The Evidence for Low-Fat Diets Isn't Really There 

Cosmic Light low fat makes you fatter it dosent matre ehow much fat you remove. Keto is the way to go

@@smingjr what do you tell all the people who lose weight on a whole foods plant based diet?

@@matthewkaras7722 you may lose it at first but there have been multiple instances where people gain weight. For example my grandmother who is vegan gained weight from izzie drinks because too much sugar. The problem is that carbs and sugars will harm you over time

^

I think the moral of the story is to eat whole food. Good complex carbohydrates are not bad, and good polyunsaturated fats are not bad. Our body needs both for its fundamental structure and function. It's when you get into the realm of diets with unnatural high levels of sugar which spike your blood instantly, and Trans fats and things, where health issues become very apparent. Hell, even the simple sugars in fruit seems to be regulated to be used up slowly due to other compounds in the fruit and the fibre interacting with its metabolism. Basically, do the obvious thing. Eat whole foods that our body was evolved to eat. Not artificial produce.

Right! A whole food plant based diet is the healthiest option. The healthiest fats are also from whole foods, like avocados, nuts, and seeds.

Oh, man... Not having a scientifically recommended diet is terrifying... :(

Even worse? _Thinking_ you have a scientifically recommended diet, when you actually don't.

Caloric restriction is the only thing that has been found to be closely linked with longevity, at least. Better portion sizes is very likely a thing. The fat they _do_ eat is to use a poor phrase "better/good" fats, such as those from fish.

Good idea!

You're probably better off eating them at a high ratio, especially in the case of vegetables. Nutrient dense, low calorie foods seem like a great choice in general. Still, if this video shows anything, it's that this stuff can be quite tricky, so I would definitely love for him to make one on this.

If you eat too much fiber, your lower intestine may not be too pleased! :-/

Amanda Lee Dube It would wrong to assume that all vegetables have a lot of fiber. In fact, there are many that are recommended for people post-surgery. Low fiber vegetables include: asperagus with the base chopped off, skinned zucchini and cucumber, carrots especially when steamed, mushroom (they are vegetables when speaking in culinary terms, but not in botanical terms), Lettuce, and finally, the proud tomato. All that aside, the average person not only _mostly likely_ needs to be eating more vegetables, they _also_ probably need more fiber than they're getting. At least the average American does, in any case.

Along with everything else, how many and how often do you think your ancestors ate fruit and vegetables while the species was evolving? You are likely adapted to eating within that range until an extraordinary amount of evidence shows otherwise.

FeeblePenguin DFTBA

What are you saying, that you haven't been watching literally every video as it comes out since the day the channel was started? Preposterous.

Gruncival I have. :D

jaakizamazin calories don't matter. Remember that callorie counts vary by person and calorie counts can be off by 20 percent on any food. Search It up.

jaakizamazin LOW FAT CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN. NO BEANS HIGH DAT DAIRY HIGH FAT MEAT AND LOTS OF GREEN VEGGIES NOT FRUIT AND NUTS IS HOW YOU LOOSE WEIGHT

@@smingjr In the USA, the only dietary group with a healthy BMI is the vegan one.

TurboDally nope the vegans my be slim but the second they eat any fat or cholesterol (which their body needs to make hormones) they will hurt because they are insulin resistance is so high

pandaproducts I've never heard anything more stupid. Have you heard if sugar? It causes insulin resistance and makes it so you can't lose weight along with carbs. Dont try to lie

pandaproducts not I've this article says glucose not fat www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance

FeedbackJack it's almost the same as they raise your blood sugar and insulin to higher levels than say fat like oil

SunRa 0:50

Everyone is a strong word

tpespos -Everyone- Relatively healthy people... Your right. Not for everyone.

tpespos Would you prefer the word "Someone?"

Everyone who wants to slow their metabolism down, you mean.

***** Meat, eggs and dairy are not good sources of fats since they are mostly saturated and trans fats. Both raise LDL cholesterol levels which increase heart disease risk. There is clear evidence that saturated fats DO have a significant effect CVD.

***** No it hasn't been debunked. I have seen some attempts to refute the effects of saturated fat, but they all have been falsified.

I'd like to know this too

If you use it to change your sleep schedule, like in a jet lag situation, then it has some effect. If youre using it nightly at the same time as a sleep assistant, its completely a placebo.

Andrew Healey they work ish kinda a over time thing

It depends on the fasting protocol. I really don't think 24 hour fasts are necessary. I fast from 8pm to about 12am the next day. I go for a walk in the morning and eat two large meals every day. I'm losing weight and can't remember the last time I was actually hungry or felt food cravings.

His studies were very flawed, he was just exploiting the vegan fad for money. I would provide sources but I am on my phone

Nutmeg Pluto if you have time and interest you should send me some links. Fully aware that almost all of his evidence is anecdotal or small scale, my husband and I have been following his diet for several months and have lowerered cholesterol, our weight, eliminated chest pains, and weird nighttime vomiting. But, I like to know when I'm following my gut as opposed to science

Chaviva Friedman If NP sends you sources, please share. My wife and I went on the Ornish Diet in social support of my father. I was really impressed with his results. We were on a very strict end of the Spectrum for about 2 years. We were already vegetarian and fairly clean eaters but it was a far more radical shift for Dad. His results were really over and above what I would have hoped for.

@@Nutmegp 4. years. later

@@abletactics1913 yikes, my bad

How do you randomize someones diet so they don't know they are getting high carbohydrates or low carbohydrates 24/7? They used to conduct some experiments like that in prisons or in mental hospitals, however, they had issues of their own with population turnover leading data that wasn't reliable along with moral issues.

Isn't that how you get type two diabetes? Your cells stop reacting to insulin if you consume too much sugar.

velikiradojica no, type 2 diabetes is caused from being overweight and having too much fat in the blood to absorb sugar correctly. The high blood sugar is a symptom, not the cause. Overeating sugar, oils, and refined calories can cause weight gain and result in diabetes though. www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/

DomSchu The link you provided says that being overweight doesn't cause diabetes. edit: spelling mistake

DomSchu Type 2 diabetes can also be genetic. There appears to be a link between gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes as well.

mercury too?

Doping1234 No, never moderate your Freddie intake!

Ah yeah I binge Freddy Wong all the time!

Doping1234 Yes. Small amounts of mercury are not harmful, and you probably ingest some all the time. You are also exposed to small amounts of radiation all the time, in moderation it's completely harmless. Pretty much everything on Earth can be consumed in moderation because the very definition of moderation is that it's at an amount that isn't harmful. Obviously things like mercury will have a much lower threshold than something like butter, but it's still there and you can stay below it.

Fakjbf Ionizing radiation does not have a threshold limit, the more you get the higher your chances of developing cancer are (even if it's small under normal circumstances). So don't eat your plutonium supplements just because you don't live near to a uranium mine.

It depends on what you mean by "Workout". If it's cardio, you don't really need anything in particular. Even most weight training doesn't necessarily need anything added, as most people aren't exercising enough for it to matter.

You do realize at 90 you can start to die at any point right?

***** Sound advice.

Wow. Excessive calories make you fat, not any one macronutrient. Saying that carbs make you fat is like saying that protein makes you fat. Both are fattening if excessively consumed. Also, a diet that is mainly meat and cheese is an ecological nightmare. Livestock is already the top source of deforestation and releases more greenhouse gases than all transport combined...

Diana Peña I agree. I get a lot of hell from my family for doing meatless mondays or eating fruit, which they claim makes you fat because it has carbs. I've seen negative changes in my family members on this diet. They've lost weight, but on their "cheat" days they go carb crazy and I think it may be because they are starving themselves of carbs. They have a hard time staying on this diet and end up gaining lots of weight back. Ken Romanek I've tried having my family members talk to a doctor, but they are a bit older and tend to not trust doctors. I'll definitely ask them to look up the effects a meat and cheese diet has on the kidneys though.

***** when I say my family members don't trust doctors, I mean they don't believe asthma or skin cancer are real. Not that they are slightly skeptical. Also, I'm not so much worried about the protein intake as I am the low amount of carbs when every cell in the body runs on glucose. I'd really like a healthcare triage video to help unjumble all the information out there about how much/little carbs are recommended/required.

I dont have any links to back this up, but I have taken many nutrition courses in university. Minimizing carbs to such a low level will not necessarily harm you but you may feel tired because carbs give you that immediate energy that you need. However, they need to make sure they get their vitamins in, which are found in vegetables and vegetables are carbs- but you can take multivitamins for that. In my experience, This type of diet is only really useful to cut the fat thats extremely hard to lose (for example the one that covers your abs)

Diana Peña "Saying that carbs make you fat is like saying that protein makes you fat. Both are fattening if excessively consumed."This is demonstrably false. You cannot convert proteins into fat in any significant way, we just lack the biological capacity to do so. There are many health risks with having prurient as your only energy source over a long term and starving to death is one of them, commonly referred to as "rabbit starvation". This terms comes from the occurrence of poor people who's main energy source is rabbit or hare meat (very high protein and very low fat) dying from starvation (lack of adequate energy intake over time).On the other side of the coin, humans have metabolic regulatory cells (only proven a few years ago due to the immense difficulty in finding these little spindly hormone factories) that cause the cells around it to switch from a high metabolic activity to low activity when excess glucose passes to them from the surrounding cells (they lack direct access to the blood stream). Consuming too many carbohydrates not only adds energy potentail to your diet but it also slows the rate at which you burn it. When combined with the lower metabolic cost of converting carbohydrates to glucose (relative to fats and proteins), this makes normally digestible carbohydrates the most fattening per gram.Contrary to popular belief, the amount of energy listed on foods isn't how much your body can usefully absorb from the food. It is how much energy is released if dried and burned (see the meaning of the word calorie).

It's the solution for me :)

No, the Starch Solution is still a great and healthy diet. Most of these studies against carbohydrates focus on refined carbohydrates and not whole foods.

DomSchu True and most the carb up people forget that people are fat from refined carbs not fruit and veggie carbs. It makes me shake my head at them. Overall though fats still needed for the body to function especially for women. I don't get the low fat diets that promote such a low fat amount that women lose their periods. That just seems dangerous.

Starch solution is the ONLY solution. Look around the world. What is the staple food of countries. STARCH.

As someone who follows that same diet, saying it is the only solution is a claim you need to support. There's more than one lifestyle out there that promotes good health and lots of people that don't follow this diet do have good health. What a lot of these studies get wrong is that often when they are talking about low-fat they are talking about 30+% of calories from fat and, as others have pointed out, highly processed carbohydrates from junk food. I don't know who is out there arguing that that's a healthy diet. Conversely, all of this carbophobia is idiotic. When people eat pizza and then complain that they ate "too many carbs", no you fucking didn't, you ate too much fat, and calories in general without much nutrition.

I will add this to the list! We do have a couple videos that address some of these things (e.g. trans fats: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SinJ_hB8T1k.html), and chapter 1 of Aaron's latest book (The Bad Food Bible) also offers a little insight! -Tiffany

it’s not good. no need for a video now

tell her that eating fat train your body to BURN fat ...so it become easier for the body to switch to body fat anytime it need energy (not saying you never burn fat, just that the body can switch right away instead of waiting for insulin to go down (from highly processed carbs) you still burn fat but it's harder with high insulin level) That's how I feel it, instead of craving 2-3 after a high-carb meal, I just go on without thinking about food...

Yes it's actually the first law of thermodynamics.

Joe Hill I meant health wise lol

Yeah it makes you less fat and therefore healthy. It's like 9th grade chemistry.

Joe Hill Sure as long as you ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

LOL fatlogic 2 strong

Milk. He has an entire video on it called The Milk Industrial Complex.

LawffleCopter He never said to avoid it, though. His video was against the notion that milk *needs* to be consumed in order to get certain nutrients.

Soy milk is better than cow milk anyway.

LawffleCopter That wasn't exactly it. He said to treat milk the same way people treat soda. His hate isn't towards milk, but towards the advertisement of milk as "healthy" past a child-rearing stage.

Diana Peña Not really, soy is full of phytoestrogens.

Usually links to his blog are found in the description and from there you can find the citations.

pork chop ?

I know it's been 6 years, but correlation means that a certain thing happening tends to coincide with another thing happening. Causation means that a certain thing happening is directly linked and can be proven to be linked to another thing happening even if you eliminate every other factor. For example, there is high correlation between people eating ice cream outdoors and getting sunburn. Using this you could say that eating ice cream outside is what causes sunburn. Of course we know that sun exposure is actually what causes sunburn. For your example, if you actually took a group of people and randomly assigned them to either a smoking group or a non-smoking group (which sounds pretty unethical to me), then it would likely be a causal relationship if the smokers had increased rates of cancer. Since you're assigning them to a group at random, their lifestyle factors prior to the trial wouldn't change the results.

Factoid unless that side is super-size...then its a meal by itself, not a 'side' :)It's carbs and fat..which are useful for your body if you are actually going to burn those calories off.

Except fries (as much as I love them) are pretty much empty calories. That doesn't mean never eat them, but eat them only rarely, as a treat. At the very least, one small serving a week. You can improve their nutritional content by only eating hand-cut fries that still have the skin on them and even more so-by switching to hand-cut skin-on sweet potato fries.

prterrell What do you mean by "empty calories?"

Factoid The same thing that anyone who uses this extremely common term means by it. Google is your friend.

YES you do. It has a shit ton of carbs. And NOT the good kind either (simple carbs), which causes a rush of glucose into your blood, which in the long run, could lead to diabetes, and damage your arteries, leading to heart disease. To make matters worse, restaurants add sugar into fries.

This is what everyone should conclude. Physicists and chemists do excellent science. Then there's everyone else.... Ph.Ds (of the academic variety) like to discuss their "best available science" without mentioning that the standards in their fields are abysmal. Self-reported surveys, sample sizes in the teens, and lack of reproducibility are rampant in the "soft sciences." Then you have the media who look for the first douche in a lab coat to put on screen as their token "expert." And we round it off with politicians who have to "do something" because of the media pressure or simply to justify their existence.

Don't blame the vegetarians (or vegans.) We didn't make the rules. A whole food plant based diet is the healthiest. BTW, I know you weren't serious.

@@someguy2135 except the lectin part... you know, the toxin plant create to protect themself from predator (insects mostly) ...

@@moestietabarnak Lectins are a boogyman that charlatans like Dr. Steven Gundry use to sell books and make money. Red kidney beans could kill you if you ate them raw (which would protect them against insects) but if thoroughly cooked, they are beneficial. Beans are associated with longevity, more than any other food. All Blue Zone populations eat them as a staple. Any remaining lectins after cooking fall below the level of being harmful. Medical professionals use the ancient maxim- "The dose makes the poison." Too much oxygen or water could kill you.

@@someguy2135 that's fine for cooked, but what about raw? there is peoples reacting to lectin.. and then there gluten. and don't forget you need supplement that vegetable doesn't provide.

www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=high%20fat%20low%20carb%20diet%20ncbi&es_th=1

Yes, I know, but for me to convince some people, it's going to have to be in a nice video like the rest of HTC's stuff.

*No.* We got a message that the people who wrote the dietary guidelines _didn't look at all the studies available_, and new studies have been done since. It does NOT mean that the concept of scientific research is flawed, just that the reporting of findings tends to be behind the times.

ofMindandHeart1 Your comment implies that "the people who wrote the dietary guidelines" were not scientists. And presumably you mean also that after the guidelines were published, scientists did not support them or advocate for them. In fact, if "scientific research" showed clearly that the dietary guidelines were flawed, then no doubt true scientists must have been stepping forward for decades condemning the guidelines. Did that happen? Was there an outcry from the scientific community from the beginning? Did they warn the public that these mysterious unknown persons who wrote the dietary guidelines were leading people astray? I suspect the answer is no. If they had, Dr. Carroll would have said so. The reality is much more complex than your simplistic distinction between pure scientific research and the dietary guidelines suggests. I would be very surprised if scientists were not actively involved in important ways in the creation and promulgation of the dietary guidelines discussed here -- yet, as you say, they simply couldn't be bothered to look at all the studies available. And I very seriously doubt many other scientists actively opposed these guidelines on the grounds of their dedication to pure science and its results. Why not? And why does no one want to ask "why not?"? Why do you want to minimize and effectively dismiss the seriousness of this failure? The point of my comment is that science is a human activity and is therefore subject to all the limitations of every human activity. This is true even of "pure" research: the way studies are structured, the things that get studied, how these things are studied, etc., are always shaped (among many other things) by the way previous studies, and their results, were communicated. Therefore they are subject to the same distortions that any such communication exhibits. When those distortions are communicated to journalists, policymakers, and the like, the distortions get spread far and wide. To ignore these realities in favor of an almost religious devotion to the unblemished character of pure research is simply another form of anti-intellectualism.

Hi Frank. This is clearly something you feel very strongly about. I'm sorry that my original post did not go into full detail. Sometimes it's hard to know how much information people want to know about a subject. It seems that in some areas we actually have very similar views. I agree that humans are flawed. This means the execution of research needs to be monitored carefully for the same follies that are present in all areas of human activity. We need to be aware of conflicts of interest, potential monetary gains from particular research outcomes, and biases based on researcher beliefs. We need to look carefully at sample sizes, experimental setup, and possible confounding variables. And we definitely need to watch out for inexperience and incompetently designed studies. Furthermore, even well designed studies can cause unfounded recommendations when their results are overgeneralized. In this case the issue is more focused on the doctors and other authority figures who formed, reported, and supported the guidelines without considering the studies more carefully. I was not trying to imply that the guideline writers weren't scientists. But "scientist" does not mean "superhuman". My point was that the writers _did not read _*_every single_*_ available piece of research_ before publishing their findings. What's more, they had no way of predicting the results of future studies, something we really can't fault them for. You're right that the scientific method does not magically produce perfectly unbiased results. It's not inherently impartial, and it's certainly not foolproof. Yet I still feel throwing out the scientific method entirely would be a poor decision. If we were to discard it completely - if we stopped taking surveys or computing trends or using decent sample sizes - then the only thing for us to fall back on would be individual personal experience. Our *flawed, biased, human experience*. To me that doesn't seem any better.

Yeah, both saturated fats and carbs are fine in moderation

best troll ever