Breaking the Insulin Myth. 

yup. outcome data always beats a mechanistic model... :) another thing I suspect is oversimplified is that insulin release is not just triggered by carbs but also protein (and there may be macronutrient-independent factors as well). some analyses paint a surprising picture regarding the insulin release in response to different foods

As someone who suffered from a deadly eating disorder and has restored weight, these types of videos are SURPRISINGLY helpful. I like to think through the logical reasons as to why the body does what it does and these types of scientific-based videos are fascinating. Plus, they make me feel better about the experience I went through, especially now knowing the science. Thank you!

After going to a lower carb diet (eliminating bread, pasta, sugar, most grains, and refined carbs) for a couple of years now, it is easier to eat less because I almost never get hungry or have cravings. As soon as we eat a high carb meal, I get hungry shortly after. Root veggies are the only exception. Eating a wide variety of meats, veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, and dairy is more satiating. It seems easier to eat less food overall and feel much healthier overall.

I use to buy cereals labeled "Heart Healthy" by the American Heart Association. I had tried many diets but avoiding processed carbohydrate/sugar was the biggest contributor to my weight loss from over 190 down to less than 130 and stabilized at 133-135. Aside from the Physiology, the Psychology of being self satiated contributes to being healthy.

Cutting carbs from my diet made huge changes in my body. My blood pressure was finally in the normal range and my fasting blood sugar was lower than 90. It eliminated late night cravings and my skin has cleared up. To each their own.

I'm glad you tackle these studies. I see the Insulin Myth being pushed everywhere

Insulin also stimulates appetite which can make maintaining a calorie deficit difficult.

Happy New Year, all. I have many videos written out for the coming month from fasting on cancer to dietary fat on heart disease risk, and more. Looking forward to sharing.

I have experimented with my diet for the past decade trying out different things. Keeping protein and calories the same, a low fat high carb diet makes me feel hungry all the time, yet high fat low carb satiates me very well and I get much less brain fog. If I were to stay on a low fat diet I really don't think I could sustain it for long without falling off the wagon. I find myself craving rather than hungry. Low carb seems to suit me quite well although I would encourage anyone to experiment and give both a solid 3 month trial before writing them off.

TLDR - insulin by itself does NOT directly tie to fat loss/gains, but rather it is still CICO that counts. However, if you do lower carbs, then you will have lower insulin levels, which will allow you to do better fasting and this CICO. Whatever works for you, and for most people, the lower carbs (insulin) has a higher probability of a better weight.

I still think this needs to be more granular. Not all carbs are the same. Of course calories in vs out is the main factor, but I'd like to see junk carb vs good carbs studies

Finally a pop-science dude who explains this so that even I can understand. I always had a problem with the so-called RU-vid Keto guru's keeping saying that insulin is the only thing that matters. Yet, none of them ever answered why you can still cain weight while on keto if you eat a lot. This was the first time I heard about ASP, but it sure as hell clarified a lot. And I'm saying this as someone who is on a keto diet but who knows from experience that it's not a weight loss magic bullet as such. It just makes it much easier due the hunger suppression.

It is easier to stay on a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet than a calorie-restricted higher carb diet. There's a behavioral aspect not captued by the studies. Fat is satisfying, carbs create hunger making it harder to stick to the low calorie diet.

You're missing the whole point of the ketogenic diet. In that study they had the same calories, which is the wrong way to conduct the study. If you eat all carbohydrates, you're going to be hungrier. So in that study they capped their calories at a set level, preventing them from eating more, however, guaranteed, those people were hungry and felt like they wanted to eat more, and outside of the controlled condition they would have. Also, when eating a ketogenic diet, the participants would be satiated all the time, and not wanting to eat more; so forcing them to eat the same calories as the high carb group was force-feeding them in the study far beyond what they would naturally eat. The study is incorrect because it limited the carb eaters from eating more, and forced the meat eaters to eat more than they wanted. The ketogenic diet is about manipulating the body's hormones to control satiety signaling from the gut to the brain, which they completely by-passed to show the results they wanted to show.

I appreciate you taking the time to make these videos! It's nice to see what insights you have that are contrary to what I've heard other people say. Always nice to get as much information as possible!!!

Strong case for the calorie deficit model, I'm a believer, and I have heard several low carb presenters mention that you must still watch your calories. The one caveat, and its a big one for me, is how insulin affects your hunger and satiety hormones. If I eat a steak, I FEEL full and I can stop eating. If I eat the same number of calories in bread, rice, etc... I can't stop eating and I never feel full...which is why I can easily spend over $100 at the sushi restaurant. Or I can eat four 4-pack reese's peanut butter cups in a row and still want more.

Actually both sides are correct, insulin is super important for a person that is metabolically sick, while a healthy individual might lose weigth similarly. If on keto/low 50-60gr carbs I can afford to eat 500cal more!!! That is 500, not a spelling mistake. Also you cant just switch from high carb to keto and expect the body to cope with the situation...

Petition that all your videos should be made with an english accent. But in a more serious note, i don't think fat loss is the end all be all of health, if that was the case then all skinny people would be healthy and all fat people would be sick, and that's not the point, we can have insulin resistant skinny people and fat people that are in good enough health. Would love to see some more inflammation markers on the 2 diets and the variability between the subjects response to the diet. Beta hydroxy butyrate ( and simply butyrate ) seem to be anti inflammatory, so if you have the good microbiome for fiber you get healthier or if you have the good microbiome for ketosis/fat absorption. I just looked at the study and there are a few interesting things : 1. Insulin is 7.92 compared to 6.27 high carbs vs high fat, so lower insulin is better for health span from what i know 2.trygliceride 104 vs 85 (Would of loved to see ldl/hdl) 3. I don't wanna be THAT guy who nitpicks, but polyunsaturated fats is 32g on the kd vs 20g , both are bad but i'm betting that most of the increase will come from omega 6s. We know that omega 3s are very important and the balance is vital for good health, i don't mind the high consumption but i'm sure it would look like 28g omega 6 to 4g omega 3s. So that would cause inflammation and less weight loss. 4. I kept searching but i didn't find exactly their diet. We know choline is very important for fat mobilization and carnitine too, carnivore groups with most red meat/liver/eggs have the best fat loss , i bet again ( since i'm a betting man it seems ) that that's the bottleneck for fat utilization. Not that many studies are well designed in regards to micronutrients, not all fat is the same not all carbs. I do agree that insulin is not everything but ketosis has some advantages, i lost weight through sport and exercise but my brain was never happy, but in a 3day only butter+meat diet my brain was extremely calm and focused, but that might be party because of dysbiosis.

Wouldn't an easy way to test this be to have two groups on the same hypocaloric ketogenic diet with one given exogenous insulin? Then we would know whether or not insulin itself has bearing on weight loss.

I suspect the main reason insulin is so connected to obesity is that it makes you hungry almost all the time. So a study where they lock people up and starve them to prove that CICO reigns supreme seems to miss the point when it comes to real life. I didn't learn this by reading studies but by being one. I started a ketogenic diet and lost 50 pounds, so I stayed on. When I "cheat" and have some carbs, the main effect is that I'm ravenously hungry a couple of hours later. It's possible but extremely difficult to lose weight and sustain it under those conditions. Hunger is the key to the whole thing, and that's likely why insulin is a problem.

I thought the insulin story as told by Jason Fung and others was related to the level of basal insulin as measured after an overnight fast . We all know that insulin level goes up in reaction after eating a meal and that kind of measurement isn't what's being pointed at by Dr Fung or other Drs. So, they're saying that the basal insulin after years of stimulation will gradually go up and the level of a patient's basal insulin is indicative of the state of their metabolic state. Besides, sugar isn't the only factor causing obesity. It usually goes hand in hand with bad oil or so called omega 6 seed oil which is found in abundance in junk food. That would explain the rise in obesity from 1970's forward as the proliferation of Macdonalds and Burger kings and other restaurants would explain the proliferation of food with high sugar content (from Macdonald buns ) and the seed oil content from the fried chips or fried burgers etc ... If as a researcher, you could address that issue as a complex issue consisting of several factors instead of trying to talk about it in simpletons like obesity is just about sugar or just about oil, maybe the problem might be solved faster instead of beating around the bush and turning a blind eye to the obvious !!!

3:42: the british accent is wonderfull!!

I think it’s kind of true. I normally do keto and fast for 20-22 hrs a day, but I was in Japan for 2 weeks last month (no gym or exercises which I did everyday normally) and since I was traveling with a bunch of friends, it was very anti social to have stuck with my usual diet, so I just ate whatever and whenever the others did. I was eating a lot of rice and carbs as that’s what most of the Japanese meals were and I found myself being constantly hungry and even felt faint sometimes, which never ever happened when I was doing keto. But to my surprise, after the 2 weeks, my body weight and body fat stayed the same but I actually gained a little muscles, according to my Tanita scale. I think it was due to the Japanese food I was eating were mostly healthy organic stuffs, mostly fish, without highly processed rubbish, sugar or seed oil. I guess sometimes, it’s not what one eats that counts, it’s also the actual quality and compositions of the food. 😅

I wonder the most about what happened after the studies? Yes they lost similar weighths but did high insuling diet gain the weights back? Comparison to others?

Yep low carb diets only work in the real world. In the lab they are no better than other diets. Satiety must be the key.

The answer is Perma bulk and portion control with some cardio!

It’s calories and the thermic effect of foods, nothing else matters.

I thought the issue was that high Insulin levels prompted more calorie cravings and that is why you dont lose weight, because of the increased calories.

According to keto experts, it takes longer than 4 weeks to become "fat adapted" and has completely switched it's physiological process from glucose as fuel to ketones/fat as fuel. Wonder if a 6 to 12 month study would show a difference or not.

The only thing I am worried about is calorie equalization. This seems very artificial to me. On a high fat diet I will eat at max 1500-2000 calories and be satiated to the max. On a high carb diet I can eat 3000 calories without even blinking and still have cravings. I believe putting too many calories into high fat diets may skew results.

There is a fundamental problem with this study. Without some sufficient period between the low carb and high carb phase, how do you know that the former did not have affect on the latter. There have been several other similar studies since, with the authors coming to the same conclusions, but critics coming to the opposite conclusions with equally reasonable logic. If I'm not mistaken, when you do allow for some number of weeks between the opposing diets on the same sample, the results are different. I'm not saying that insulin is everything, but I don't think this "destroys" the idea that insulin affects fat loss.

First principles dictate calories in minus calories out equals weight loss, weight gain, or equilibrium assuming all calories are equally assimilable. What the study doesn’t show is how utterly miserable the high carb, high insulin diet makes the participants feel (think “hangry”). The resulting “carb addiction” and the eating behaviors that are inspired outside of a laboratory “prison” is why the high carb/high insulin model rarely works for weight loss.

Fat loss is simply difficult. I've read Dr Fung. I intermittent fast, eat whole foods in proportion to support exercise, crossfit 5 days a week. I'm happy with my results, but I'm no chiseled person, not by a long shot. Ultimately, i do believe weight loss is when you're in a caloric deficit. No tricks. That's a tough state to be in indefinitely, even if you are, your body adjusts to the new normal. The debate continues......

I wonder if there's any study comparing a high calorie low carb diet and a high calorie high carb diet. That would be the ultimate test, I think.

ok I'll just eat pure processed sugar and insulin stimulating foods and remain at a caloric deficit bc the only point this video seems to illustrate is that insulin or insulin resistance doesn't matter

I want to share this experience, I am on a journey to losing my excess body fat, so I have been trying intermittent fasting, prolonged fasting, calorie deficits and varying diets, I have found that the weeks where I had the most reduction of my overall body fat is when I do the prolonged fasts, 1 to 3 days, I lose a little but consistently when I have weeks with only intermittent fasts and I have also noticed that even if I include high carb foods, as long as I don’t over eat or maintain the calorie deficit I still lose weight, same with physical activity, weeks where I am mostly sedentary, my fat loss diminishes, days where I walk all week or do weights or HIIT my fat loss accelerates. Very interesting.

I don't know how much the followers of the keto diet try to disprove that the weight loss is the same on a diet high in carbohydrates for the same amount of calories, but I know that they claim that the roller coaster of glucose in their blood and thus their body energy is a problem. They claim that it's impossible not to eat too many calories because when you eat carbohydrates you can't stop eating so you take in too many calories. Whereas on carnivore or keto, you don't have that problem because hunger control is easy.

Greg Doucette keeps saying “it’s cookbook calories in vs cookbook calories out”. For non-diabetics insulin seems to coincide/correlate with health factors that correlate with fat levels. Personally I function better on a diet that doesn’t jack up my glucose/insulin levels. If that coincidentally means I’m a lean beef Chamu, I’ll take it.

I'm not at all surprised that both groups showed the same body fat loss with the same calorie deficit, but if the participants had been given excess calories they wouldn't have gained the same body fat. With lower insulin, cravings are not as strong, and metabolic problems are not as prevalent.

Your channel is very interesting. Being myself insuline resistant but without having diabetes (I have hyperinsulemia), I can testify that saturated fats increase the resistance. My blood sugar is perfect but when I eat a meal with too much fat, I literally faint one hour after my meal because my insulin is so high. I'm sorry if my explanation isn't very clear, I'm not an English speaker. But I wanted to testify that saturated fats really triggers insulin resistance because I see all over RU-vid people saying the opposite. A low blood sugar doesn't mean your insuline sensitivity is great. I already was on a keto diet (for 6 monts) and I know it can be amazingly beneficial in a short term BUT it worsen insuline resistance.

Seems like it's time for new massive lab controlled clinical studies and a totally new body of accurate medical literature based on accurate knowledge of the human body and how it is affected by the world we live in. I think that would lead to better health for everyone with less medical intervention or at least more meaningful medical intervention, but, the knowledge gained would make routine medical advice, counsel, and, treatment more effective at keeping everyone in a healthier condition to not only be productive so as to contribute to society, but, to personally enjoy life as everyone should be able to. Otherwise at the current rate of medical knowledge and progress, I don't think you will solve anything anytime in the near future, so as to make any meaningful changes for anyone now living.

Id like to see a study on self control on and off a keto diet. I think youre right in saying insulin isnt the only factor. I believe hunger signalling and addiction play a role too. Its a lot harder for me to overeat on a keto/carnivore diet, and my appetite is much better controlled.

You’re making me question everything I thought I learned in the past year. 😞

Do you think the literature supports that if a person was moderately insulin resistant and trying to clean up a fatty liver, a low insulin diet would be better? Maybe keto, fasting, or restricting carbs to one meal?

The most important part of the insulin-fat hypothesis, is that after insulin moves glucose out of the blood stream and into fat cells, the person will end up consuming more calories because that glucose is no longer available for use by Muscle and other tissues that need it. Of course these studies showed no difference between low carb vs low fat diets. That's because the study participants were *artificially* forced consume the same number of calories. The only thing that proves is the laws of thermodynamics are still true. It says nothing about the insulin-fat hypothesis.

Thank you for this solid information. I watch lots of videos on these topics and had never heard of acylation stimulating hormone before! I suspect acylation stimulating hormone has something to do with why I only seem to be able to lose weight if I get fat% really low.

I'm genuinely curious the affects psychologically on someone eating a calorie restricted SAD vs a LCHF model. I found alternate day fasting with only slight food modifications effective. I think the biggest conversation that is lacking is the brain aspect of Obesity and why the hormonal response from highly processed food has caused the obesity epidemic. The best way to lose weight is to make it easier for the brain's desire for food to align with a healthy body, I'm not sure what that answer is though.

As I understood Fung - he states "calories in calories out" is true. So that is not in dispute. I think the bottom line behind insuline resistance and so on is health and better adherence to calorie restriction, it is claimed, that the body uses body fat as fuel source (easier), so it is easier to consume less calories. Another claim is, that it does not work longtime - to work against willpower - with calorie counting. -- Very interesting is, that there is no difference in fat loss - I thought it miight differ a little bit and I thought I have seen studies on that, but it might be to better adherence. I need to look further into it. But as I am not imprisoned in a lab, low carb might be benificial. Thank you! - I see limitations of the study [2]- the first phase was high carb and the seccond KT - The long confinement in the clinik might have an impact on movent, the body might have adaptet to caloric restriction and the fat loss was lower in the seccond phase - it might have been benifical, If they changed the order for half of the group. Also is the claim of KT bubble - that it takes time to get fat adapted. In the picture you can see, that the body fat declined in week 2-4 more than in week 1-2. But I am no expert - so my interpretation might be totaly wrong.

Wow so it seems to me Carlories in and Carlories out Is a much More important factor in fatloss than Insulin levels. So than Main Claims of Dr. Fung semms to be wrong

Insulin shows up in the presence of carb consumption. There are conflicting studies on whether high insulin stimulates ghrelin. The more grehlin you produce, the hungrier you will be. If insulin increases ghrelin, you will be hungrier. Therefore, calories and calories out, demands of metabolism- needs- are strictly going to affect body fat loss, and restricting carbs could be a hack. It's hard to fight your hormonal system telling you to eat more. You are sated better eating lower carbs, and therefore higher protein and fat, if you produce less ghrelin. This is old news. I am extremely talented at stating the obvious.

Hey ,ever heard of insluine😮 sensitivity and ketoadaptation . Going from high carb to low carb in only 1 month might not be ideal !?

Were the study subjects insulin resistant or insulin sensitive? Those who are insulin resistant with profoundly elevated fasting insulin are playing on a very different set of rules than those who are insulin sensitive. Low-carb seems to work much better for insulin resistant patients while those who are insulin sensitive can find success on almost any calorie deficit strategy they want.

After the immune system destroys insulin-producing cells (Type 1 Diabetic), weight loss ensues until insulin is administered. Type 1 diabetics gain back weight rapidly when injecting insulin, and typically surpass their previous highest body weight.

You do incredible comic relief 👍

My understanding at 3:28 is these subjects were put on a diet, before they were put on a diet. We might expect they may have more to lose in the first diet, and diminishing rewards in the second diet. It's possible that order of events matters here. The study seems a bit small, short, and incomplete.

Doesn't the second study quoted, where calories remained the same but macronutrient changed for 4 week periods, demonstrate that Calories-In Calories-Out is wrong? Because you would expect that with all other variables being so closely controlled, that weight loss should have been the same. But the point of inflection, when transitioning between a carb to fat diet clearly demonstrates a change. Is it just additional water loss? But if that's the case, then the point of inflection should have been in the other direction - same fat loss, because of the caloric deficit, but also additional water loss because of the low carb diet. It's also possible that 4 weeks is NOT long enough, although clearly a longer study would be far too expensive. But you have to question how long it takes to transition to a low carb diet. It's doubtful that 4 weeks would do it.

Thing is everything is always much more complex than we think. A lab will make ppl different from rl too. Stress levels will be different etc. The other body is eternally complex. And that's beautiful imo

The study had no time in between the two studies. The results are flawed because of this.

It would be interesting to see the difference in fat loss between time-restricted eating (aka "intermittent fasting") and regular 3 meals a day with snacks provided the same average daily caloric intake.

The idea you refuted the importance of insulin in obese people needing to lose 50 lbs with Kevin Hall’s study where participants lost 1 lbs in 4 weeks is next level ridiculous. Any study where people lose less than 15 lbs needs to be thrown out. Weight loss is about hunger - the diet with the least amount of hunger will eventually win out.

I'm confused by this video. The only way I can get it to make sense is that carbs are high in calories. I lost 3 stone in three months on a very low carb diet. I suspect I was in Ketosis. Now, I can have carb blowouts but follow them with keto ish weeks. My weight is si good.

For me, fasting is much more about higher insulin sensitivity and prevention of overeating. And that's much more bearable with low-carb OMAD diet, than 5 regular (but rather small and unsatisfying) meals a day.

You did not address satiety, which in my experience and that of many others, is the primary driver for wait gain or loss.

They should have half people start keto first instead carb first. Because fat loss has plateau effect.

I think we should all follow the Standard American Diet. The government wouldn't lie to us would they?

Are there compelling health reasons to keep insulin levels low though dietary means outside of the weight loss debate?

I might have interpreted this wrong? The low carb/keto vs the insulin inclusive eating group both ingested the same cal amounts & lost the same amount. But in the last study where there's keto vs mixed vs fasting the keto lost more weight even though it wasn't fat. Does this mean they simply lost more water weight due to less insulin and potentially muscle mass?

What happened to the idea that the body prioritizes the burning of carbs, and then when it runs out it starts buring fat. And that as long as there are carbs to burn, no fat is burned. Is that not true?

Just wondering if the participants demonstrated any insulin resistance or were they all insulin sensitive? Same question for any other metabolic problems such as Type 2 diabetes. I’m not convinced that people react the same to changes in diet if metabolic “correction” is required before attending to, what I believe the body would consider a lesser problem, fat loss. Not sure I’m presenting this in an understandable way, but in my own case, I didn’t start to lose fat quickly until my insulin sensitivity improved and my fasting glucose was consistently below 99. Perhaps this was adjusted for in the studies?

One mistake made by many studies when focusing on very low carb diets is that they don't measure ketosis. Putting people in ketosis and not in ketosis in the same control group is not smart. I can see why the studies that don't measure ketosis determine that calories are the main factor -- probably because most of the participants were not in ketosis. When measuring ketosis and separating people that are in ketosis, I'm sure the results will change. The studies should require measurements of ketones and when someone falls out of ketosis, they need to throw away the "low carb" data or put the person in a different group.

So Thankful For True Scientists Like You Nick, I'm On Your Fans List, Great Work As Always, Happy New Year Superman :)

Great video & metabolomic analysis. I guess the issue is that in real life, most people can't keep to a constant caloric deficit (unlike in the studies where you are forced to eat a specific amt of calories long term) without feeling constant hunger with increased ghrelin and other hunger hormones. With the higher spikes in insulin for simple high carb diets, experiments show that these sudden elevations produce increased hunger, heightened perceived pleasantness of sweet taste, and increased food intake. The other issue insulin resistance..... those ppl will secrete more insulin for the same higher carb meal, ...... So I guess that is why keto works for folks who are on it. For me personally, the only thing that has ever worked for great weight loss is IF or complete fasting. I am not into high fat diets or super low carb diets (especially when you cut out all the fiber-filled healthy carbs)....they are both neither healthy or sustainable for me long term. Being a foodie though, I can't go into much of a caloric deficit either long term so traditional caloric deficit diets don't work for me.

How metabolically healthy (esp in regards to insulin resistance) were the participants though?

Is Gary Tabúes still promoting his insulin model or has he modified his theory in any way?

If a particular macronutrient does not stimulate the satiety center of the brain and instead stimulates the rewards center, then there will be more tendency to overeat and hence overload on the calories. Enter the hyperpalatable foods .....

Good on ye m8

If there is no debate on whether insulin stops fat loss and we accept it as an established fact then the study in review here must be flawed. And it seem to be flawed at first glance. First, it is not long enough to draw any foundational if I may conclusions. The response on the part of the participants could be triggered by other mechanisms, such as adaptation to new diet, caloric deficit of course, eating schedule and so on to name a few. So the value of the study lies perhaps in uncovering some adaptive mechanisms but not in disproving the well established role of insulin.

On shit, Sherlock…. Insulin is a storage hormone. 1. When insulin is low You’re not producing fat or storing energy. 2. if you eat fat, that fat would be burned by the liver and make key tones from that fat. Your body will not release the hormones to burn fat from the body. If you want to lose body fat, of course you gotta stop bringing in energy into the body energy. But calories are not equal therefore each food will release different chemical and hormones to react upon your body. Protein to keep your muscles. reduce your fat, and stop the carbs.

Wow!!! (Who knew!)

Wear a cgm eat carbs and then wear a cgm on keto. I sleep better on keto because of stable blood sugar.

Did the cal def. Lower metabolism? And what was the control in the 8 week study?

Ok. More veggies for me then 🙂 I'll just stick to a low carb, non keto meal. i dont want to wack my insulin to extremes, but at the same time, i dont want to inadvertently spike my LDLs too. Better safe than sorry.

👌 Very interesting and well presented information. Personally I think fasting for 3 - 5 days is very therapeutic psychologically. I think the brain clears up - perhaps autophagy is responsible .. 🤔❓️

Barry Sears called. Actually he faxed. TLDR.

I'm glad he included the fasting thing. Whatever the metabolic mechanism, it confirmed to me that OMAD works. I do wonder how the fat loss takes place on a high carb diet. If one is continually filling the tank, when does the body see the need to burn the fat? I guess the same could be said for the fat diet.

Interesting but, the information about the studies is not enough... How many where the subgets, age, sex, health conditions ( namelly about insulin resistance) etc...

Simple question, are continous, chronic and constant high insulin levels a blocker for fat loss ? Not sure your are breaking any myth...

well, my N=1 experiment tells me what works - very low carbohydrates AND calorie restriction, from time restricted eating to occasional extended fasts. Also, I would want to know if the enforced diet included processed seed oils.

Is the fact that I'm thin , could it be attribute to thalassemia minor

So how does one lose weight (diet) without crippling their BMR through calorie restriction? I've been using a low carb diet for about 4 months now, and have had success losing weight and lowering my A1C, however I'm at somewhat of a plateau with the weight loss. At this point, I want to become more balanced in my diet to restore carb tolerance, but am a little confused as to what my diet should look like at this point... I'm under the impression that a sustained regimen of calorie restriction would lead to a serious slowing of my BMR. Do I eat a normal amount of calories (~2,000) on most days, but perhaps throw in a couple fasting days during the week?

These studies prove only one thing: when you don't eat enough, you lose weight, at least for a short period of time, after what the body resist to the fat loss and every people trying to lose weight know that. The interest of a ketogenic or carnivorous diet is to lose weight while eating enough to nourish the body and not be hungry. Any other protocol is useless and would have shown its inefficiency if the participants had been at home and free to eat as they wish. Furthermore, 4 weeks of ketogenic diet after 4 weeks of high carbohydrate diet cannot work optimally, especially not in obese people. These people are not fat adapted. In short, your demonstration is worthless. And it is contradicted by the millions of people who have lost dozens of pounds on a well-run ketogenic diet.

Thanks. Protein can trigger insulin more than carbs especialy in whole food. White pasta/rice trigger less insulin (AUC) than eggs/cheese/beef/fish. And pasta contain proteins too (15% of kcal) contributing to its insulin AUC, and there is effect on insulin resitance of (animal) protein and fat etc. Even if the second study was indeed not as flawded as the first one, the insulin relation to macros are a bit fuzzy if we do not know what they eat. It do not change the validity of your conslusion (though I do not wanna misrepresent the real claims/logic of keto guys) Though for health all kcal are not equal obviously (hence high carb diet is best).

Hmm ... maybe you have never been overweight. You are of course right to say calories are what determine fat loss. However not all calories are equal... for weight loss they are but for staying on a diet they are noy. Carbs are an addiction to varying degrees. Cutting back on carbs is not good enough for me because still eating carbs produces a withdrawal effect later in the day and feeding on more carbs ensues. I was 100 pound overweight for 50 years until I cut out ALL carbs. Then I easily dropped 8o pounds.

The single most important consideration for fat loss - the interaction between physiology and psychology - barely gets a mention in your videos, resulting in the exact sort of categorical errors, misuse of otherwise good science, and bad medical advice contributing to our obesity epidemic. By category, I'm referring to the difference between what kind of medical *advice* is most likely to lead to long-term healthy body fat management and what measurable phenomena are happening under the surface. Think in vivo vs. in vitro, but far more significant due to conceptual rather than contextual distinctions. Category matters immensely, but modern scientists are especially prone to thinking themselves above petty matters of philosophy, so we get routine categorical errors and disastrous misapplication of valid findings in fields ranging from economics to medicine. To clarify the problem, if fat people were inclined to eat only what they needed, they wouldn't be fat. *Advising* them merely to cut calories - to behave like a fit person - amounts to a tautology, like telling an athlete the way to win is to just be faster. It's as true as it is useless. Countless other studies evince just how useless this *advice* is by the intense struggle it imposes on patients, the demoralizing plateaus they reach, and the virtual certainty of relapse. Just like being faster is necessary for an athlete to win; the body is only going to release energy stores in the wake of an energy deficit, so eating less is necessary to reduce excess body fat. While true, this fact does not justify giving or promoting advice practically guaranteed to fail and then blaming fat people for their lack of willpower. It's not tough love; it's mind-numbing, confusing, debilitating cruelty. We don't need more studies to support the necessity of calorie deficits and we don't need more 'myths' purporting to challenge it 'busted'. What we should be asking is why the numerous hormonal and sensory feedback mechanisms in the body that regulate hunger and satiety are failing us at ever higher rates. The 'myths' busted here for the sake of advocating caloric restriction as *advice* are not so much claims that excess calorie consumption has no effect on excess fat but more so good-faith attempts at addressing the stated category problem: we have so much research on how human physiology works, but all things considered, what *advice* will most effectively help patients achieve a healthy weight. Most of them say not to count calories because that *approach* doesn't work. Because of studies like that exhibited in this video, it may seem absurd to advise a patient not to count calories and instead focus on other aspects of their diet first; but outside of the controlled clinical setting where a certain caloric intake is mandatory, advice that helps a patient recalibrate their nutritional feedback mechanisms might be all they need to instinctively eat in line with their metabolic requirements and sustainably manage weight. Two diets may be (or at least start out) identical on a caloric basis, but such differences are anything but a wash, especially over time. There would be many variables to consider and control for, but it would be interesting to see a study comparing weight loss outcomes between people following empirically rigorous information such as this versus a similar population following the more patient-oriented content of creators often cited by you, confusingly, as right-but-wrong. Again, you can both be right; it's a categorical matter of translating the science to practical advice.

I respect most of your content, but I think you've been misdirected by the data in this case. Ben Bikman points out that all calorie restriction experiments have a confounder, a calorie deficit always reduces insulin so these studies are not isolating the effects of insulin against a control without reduced insulin. He suggests instead calorie surplus experiments, which would truly compare low insulin to excess insulin states. The second study compared women who ate ad libitum very low carb vs calorie restricted carb diet. Which hints at the role of insulin in appetite control, the group that ate as much as they wanted on a low carb diet reduced calories as much as the group that had to restrict their calories. And they say insulin improved in the calorie restricted group confirming the confounder. The third study has the same issue. In fact they even confirmed that the keto group had higher energy expenditure. The keto group lost more muscle but that group had their protein clamped, no doubt because it was originally thought ketosis required low protein, which has since been refuted. So we can't conclude low insulin diets are worse for muscle loss and we can't make the statement that low insulin isn't required for fat loss. You can't say a diet which minimises insulin is necessary to lose fat, but your body reduces insulin to allow free fatty acids to be released from fat when you restrict calories which suggests you do in fact need to reduce insulin to lose fat. You're just doing it in a more difficult way, battling greater cravings while you're eating carbs and forcing a deficit on yourself. What is well understood by most people following true ketosis diets, and confirmed by these studies is that you have more energy in ketosis and it's much easier to achieve a calorie deficit. You can still consume too many calories on a low carb diet, but it's much easier not to, and insulin has a central role in that.

I have question .. if you are insulin resistant .. would a keto diet be more effective in targeting the resistance to make you more insulin sensitive?

Great presentation. I'm curious if you have any studies related to berberine and insulin resistance connected also to fat loss when one uses berberine. Thanks for your informative materials!

Big up ! love the videos 🔥

Might healthy and insulin compromised (prediabetic) people have different outcomes?

I actually think that weight loss is possable on a carb diet that reduces calories and a low carb diet. No argument there. However by only focusing on weight loss you miss the while point. The point is that those who can not loose weight on a calorie restricted higher carb diet are usually suffering from metabolic syndrome. A low carb diet can fix this. Beyond this point could the discrepancy not be due to the fact that it takes 4 weeks to become fat adapted and these studies were not long enough? Or perhaps it is due to how long it takes the person to heal their metabolic syndrome which may take months on a low carbohydrate diet?