I don't want to sound rude, but this video is pretty much inaccurate. Fat loss is mainly a matter of how to alternate our metabolism between fat loss mode to fat storage mode (and viceversa) efficiently. The calories is/out balance is highly superficial, even though of course it has to be taken into account. WHEN you eat and what kind of food you're eating is much more crucial for weight loss. Insuline resistance/insuline sensitivity is the main core of this subject. Unfortunately is pretty easy not to lose weight (or even gain more) on a calorie-restrictive diet, if done in the wrong way.
Insulin regulates your blood sugar level. When you it your food plays a minimal role. There is no such thing as a "fat storage mode". It literally is about how much energy you take in vs how much you consume, it's a basic law of thermodynamics. Calories in and out is the main thing here. If you eat a lot and don't exercise, you gain weight. If you eat very little and exercise a lot, you will lose weight (assuming your body functions normally). You're partially right, in that the video is superficial, but far from inaccurate (which I have already stated in the description). I don't know where you got your information from, it would intrigue me to be honest.
There are plenry of sources. Try "The Obesity Code" book of Dr. Jason Fung. Anyway, oir body is very complex. It's not working so simplisticly. First, the types of calories you're eating makes a lot of difference, because we eat food, not calories. And our body reacts differently. Just try doing a 1500 kcal/day diet eating 1500kcal of pure sugar, vs 1500kcal diet of pure meat, for example. The weight outcome will be hugely different even if your caloric intake is exactly the same, and that's because our metabolism reacts differently to different substances. With sugars (and carbohydrates) our insulin level rises and the body is highly prone to store a huge amount of that into fat. Plus, we you exercise more, your not burning fat right away. First, your body try to use mainly glucose, then try to access mainly glycogen reservoirs from the liver. That's because this is a quicker way to obtain energy. Burning fat is a "slow" process that needs to be triggeres by a complex hormonal response. We all burn a small amount of fat daily, sure, but if you're obese or overweight and you want to burn more fat, you have to give your body the right instructions. Just lowering calories (or doing more exercise) is not enough. Calories must be taken into account, but the overall mechanism is much more xomolex than "eat less, move more", and that's way for some people losing weight is soooo difficult. Your assumption may become more consistent for young healthy people, without metabolic imbalances, but becomes highly suoerficial if applied to overweight/obese people, for example
You're definitely right about the glucose and glycogen, I didn't mention that in the video (but as I said, I left out some nuances). When it comes to the meat vs sugar, on one hand, sugar are empty calories so yes, it definitely won't help, because the nutritional values for sugar are terrible, but on the other hand, everything eventually gets converted to Acetyl-CoA, so in the end, the actual energy you get it's... well... just energy. There are different "kinds" of energy, yes, (like kinetic, potential, chemical, electrical and whatever) but in the end, they're all different categories for the same exact thing. One could argue that high Temperature, which is still a very energetic state for molecule, is nothing more than kinetic energy, just the atoms moving rapidly, or that chemical energy is nothing more than potential energy, but that's besides the point. In the end, energy is just energy that is stored and used by our body in different ways, so while the nutritional values themselves may facilitate certain processes by giving us the substances to aid them, the most important point still remains the sheer quantity of calories ingested. I will also give you credit for saying that my assumption is more consistent for young and healthy people (which is why I also said a little disclaimer in the video which excludes people with certain medical conditions from my advice). What you also have to understand, is that I myself am a young and (personally I like to believe) healthy person, so my experience will of course be more biased in that regard, because as soon as I started to cut my calories I have always seen a reduction to my weight proportional to the calorie deficit in less than a week. So for sure, the "better" your body functions (where better basically means "more efficiently" or "exactly the way it was intended to function), of course the more directly you can apply my advice. On the other hand, I'm just a dude on the internet sharing my experience, so don't blindly believe everything I say, I like that you challenge what I say.
I don't want to sound rude, but this video is pretty much inaccurate. Fat loss is mainly a matter of how to alternate our metabolism between fat loss mode to fat storage mode (and viceversa) efficiently. The calories is/out balance is highly superficial, even though of course it has to be taken into account. WHEN you eat and what kind of food you're eating is much more crucial for weight loss. Insuline resistance/insuline sensitivity is the main core of this subject. Unfortunately is pretty easy not to lose weight (or even gain more) on a calorie-restrictive diet, if done in the wrong way.
Insulin regulates your blood sugar level. When you it your food plays a minimal role. There is no such thing as a "fat storage mode". It literally is about how much energy you take in vs how much you consume, it's a basic law of thermodynamics. Calories in and out is the main thing here. If you eat a lot and don't exercise, you gain weight. If you eat very little and exercise a lot, you will lose weight (assuming your body functions normally). You're partially right, in that the video is superficial, but far from inaccurate (which I have already stated in the description). I don't know where you got your information from, it would intrigue me to be honest.
There are plenry of sources. Try "The Obesity Code" book of Dr. Jason Fung. Anyway, oir body is very complex. It's not working so simplisticly. First, the types of calories you're eating makes a lot of difference, because we eat food, not calories. And our body reacts differently. Just try doing a 1500 kcal/day diet eating 1500kcal of pure sugar, vs 1500kcal diet of pure meat, for example. The weight outcome will be hugely different even if your caloric intake is exactly the same, and that's because our metabolism reacts differently to different substances. With sugars (and carbohydrates) our insulin level rises and the body is highly prone to store a huge amount of that into fat. Plus, we you exercise more, your not burning fat right away. First, your body try to use mainly glucose, then try to access mainly glycogen reservoirs from the liver. That's because this is a quicker way to obtain energy. Burning fat is a "slow" process that needs to be triggeres by a complex hormonal response. We all burn a small amount of fat daily, sure, but if you're obese or overweight and you want to burn more fat, you have to give your body the right instructions. Just lowering calories (or doing more exercise) is not enough. Calories must be taken into account, but the overall mechanism is much more xomolex than "eat less, move more", and that's way for some people losing weight is soooo difficult. Your assumption may become more consistent for young healthy people, without metabolic imbalances, but becomes highly suoerficial if applied to overweight/obese people, for example
You're definitely right about the glucose and glycogen, I didn't mention that in the video (but as I said, I left out some nuances).
When it comes to the meat vs sugar, on one hand, sugar are empty calories so yes, it definitely won't help, because the nutritional values for sugar are terrible, but on the other hand, everything eventually gets converted to Acetyl-CoA, so in the end, the actual energy you get it's... well... just energy. There are different "kinds" of energy, yes, (like kinetic, potential, chemical, electrical and whatever) but in the end, they're all different categories for the same exact thing. One could argue that high Temperature, which is still a very energetic state for molecule, is nothing more than kinetic energy, just the atoms moving rapidly, or that chemical energy is nothing more than potential energy, but that's besides the point. In the end, energy is just energy that is stored and used by our body in different ways, so while the nutritional values themselves may facilitate certain processes by giving us the substances to aid them, the most important point still remains the sheer quantity of calories ingested.
I will also give you credit for saying that my assumption is more consistent for young and healthy people (which is why I also said a little disclaimer in the video which excludes people with certain medical conditions from my advice). What you also have to understand, is that I myself am a young and (personally I like to believe) healthy person, so my experience will of course be more biased in that regard, because as soon as I started to cut my calories I have always seen a reduction to my weight proportional to the calorie deficit in less than a week. So for sure, the "better" your body functions (where better basically means "more efficiently" or "exactly the way it was intended to function), of course the more directly you can apply my advice.
On the other hand, I'm just a dude on the internet sharing my experience, so don't blindly believe everything I say, I like that you challenge what I say.