Peter's stance on the energy balance theory
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2024
- Get the 5 Tactics in My Longevity Toolkit and my weekly newsletter here (free): bit.ly/4bm5Xze
Watch the full episode: • 300-Special episode: P...
Become a member to receive exclusive content: bit.ly/3O0pEnY
This clip is from episode 300 ‒ Special episode: Peter on exercise, fasting, nutrition, stem cells, geroprotective drugs, & more.
In this clip, they discuss:
- What is the energy balance theory?
- Evidence that supports the energy balance theory
- How Peter navigates changing his mind about theories as new studies are released
- And more
--------
About:
The Peter Attia Drive is a deep-dive podcast focusing on maximizing longevity, and all that goes into that from physical to cognitive to emotional health. With over 90 million episodes downloaded, it features topics including exercise, nutritional biochemistry, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, mental health, and much more.
Peter Attia is the founder of Early Medical, a medical practice that applies the principles of Medicine 3.0 to patients with the goal of lengthening their lifespan and simultaneously improving their healthspan.
Learn more: peterattiamd.com
Connect with Peter on:
Facebook: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDFB
Twitter: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDTW
Instagram: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDIG
Subscribe to The Drive:
Apple Podcast: bit.ly/TheDriveApplePodcasts
Overcast: bit.ly/TheDriveOvercast
Spotify: bit.ly/TheDriveSpotify
Google Podcasts: bit.ly/TheDriveGoogle
Disclaimer: This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing, or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor-patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical condition they have, and they should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. I take conflicts of interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the companies I invest in or advise, please visit my website where I keep an up-to-date and active list of such companies. For a full list of our registered and unregistered trademarks, trade names, and service marks, please review our Terms of Use: peterattiamd.com/terms-of-use/ - Věda a technologie
“If you cannot change your mind in the light of new data….then I would argue that you are not a scientist, but an advocate”
Well stated.
Damn right. That’s how science works and advances.
Attia say this and he doesn't change his mind in may things is just a contradictory person
For the complainers, I think they're mostly coming from a mindset of wanting to have someone they can rely upon for advice, and they think they can only have that if the advice is consistent, day to day. For me, the fact that the advice can change in the light of new compelling data gives me more confidence rather than less in the purveyor of such advice, but for some, if they have to question why you changed your advice and whether that change was warranted, you're giving them a chore that they came to you to avoid in the first place.
“A scientist unwilling to change their mind in the presence of new data is no longer a scientist, but an advocate” LOVE THIS 🤝🏼
Peter has been hit by a tricycle quite a few times
the other thing caveat that was not mentioned is the absorption of different macronutrients in the gut - eg the structure of carbohydrate rich foods can change the amount absorbed and thus the energy it delivers - also the way it is processed can affect this
sure, I mean, thats how a gorilla or a bull can become large and muscular from eating grass, and because some mammals have 4 stomachs they use slightly more energy to digest food. they have digestive systems built to process and maximize nutrient and calorie intake from grass. whereas a human subsisting off of grass would wither away and die.
kerosene or gasoline has a ton of calories, but because you dont have the gut biome to digest it, it would be 0 calories of energy for a human being. (there are microbes in nature that can digest and utilize butane, pentane, pentadecane etc. so it would be a lot of calories for those microbes)
ultimately calories in vs calories out holds true though. calories in is simply the energy your body is able to take in vs all the energy your body expends.
the only thing of note here is whether the calorie labels on food are statistically accurate to an average human. basically, how calories are counted and labeled. the only real issue is accuracy of labeling.
This is just the first law of thermodynamics. From wikipedia. "The first full statement of the law came in 1850 from Rudolf Clausius" So this was established over 170 years ago. It has been checked and verified many times since then.
I mean, the fundamental physics that makes efficient engines and machines possible - from automobile engines to A/C to refrigerators - is thermodynamics. First year of engineering thermodynamics - rankine cycle, carnot cycle etc. is a required course and most other concepts you learn are built upon thermodynamics. the modern world as we know it would not exist without knowledge of thermodynamics. (its used in physics and astrophysics as well but those are outside the daily purview of most people)
an interesting story most don't know is that Ludwig Boltzmann basically invented the field of statistical mechanics and gave a mathematical definition for entropy. (entropy is somewhat at the heart of this medical debate about whether calories in calories out is true - though my reading of it is that entropy isnt truly related to what their talking about). Boltzmann was bullied by the scientific community for putting forth ideas about the atomic and statistical nature of the world before modern physics based on particles had really taken off - and though wikipedia seems to pin Boltzmann's suicide on bipolar disorder, most other biographies Ive read said his suicide was related to the scientific community bullying him and his ideas (which would eventually become night sancrosact to thermodynamics). And this was only 1906. Science has come a long way in 120 years.
People aren't a machine, though. Take nuts and seeds for instance. They appear to be loaded in calories, but people don't fully digest them. Search "New research: Nuts contain up to 26% less calories than we thought they did." I can be two faced like everyone else. I count calories, but I've under counted calories in nuts and seeds for years because I suspected something wasn't right about about their supposed calorie count. Sure enough, my hunch turned out to be correct. I was almost a decade ahead of the game on that one.
@@jaybanks7718
Like I said, this issue was resolved a long time ago. It is just a matter of bookkeeping.. If you don't use energy, it ends up stored or in one of the many exits of your body. The whole question is an addition and subtraction problem.
Here is a quote on your issue, that I found
on the internet.
"And the Atwater system dictates that calories per gram of carbohydrate and protein are 4 - so a gram of carbohydrate is 4 calories. A gram of protein is 4 calories. Fat is 9 calories per gram and alcohol is 7 calories per gram. But the system is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration what actually happens inside our gut. And how our body metabolizes that food. Yes, you can burn food to determine its total energy content. But we don't burn food inside our gut. What actually happens inside is this complicated metabolic process. And something like nuts and seeds, they have this very fibrous outside and all their cell walls are really fibrous as well. And so what happens when we eat those foods, we don't fully break them down and extract that energy from them or absorb all of the fat in them either. Or a portion of it kind of remains locked inside their fibrous cell walls, and we just excrete it out. You think about something like whole flax seeds or linseeds, depending on where you are in the world. If you're eating them whole, often they go in one end and come out the other completely unscathed."
Yup. There are too many advocates who monetize a belief, build a whole $$ program out of said belief, and of course they aren't going to then back down when new evidence comes out. I appreciate that Peter does continue to analyze new data and is willing to change his mind accordingly.
Absolutely correct. And yet it manages to demonstrate the effectiveness of an approach that allows me to comfortably eat fewer calories, as it is more nutritious and more satiating. If the individual can associate this with a relationship with food that prioritizes nutrition above pleasure, the natural outcome is greater health, fitness and longevity.
Water weight is lost on the keto diet... lost of water weight
Exactly. Anytime I went on no carb diet I was pissing every 30 minutes for 2 days straight loosing 10lbs then when I eat carbs again my kidney basically go to sleep and I gain all the weight back in 24hrs.
You hit the nail on the head. And, there are more advocates on social media than real scientists. Unfortunately, some who should be scientists turned into advocates because science does not fit their narrative and, very often, the products they sell.
This is so confusing... Peter says that yes, the net amount of calories available after processing the food is different depending on the macros. Based on what I can find online, 20-30% can be lost from protein compared to 5-10% for carbs and fats. So it potentially can have a 25% swing, so say if you ate 2,000 calories of protein vs carbs, you could have 1,400 calories vs 1.900, a difference of 500 calories net, without doing anything else!
So how can he then go on to say that no, macros don't matter and weight won't melt off if you switch to keto, when you're potentially getting 25% less calories? That doesn't make any sense?
Well those percentages seem very high. But we can accept them as true. There’s now a 20% difference in energy required to digest protein versus fat or carbohydrates, and no difference between fat and carbohydrates. Depending on your diet, you’d get 10%-30% of calories from protein. So if you substituted an additional 30% of calories to protein (which is not realistic at all), you’d use 6% more energy per day, which is not much.
You’re overestimating the %
@@saqlaq96 So how much is it?
@@mc80466 thanks that's a good point, eating 2,000 calories of protein is pretty unrealistic as that would be 500 grams!
As say you ate a high protein diet with 200g a day, even if you ate 0 protein before (v unlikely), and even if you burnt 25% more calories processing protein (again, unlikely), that's still only a net difference of 200 calories a day.
So yeah, even in these extreme unlikely scenarios it's not going to have that much of an overall net impact.
No one eats macros. They eat food. What most people call 'protein' is typically loaded with fat.
Also keep in mind that a lot of food people call carbs are loaded with fiber.
So it's not surprising. Bottom line is, focus on eating foods that are calorically dilute. Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, no extra fat added and the weight will fly off.
I like peter because he can make reasonable changes in this mind based on scientific data.
Calories in and calories out , thermodynamics, yes true . But what a lot of people don’t get is that the food you eat determines the calories out part of the equation due to hormonal changes . The body is not an engine , this is fat to simplified . 1000 calories of potato’s chips are not the same then 1000 calories of steak in the way of how the body handles it and uses it.
Eating steak vs potato chips has no effect on hormones. Hormonal profiles are based on genes, age, sleep, stress, time of day, and nutrition. Your body synthesizes hormones easily from nearly anything you eat. There are only two fatty acids and a handful of amino acids that must be found in the diet. They’re required in extremely small amounts, don’t need to be eaten daily, and can be recycled from other parts of the body they already exist in. So unfortunately the potato chips and steak do the same calorie for calorie
@@mc80466 mostly correct. Eating potato chips will change your insulin and glucose-spike, therefore changing how your hormonal profile at that particular time.
@@cherylcollette6736what if I eat steaks and potato chips (sweet potatoes, thick cuts and fired in avocado oil) together. Yum yum
@@mc80466 we cannot forget the thermic effect of food in overall energy expenditure when eating protein vs CHOs and fats. Not to dramatic of a difference in energy expenditure but protein has a higher thermic effect (uses more energy to metabolize) than does glucose or fatty acids!
@@cherylcollette6736 the short term effect on insulin of eating a meal high in carbohydrates is irrelevant to metabolic rate. There are hormones that could actually slightly increase metabolism if elevated in the long run, such as testosterone.
I love that Peter changes his mind on things, which I think proves he is an honest actor. Nonetheless I think the bigger question is, if there wasn't really data at the time the claims where made, that keto works independent of energy balance. People like Layne Norton preached about energy balance for decades now, so I think evidence was there already, or at least it wasn't very clear and could go either way, that means promoting keto with strong convinction, which I think Peter did, had little to do with the evidence.
He's a salesman. That was immediately obvious when he was pushing what men want to hear. Men want to be sold on the idea that you have to get in the gym and lift heavy, gain a bunch of muscle, eat a bunch of red meat and stop eating sweets like a Nancy boi.
The truth is, movement, eating lots of fruits and vegetables, beans, whole grains and things like having functional movement is ideal.
A man would be eating mostly plant based, keep moving, and doing things that keeps him flexible and able to get up off the ground easily or be able to avoid falls.
Most men won't want to hear that.
There exists a significant number of nutritional science (studies) that attracted government or popular adherents that was later decisively countered. The now infamous University of Minnesota study blaming fat for arteriosclerosis and heart disease in general stands out. People still believe in low fat diets. Science should go on and challenge these views but funding and advocacy tribes make it harder. I prefer Dr Attila’s approach which takes a position based on evidence but remains open and skeptical. Just my two cents. 😊
Science is based upon probability and the current conclusions are based upon "the current preponderance of the evidence". As the methods to accrue data improve, the new data may alter the "preponderance of the evidence" requiring a shift in the conclusions. The fact that the lay public is unaware of this, assuming current science has "answered the question" is where the discomfort with shifting conclusions lies.
A calorie is a calorie, just like a mile is a mile. Of course, some roads are hillier than others, though. The question isn't about nutrition; it is about physics. This question is as settled as any rational person can be.
Tell that to carnivore folk. Everytime one of them says calories don't need to be counted I laugh.
But from a fat loss perspective that doesn't make sense? Using your analogy, if I walked 10 miles a day up mountains, I would burn more energy (and therefore lose more fat) than if I walked 10 miles on a flat road... so, using that same analogy, if I ate 2k calories of protein you're saying I'll lose more fat than if I 2k of carbs? Isn't that the opposite of what Peter is saying here?
@@kygo You're absolutely right and what you're saying the problem is this. People think, therefore, because each calorie is different in each calorie might not exactly equal the same amount in energy expenditure. That calories don't matter and you shouldn't count them, which is completely false. If you want to lose weight, you have to count your calories. There's easy ways to do it. There's hard ways to do it. You want to do it the easy way. Eat complete whole foods with a lot of protein, also eating a caloric deficit.
@@GG-wg1yh So calories do matter, but also macros matter? As the net calories from protein is actually less than you think it is... Is that correct?
I'm confused because then Peter then goes on to say "no it doesn't matter if you switch to Keto, the fat won't melt off", but if you switch from a high carb diet, a high protein one (keeping the amount of calories you eat the same) then actually you will start to lose fat as you're net calories after processing is less?
@@kygo the amount is so small it's barely worth calculating unless you are 100% perfect everyday. The biggest and most impactful strategy to lose fat and weight is to cut calories. Protein is needed to maintain muscle mass when cutting weight, and eating 600g of protein vs 600g of carbs will wield a different outcome, in terms of fat loss, but if you're calories aren't below maintenance you won't see any difference. Protein is needed to keep muscle mass in a fat loss phase. It should be prioritized first. Fats should be last or not even included, especially if you have a lot to lose. Almost all foods have some fats anyways and those trace amounts are sufficient.
He is so long winded….. a million words to answer any question
Weight might not “melt off them” but the energy is definitely used differently by the body. Ie more protein more muscle.
Nah
that the point. if you go on something like a ketogenic diet, the hope is that its much easier to eat less. to not binge. and to not feel bloated. you are attacking a strawman
These are the people who will never get Epigenetics.
peter is fat lol.. nuf said 😂😂😂😂
This is confusing and goes against actual data
Such as?
Well I'm confused because he said "no it doesn't matter what macros you eat" then in the next sentence "different macros have different net calories from being processed", so which is it?! 🥴
@@kygo Feigning ignorance? In the abstract, calories are calories. But he discusses how differences in foods can have different effects. But in studies, those differences don’t make much of a difference. Not enough to move the needle. So you’re really not confused. Are you.
@@tommyrq180 I'd be less confused if he could back up what he said with some actual numbers... what does "much of a difference" mean? 10%, 5%, 1% 0.1%?
Numerous places online state it can be 20% - 30% for calories lost in processing protein vs 5% - 15% for fats and carbs, and that would indeed make a material difference.
@@kygo Studies differ. Because humans differ. A lot. You’ll never be given “the answer.” You might want to stop looking for it.
Want grip strength? Buy a two stroke dirt bike (sorry Greta Thonberg).
FACT: Indiscriminate calorie reduction does nothing if lipolysis remains blocked by insulin.
So basically he talks boldly about being a scientist, not the advocate but every sentence he says consists of "I think/I believe"? Okay...
He’s interpreting evidence and giving his opinion are you restarted?
Nutritional science is big food marketing, end of discussion. Bring Calley Means on your show. A former Coca Cola whistleblower. Hear what he has to say. In fact, I'd ask why you haven't already done so, given how long he's been speaking out.
The food pyramid is a joke, as epitomised by Tufts claiming cheerios are healthier than grass-fed beef, LOL.
Human beings aren't bomb calorimiters. To my mind the cognitive dissonance we're experiencing in the world is huge. If calorie counting is so effective, why are we seeing record figures in type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases? Why are obesity rates off the charts? Clearly the paradigm we've operated under the last 20 years is fantastically successful. NOT. Unless you're big food/pharma. Then of course, you're ecstatic because you're making record profits. So perhaps the system IS operating as it's intended. To keep us sick.
Why does almost every person I know (inclusive of myself), who has tried calorie counting, ended up yo-yo dieting. Versus when they simply focus on SATIETY instead. Ie, eating real foods, with a focus on protein & nutrient density.
I used to weigh 290lb. Every doctor told me to eat low fat or to count calories. To use equivalents of If It Fits Your Macros. "Yeah, sure, you can eat that Pizza and have that coke, as long as you stay within your caloric limits." But the Pizza and the coke don't satiate you. In my case, it changed when I found a good personal trainer who started me on the Paleo diet. And had me cut out all processed food. 14 years later, I'm maintaining a healthy weight, now +/- 185lb, sub 20% bodyfat, have healthy BP and cholesterol levels. I've not "counted calories" since 2009......
If the studies/data being cited to us are bought and paid for (which they are, we KNOW that now), then said data isn't "science" it's "marketing," or better yet "propaganda," see again: Calley Means.
But "science," right?
**"Science advances one funeral at a time." (Max Planck). Yeah......
The food pyramid says nothing of eating pizza and drinking coke. Fat people have no idea what the food pyramid recommends.
It recommends eating a diet rich of whole fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and limiting everything else. Someone who eats that way will lose weight and be very satiated.
The problem with keto is most will lose some weight but will never get to an ideal weight because they only moderately improve their diet.