Dave Palumbo Debate Update! - What The Fitness Ep23 

"it's not a valid analogy because protein, carbs and fat are not equal like a dollar is to a dollar". Dave misses the entire point. Layne equated protein, carbs and fat to things like marketing and office remodeling. The money represented calories. He agreed with Dave that protein, carbs and fat have different impacts on CICO; the same way that spending the budget on marketing has a different impact than spending it on office remodeling. Just because something changes your calorie input/expenditure (aka CICO) does not then mean CICO is invalid. Macro spit is a variable of the CICO equation. Dave acts as if because he can't measure directly all variables of metabolism that the rules don't apply. In reality the energy is there regardless of if you want to call it cals or energy and the amount matters. It is the determining factor of weight loss and weight gain whereas macros will contribute to what tissue those losses or gains consist of.

And Dave still doesn’t understand that calories and Macros go hand in hand

You did really well, Layne. You legitimately explained everything as clearly as possible but you know, perception is a funny thing. Whether people choose to take this information as it is or somehow convoluted it to suit their perception is their choice. Other than that you did your part. Awesome job!

“That’s not a good analogy” 😂 (the budget analogy) . I thought it was a great analogy 🤷‍♀️.

Watching Dave Palumbo “debate” is painful. Saying over and over “we know this” without actually understanding the science is NOT debating... it’s just yelling into the void.

Whats sad is most people wont see this and hear what needs to be heard from Layne in this video. The zealots will say hes wrong without a shreddddd of proof. I finallyyyyyy figured out my formula thanks the Layne Norton, Stan Efferding and Greg Doucette. Layne breaks down the science, Stan focuses on performance and Greg just screams at me and calls me a moron lol but all 3 combine is like the diet avengers

Dudes really missing the point that a calorie is a unit in the same way that a degree farenheit is a unit. So yes a calorie is a calorie. The source of the calorie however does change the partitioning of that energy. I liked laynes analogy for this reason. Money=calories, budget decision=macro nutrients, Return on Investment= Partitioning/body composition.

Is it so difficult to see it as BOTH calorie quantity AND quality matter?? Layne said it in different ways, but Dave had an agenda for this interview, so he was blinded and deaf

Thought Dave was an okay guy until about 40 min in but then his brain completely shit the bed

Real classy from Palumbo for having the debate at all; keeping everything friendly; willing to learn. This is what we need in the industry! Even let’s Layne plug his products on his channel. People shitting on Palumbo but even though I don’t agree with him, you gotta applaud the guy for doing this, whilst all the hacks talk shit but wouldn’t dare going within a mile of anyone from the evidence-based community.

Good God this was painful. Layne literally talked to a fence post for an hour lol. 🤦‍♂️

This is basically Layne teaching Dave. Pretty much everything Dave tried to add was not correct or a half truth. You def were pretty nice to him in the intro. This wasn't really a debate

It’s funny that this guy can’t comprehend what Layne is saying lol.

Damn it was hard to listen on how Layne's budget analogy was "wrong".

Dave Palumbo, here you go! “Physiology obeys the first law of thermodynamics, which is the principle of the conservation of energy; energy can not be created or destroyed, but it can be converted from one form to another. The general energy balance for a process can be formulated as ES = EI - EO, where ES is the rate of energy accumulation in the system (storage), EI is the rate of energy input in the system, and EO is the rate of energy output from the system. It is important to note that each component of the energy balance equation interacts with each other.” Nadal A, Quesada I, Tuduri E, Nogueiras R, and Alonso-Magdalena P. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the regulation of energy balance. Nature reviews Endocrinology 13: 536-546, 2017.

Esp the 38:00+ mark is interesting. Layne points out that he starts diet programming with a caloric estimate, followed by defining the protein intake. This simple logic goes over Dave's head when he fires back that Layne agrees that protein/macros is the most important aspect of a diet. Dave, can you even listen? LOL

This is where influencers hinder the education of gen pop. Dave is inferring his beliefs and not paying attention to the science. I applaud Dr. Norton for keeping his cool and keeping the conversation civil. Hopefully the science was explained well enough for people to understand. Dave has his beliefs and obviously won’t be swayed but I think he genuinely wants to help. Which has merit on its own but misinforming people could be dangerous.

Your knowlegde on theese topics are impressive Layne. When i got to min40 i was actually dissapointed how closed Daves ears must have been up to that point. Very educational video, thanks a lot! :D

Popcorn 🍿 Layne Norton Debate

The business analogy was excellent

I loved the analogy. It made perfect sense. Great debate. I love how you explain the science, Layne.

Layne "that's a false dichotomy" Special Dave "it's Nat" Does he even knows what it means?

This was great, but it was hard to watch when he kept insisting that calories aren't the most important thing. Also the Money analogy is fantastic.

Here is the study mentioned around the 50:00 mark. Naude CE, Schoonees A, Senekal M, Young T, Garner P, and Volmink J. Low Carbohydrate versus Isoenergetic Balanced Diets for Reducing Weight and Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one 9: e100652, 2014.

"let's face it"....jesus Dave. You keep saying let's face it but you refuse to face it.

Layne provides so much content. Kind of hard to absorb but I keep coming back

In my opinion, great debate. I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much guys)

Best video I’ve seen on RU-vid in a long time. Awesome Shit

"I don't like the term calorie" So if we don't use that term it means they're not real and they have no effect on us, right? Any other units of measurement we don't like using?

If you reading this, have a good day and be safe. God bless you 🙏🏻❤️

Interesting talk on placebo. There is a medical diagnosis called conversion disorder where a person believes so wholeheartedly that they have a disease, despite having no objective data confirming the disease, that their body actually will show pathology of said disease. It’s fascinating stuff.

1 year late but this is a fantastic video. You argued your point very well and respectfully. Kudos

That was very comical to watch!!!. Thanks Layne for keep educating us. The sad thing is that he will continue to BS people around.

This guy is a special kind of special

I have a lung disease and I’m on prednisone 40mg daily for 6 months and the sleeping thing is crazy(including muscle weakness, hair thinning,acne and so on)🙊 last month on it thank goodness!!! Can’t wait to get back to normal.

Here is that glycemic index study Layne makes note of. Sacks FM, Carey VJ, Anderson CAM, Miller ER, 3rd, Copeland T, Charleston J, Harshfield BJ, Laranjo N, McCarron P, Swain J, White K, Yee K, and Appel LJ. Effects of high vs low glycemic index of dietary carbohydrate on cardiovascular disease risk factors and insulin sensitivity: the OmniCarb randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312: 2531-2541, 2014.

Im impressed you didnt lose your mind talking to Dave about this

Biolayne: What about trace (incomplete) proteins? How’s useable are those ? How often can one have a protein synthesis? Per BarbellMedicine, you can have one every 3 hours. A video discussing these questions

When you spit out facts and Dave spits out opinions

Around the 40 mark Dave starts going bananas. Lol.

I like how Dave was basically a student in this “debate” 😂

hey bro just wanted to let you know that I am a recent subscriber to you and I'm going back watching multiple videos and actually as of right now I'm watching The Joe Rogan experience with you and that other dude. But pretty much it's your show I've noticed lol 😂

This was definitely hard to listen to. Dave was focused too intently on listening for openings to falsely liken your argument to his, rather than listening for comprehension of what you were actually saying. The calories in vs. calories out argument never changed. Regardless of the diet, if you operate under a calorie deficit you will still lose weight. Doesn't mean you are advising that or saying that macros don't matter. Simply that calories in vs. calories out is real and applicable, no matter the variables. And, all of the variables he's mentioning are affecting what? Calories in vs. calories out. It's possible for that to be true AND for macros to be important and I'm shaking my head at how that's in any way difficult to understand. Anyway, there's no changing someone's mind when they're operating from a position of cognitive dissonance. Loving the channel and learning a lot. Definitely appreciate you taking the time to do this. It helps the dummies like me that are just looking for honest sources of information amidst an endless pile of misinformation.

Anyone know where to get the references for the placebo effect changes on physiological variables. I would be particularly interested in the grelin study that was discussed. Thanks :-) Andy

Let’s face it, let’s face it ad nauseum. Just piss off “Guru”. Physics is physics. Energy in, energy out. Just because you don’t grasp the basic concept of variables doesn’t change the basics of Newtonian physics.

Layne you literally microwaved Dave’s brain lol

I love how Layne is out here citing studies and explaining what a meta analysis is and Dave's response is to say "we know..." Bruh, the point of debating is for you to like provide evidence to support your point, not just make statements.

52:21 HELL YEAH BRO! Fucking hit him with those definitions and corner him into his rabbit hole. Dave often uses nebulous language so he doesn't have to be specific.

Macros vs calories. Almost the same thing (Sort of). Just a different way of measuring. A gram of any macro has a measurable value of calories. *What your body does with those macros is where you get a difference in net calories.* thermic effect of food, NEAT, etc. etc. What do I know though, I'm just another a hole on the internet.

Layne what is your thought on squatting with mild scoliosis? I will certainly consult with multiple PT-s just wanted to read your 2 cents.

BIOLAYNE Make science grat again!!!!!

It’s interesting bc Dave seems to understand completely and admit calories exist and matter when we’re talking about gaining weight. When layne talked about someone who is gaining weight and then plateaus, you gotta add in more cals, they plateau again eventually, gotta add in more cals, etc. he didn’t seem to have a problem there

Lol according to this jabrone a guy with a PhD doesn’t know what a calorie is haha.

Could really tell Layne wanted to go off on him, and rightfully so.

Ouch that was painful. There is no point debating if you are going to throw random statements around. After Layne eloquently stated his point the guy just ignored everything he said and started spouting bullshit.

Awesome that you guys did this didn’t watch the whole thing

Sugar has a negative partitioning effect? Weird. I always thought it was a driver of nutrients to the muscle (particularly post workout, in the absence of fat).

I thought it was a great conversation ( rather than debate). Both very knowledgeable, Dave is clearly talks more from experience which you can not knock, he had some good points.

can you share the citation for the dna snp study on grhelin and weightloss? thanks.

This is why I hate nebulous terms like "anti-inflammatory diet" and "clean eating"! I appreciate the fact Layne uses "NUTRIENT DENSE FOOD"!!! Appreciate you man!!

The ONLY time Calories don’t matter as much as Macros is when Macros are followed precisely and 100% of each projection is consumed. But when we overconsume Protein (generally a good thing) and underconsume Carbs or Fat (perhaps good or bad), we absolutely DO still need to glance at Calories again to ensure we remain in the Deficit/Maintenance/Surplus Calories our goals demand. Set Calories (Total Budget), determine Macro allocations by gram (Protein = Marketing 1st then other Depts), monitor the over/unders of Macro Grams yes but ultimately the Profitability (success of the Diet) also means an adherence to CICO which can’t be determined w/o final analysis of Calories.

Polumbo hears what he wants

This was actually, IMHO, a very productive and friendly discussion where I felt both parties were acting in good faith. I'm glad to see people who disagree not spitting fire all over each other.

Placebos work in the short term but it’s effects are sustained through the long term

Let me get this straight. Dave is okay with macros but has an issue with multiplying them to get the calories? ? ? ? ?

Watched this also when Dave first posted it. I didn’t think Dave did as bad as all of people are saying. Overall a great watch...

I feel like Dave Palumbo likes using big words but cant comprehend a simple principle like how callories and macros are linked.(I mean the dollar analogy was spot on)

As soon as he said ‘verse,’ for ‘vs,’ which stands for VERSUS, I knew…🤣

Michael's special stuff from space jam was the best placebo

how to lose a debate even when you are right, with layne norton.

Wow this polumbo guy is something else..

I honestly think Dave just can't grasp the analogy because it does make perfect sense.

Wait, was that castleberry at the beginning

This was the strangest arguement. Macro nutrients have a set caloric value. It feels like the arguements are the same thing.

He doesn't even see the diference between IIFYM and flexible diet. But, this s... was funny to watch. Layne, thank you for your books. Like a bible!!

Sup Layne! Im reading one of your books and I've been thinking, wouldn't it be better if i increased my exercise instead of reducing my calories in to get better results? From what i understand my calories out will increase if i do this, creating a deficit and my metabolism won't slow down, so when i stop doing so much exercise i wont gain weight so quickly, what do you think?

29:12 Did you mean meta-analysis? Or meta-regression using regression methods?

You are smart!!!!

person: [doesn't understand the purpose of an analogy as a linguistic tool] person: this analogy is not good

Was great until Dave tried to tell Layne that he can either have calories or macros but not both! Blows my mind how people can fail to grasp this stuff. Layne is much better at explaining things in simple terms these days.... and at keeping cool when dealing with dullards

Dave Palumbo is that "Be genetically different." Guy from GTA IV. Brucie I think. lol

Late comment ... and maybe I missed it. But I feel like the issue is using the terms "weight loss" and "fat loss" together. Am I wrong in saying that you can absolutely lose weight just by staying under your calories, but it will be a combination of lean body mass and fat, BUT to lose mostly body fat you have to keep protein high, and that's where the Budget example works? Dave just kept saying you can't lose weight if you just track your calories, I had an aunt who lost "weight" on Jenny Craig, she was just a lighter version of herself, she didn't change her body comp.

Comical how he can’t grasp that a calorie is just a unit of measurement even though he asked you to define it at the beginning.

Lol dave shifted the conversation to anti inflammatory diets. And asked Layne what the research says on that. What about the mountains of empirical evidence that calorie restriction is the driving factor in fat loss Dave?

5:32 I don’t think it’s very significant. The DIETFITS study showed this.

IT'S BOTH! You need to be aware of calories AND macros. Monitoring one while ignoring the other will only tell you part of the story. 30% protein is different if you're eating 1500 calories than if you're eating 4000 calories.

He’s saying you can’t have calories and macros both ways but they’re connected so… 🤨

I actually think Dave came off better than I thought!

This is not a debate. This is a class in session and dave is getting schooled.

Sounds like Dave believes that if 1 person with a BMR of 2,000 calories eats a 2,500 calorie diet high in protein he will not gain weight, am I wrong in that is what he is getting at?

This video is basically a case study for the dunning-kruger effect. Dave falsely conflates body compositional changes and weight loss As they relate to energy balance and macronutrient composition during the whole video. Very frustrating to watch, wish layne was more stern in pushing back in the nonsense that was being spewed.

Does this guy not get that macros = calories?

Layne, I thought you were going to debate wilks. What ever happened to that?

Why is it, that he said that when you fit "a little brownie" in your caloric plan, it wont work? I BELIEVE it does. If you have the calories right, and enough protein, you can absolutely fit in some little treats, and get the results. Why is he sayin' that "it doesn't work like that, we know that"?. I don't like that argument.

Is it so hard to say that both things are important? You can't be healthy eating a non reasonable amount of calories. You can't be healthy eating a non reasonable distribution of calories. Doesn't matter if you first use the macros and then the calories to setup a diet, or first the calories and then the macros. The output will be the same.

Somewhere around 45 min I started short circuiting lmao

how can't he understand... its baffling.

energy and calories is literally the same(calories are just a unit of measurement of energy)

Dave is very intellectualy dishonest.

"We know that", "we know that", "we know that" really isn't a good debate method.