vitamins can't be stored and are required for basice functions including energy metabolism, wouldn't someone need to add the vitamins that would have been in those foods in order for this to be healthy. I mean yes you lose weight but wouldn't it also be depriving some part of your body of needed nutrients?
Is it possible to stimulate ATP to burn more calories could this be possibly a show?
No. ATP calorie yield is also dictated by Gibbs Free Energy, but by and large, ATP calorie yield is the same, regardless which nutrient produced the ATP.
Very good analysis.